Search

The Co‐HCW study is a prospective cohort study among hospital staff, including healthcare workers (HCWs) and administration staff, at the Jena University Hospital (JUH), Germany. The objectives of this study were to assess SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG seroprevalence, individual exposure risk factors and compliance of HCWs to wear personal protective equipment (PPE). After the first nosocomial COVID‐19 outbreak at JUH, mandatory masking was implemented on 20th March 2020. We evaluated point seroprevalence using two IgG detecting immunoassays and issued a questionnaire to assess COVID‐19 exposure, clinical symptoms and compliance to wear PPE. Antibody retesting was offered to participants with a divergent result of both immunoassays 5–10 weeks after the first test. Between 19th May and 19th June 2020, we analysed 660 participants [out of 3,228; 20.4%]. Among them, 212 participants (32.1%) had received a previous COVID‐19 test. Four of them (1.9%) reported a positive test result. After recruitment, 18 participants (2.7%) had SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies in at least one immunoassay. Overall, 21 participants (3.2%) had any evidence of a past or current SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Among them, 13 (61.9%) