Institutes
Refine
Document Type
- Article (40)
Language
- English (40) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (40)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (40)
Keywords
- COVID-19 (40) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (40)
Purpose: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replicates predominantly in the upper respiratory tract and is primarily transmitted by droplets and aerosols. Taking the medical history for typical COVID-19 symptoms and PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 testing have become established as screening procedures. The aim of this work was to describe the clinical appearance of SARS-CoV-2-PCR positive patients and to determine the SARS-CoV-2 contact risk for health care workers (HCW).
Methods: The retrospective study included n = 2283 SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests from n = 1725 patients with otorhinolaryngological (ORL) diseases performed from March to November 2020 prior to inpatient treatment. In addition, demographic data and medical history were assessed.
Results: n = 13 PCR tests (0.6%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The positive rate showed a significant increase during the observation period (p < 0.01). None of the patients had clinical symptoms that led to a suspected diagnosis of COVID-19 before PCR testing. The patients were either asymptomatic (n = 4) or had symptoms that were interpreted as symptoms typical of the ORL disease or secondary diagnoses (n = 9).
Conclusion: The identification of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients is a considerable challenge in clinical practice. Our findings illustrate that taking a medical history alone is of limited value and cannot replace molecular SARS-CoV-2 testing, especially for patients with ORL diseases. Our data also demonstrate that there is a high probability of contact with SARS-CoV-2-positive patients in everyday clinical practice, so that the use of personal protective equipment, even in apparently “routine cases”, is highly recommended.
Background: SARS-CoV-2 is one of the most threatening pandemics in human history. As of the date of this analysis, it had claimed about 2 million lives worldwide, and the number is rising sharply. Governments, societies, and scientists are equally challenged under this burden. Objective: This study aimed to map global coronavirus research in 2020 according to various influencing factors to highlight incentives or necessities for further research. Methods: The application of established and advanced bibliometric methods combined with the visualization technique of density-equalizing mapping provided a global picture of incentives and efforts on coronavirus research in 2020. Countries’ funding patterns and their epidemiological and socioeconomic characteristics as well as their publication performance data were included. Results: Research output exploded in 2020 with momentum, including citation and networking parameters. China and the United States were the countries with the highest publication performance. Globally, however, publication output correlated significantly with COVID-19 cases. Research funding has also increased immensely. Conclusions: Nonetheless, the abrupt decline in publication efforts following previous coronavirus epidemics should demonstrate to global researchers that they should not lose interest even after containment, as the next epidemiological challenge is certain to come. Validated reporting worldwide and the inclusion of low-income countries are additionally important for a successful future research strategy.
Background: The current COVID-19 pandemic has led to a surge of research activity. While this research provides important insights, the multitude of studies results in an increasing fragmentation of information. To ensure comparability across projects and institutions, standard datasets are needed. Here, we introduce the “German Corona Consensus Dataset” (GECCO), a uniform dataset that uses international terminologies and health IT standards to improve interoperability of COVID-19 data, in particular for university medicine.
Methods: Based on previous work (e.g., the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 case report form) and in coordination with experts from university hospitals, professional associations and research initiatives, data elements relevant for COVID-19 research were collected, prioritized and consolidated into a compact core dataset. The dataset was mapped to international terminologies, and the Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) standard was used to define interoperable, machine-readable data formats.
Results: A core dataset consisting of 81 data elements with 281 response options was defined, including information about, for example, demography, medical history, symptoms, therapy, medications or laboratory values of COVID-19 patients. Data elements and response options were mapped to SNOMED CT, LOINC, UCUM, ICD-10-GM and ATC, and FHIR profiles for interoperable data exchange were defined.
Conclusion: GECCO provides a compact, interoperable dataset that can help to make COVID-19 research data more comparable across studies and institutions. The dataset will be further refined in the future by adding domain-specific extension modules for more specialized use cases.
Background: An essential step in any medical research project after identifying the research question is to determine if there are sufficient patients available for a study and where to find them. Pursuing digital feasibility queries on available patient data registries has proven to be an excellent way of reusing existing real-world data sources. To support multicentric research, these feasibility queries should be designed and implemented to run across multiple sites and securely access local data. Working across hospitals usually involves working with different data formats and vocabularies. Recently, the Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) standard was developed by Health Level Seven to address this concern and describe patient data in a standardized format. The Medical Informatics Initiative in Germany has committed to this standard and created data integration centers, which convert existing data into the FHIR format at each hospital. This partially solves the interoperability problem; however, a distributed feasibility query platform for the FHIR standard is still missing.
Objective: This study described the design and implementation of the components involved in creating a cross-hospital feasibility query platform for researchers based on FHIR resources. This effort was part of a large COVID-19 data exchange platform and was designed to be scalable for a broad range of patient data.
Methods: We analyzed and designed the abstract components necessary for a distributed feasibility query. This included a user interface for creating the query, backend with an ontology and terminology service, middleware for query distribution, and FHIR feasibility query execution service.
Results: We implemented the components described in the Methods section. The resulting solution was distributed to 33 German university hospitals. The functionality of the comprehensive network infrastructure was demonstrated using a test data set based on the German Corona Consensus Data Set. A performance test using specifically created synthetic data revealed the applicability of our solution to data sets containing millions of FHIR resources. The solution can be easily deployed across hospitals and supports feasibility queries, combining multiple inclusion and exclusion criteria using standard Health Level Seven query languages such as Clinical Quality Language and FHIR Search. Developing a platform based on multiple microservices allowed us to create an extendable platform and support multiple Health Level Seven query languages and middleware components to allow integration with future directions of the Medical Informatics Initiative.
Conclusions: We designed and implemented a feasibility platform for distributed feasibility queries, which works directly on FHIR-formatted data and distributed it across 33 university hospitals in Germany. We showed that developing a feasibility platform directly on the FHIR standard is feasible.
Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented expansion of telemedicine services worldwide. This study aimed to explore the practice of telemedicine in Pediatric Surgery in Germany, the impact of the pandemic on its development and parents’ and surgeons’ experiences with telemedicine.
Methods: The study is a cross-sectional analysis using three surveys between 6/2020 and 10/2020: (1) all Pediatric Surgery departments of Germany reported whether they provide telemedicine services. (2) Members of the German Society of Pediatric Surgery and (3) families who participated in an outpatient visit by telephone or video with the Department of Pediatric Surgery and Pediatric Urology of the University Hospital Frankfurt completed an anonymous survey on their experience with telemedicine.
Results: 21% of the Pediatric Surgery departments in Germany provided telemedicine, of which 57% started due to the pandemic. The lack of physical examination and face-to-face contact seem to be the major limitations to surgeons and parents. 48% of the parents answered that telemedicine is equal to or better than traditional appointments, while 33% thought that telemedicine is worse.
Conclusions: This study shows that families and doctors alike have had positive experiences with telemedicine and most will continue to use this format after the pandemic.
Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated a reduction in face-to-face consultations, resulting in significant limitations in healthcare for individuals with depression. To ensure safe and adequate care, e-health services, such as telemedicine, gained a more prominent role. Governments have eased restrictions on the use of telemedicine, enabling healthcare professionals to increasingly offer video and telephone consultations.
Objective: This study examines, 1) possible changes over the course of the pandemic in reported use of video and telephone consultations and intended future use of video consultations with healthcare professionals among adults with diagnosed depression; 2) their attitudes towards video and telephone consultations and perceived barriers towards using e-health after prolonged time of the pandemic; and 3) differences in results between subgroups based on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.
Methods: Three population-representative online surveys were conducted in Germany at different timepoints (t) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Respondents aged 18–69 years with a professionally diagnosed depression were included in the present analyses (t1: June/July 2020 with n = 1094; t2: February 2021 with n = 1038; t3: September 2021 with n = 1255).
Results: The overall proportion of adults with depression who used video or telephone consultations did not change significantly in the time surveyed (t1: 16.51 %, n = 179; t2: 20.23 %, n = 210; t3: 18.47 %, n = 230). However, among users, reported use of video consultations with a psychotherapist increased significantly from t1 (34.83 %, n = 62) to t3 (44.98 %, n = 102, p = .023). Intended future use of VC for healthcare varied depending on the purpose of the consultation. Significant differences over time were only found for the purpose of using VC to discuss clinical findings, laboratory results and diagnostic analyses with a doctor, with higher intentions reported at t2 during lockdown in Germany. At t3, the majority of adults with depression felt that video and telephone consultations were too impersonal and considered them more as a helpful support rather than an alternative to face-to-face psychotherapy. Key barriers to using e-health were found within the societal context and the lacking support from significant others for using e-health, while knowledge and skills represented facilitators for using e-health.
Conclusion: Despite ambivalent attitudes towards video and telephone consultations among adults with depression, reported use of video consultations with a psychotherapist increased during the COVID-19 pandemic.
SARS-CoV-2 is causing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, for which effective pharmacological therapies are needed. SARS-CoV-2 induces a shift of the host cell metabolism towards glycolysis, and the glycolysis inhibitor 2-deoxy-d-glucose (2DG), which interferes with SARS-CoV-2 infection, is under development for the treatment of COVID-19 patients. The glycolytic pathway generates intermediates that supply the non-oxidative branch of the pentose phosphate pathway (PPP). In this study, the analysis of proteomics data indicated increased transketolase (TKT) levels in SARS-CoV-2-infected cells, suggesting that a role is played by the non-oxidative PPP. In agreement, the TKT inhibitor benfooxythiamine (BOT) inhibited SARS-CoV-2 replication and increased the anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity of 2DG. In conclusion, SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with changes in the regulation of the PPP. The TKT inhibitor BOT inhibited SARS-CoV-2 replication and increased the activity of the glycolysis inhibitor 2DG. Notably, metabolic drugs like BOT and 2DG may also interfere with COVID-19-associated immunopathology by modifying the metabolism of immune cells in addition to inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 replication. Hence, they may improve COVID-19 therapy outcomes by exerting antiviral and immunomodulatory effects.
(1) Background: The aim of our study was to identify specific risk factors for fatal outcome in critically ill COVID-19 patients. (2) Methods: Our data set consisted of 840 patients enclosed in the LEOSS registry. Using lasso regression for variable selection, a multifactorial logistic regression model was fitted to the response variable survival. Specific risk factors and their odds ratios were derived. A nomogram was developed as a graphical representation of the model. (3) Results: 14 variables were identified as independent factors contributing to the risk of death for critically ill COVID-19 patients: age (OR 1.08, CI 1.06–1.10), cardiovascular disease (OR 1.64, CI 1.06–2.55), pulmonary disease (OR 1.87, CI 1.16–3.03), baseline Statin treatment (0.54, CI 0.33–0.87), oxygen saturation (unit = 1%, OR 0.94, CI 0.92–0.96), leukocytes (unit 1000/μL, OR 1.04, CI 1.01–1.07), lymphocytes (unit 100/μL, OR 0.96, CI 0.94–0.99), platelets (unit 100,000/μL, OR 0.70, CI 0.62–0.80), procalcitonin (unit ng/mL, OR 1.11, CI 1.05–1.18), kidney failure (OR 1.68, CI 1.05–2.70), congestive heart failure (OR 2.62, CI 1.11–6.21), severe liver failure (OR 4.93, CI 1.94–12.52), and a quick SOFA score of 3 (OR 1.78, CI 1.14–2.78). The nomogram graphically displays the importance of these 14 factors for mortality. (4) Conclusions: There are risk factors that are specific to the subpopulation of critically ill COVID-19 patients.
Testing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by RT-PCR is a vital public health tool in the pandemic. Self-collected samples are increasingly used as an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs. Several studies suggested that they are sufficiently sensitive to be a useful alternative. However, there are limited data directly comparing several different types of self-collected materials to determine which material is preferable. A total of 102 predominantly symptomatic adults with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection self-collected native saliva, a tongue swab, a mid-turbinate nasal swab, saliva obtained by chewing a cotton pad and gargle lavage, within 48 h of initial diagnosis. Sample collection was unsupervised. Both native saliva and gargling with tap water had high diagnostic sensitivity of 92.8% and 89.1%, respectively. Nasal swabs had a sensitivity of 85.1%, which was not significantly inferior to saliva (p = 0.092), but 16.6% of participants reported they had difficult in self-collection of this sample. A tongue swab and saliva obtained by chewing a cotton pad had a significantly lower sensitivity of 74.2% and 70.2%, respectively. Diagnostic sensitivity was not related to the presence of clinical symptoms or to age. When comparing self-collected specimens from different material, saliva, gargle lavage or mid-turbinate nasal swabs may be considered for most symptomatic patients. However, complementary experiments are required to verify that differences in performance observed among the five sampling modes were not attributed to collection impairment.
Objectives In this early retrospective cohort study, a total of 26 patients with SARS-CoV-2 were treated with bamlanivimab or casirivimab/imdevimab, and the reduction of the viral load associated with the developed clinical symptoms was analyzed.
Methods: Patients in the intervention groups received bamlanivimab or casirivimab/imdevimab. Patients without treatment served as control. Outcomes were assessed by clinical symptoms and change in log viral load from baseline based on the cycle threshold over a period of 18 days.
Results: Median log viral load decline was higher in both intervention groups after 3 and 6 days compared to control. However, at later time points, the decline of the viral load was more distinct in the control group. Mild symptoms of COVID-19 were observed in 6.3% of the intervention groups and in no patient of the control. No patients treated with bamlanivimab, 18.8% treated with casirivimab/imdevimab, and 14.2% in the control group developed moderate symptoms. Severe symptoms were recorded only in the control group (14.2%), including one related death.
Conclusion: Treatment with monoclonal SARS-CoV-2 antibodies seems to accelerate decline of virus loads, especially in the first 6 days after administration, compared to control. This may be associated with a reduced likeliness of a severe course of COVID-19.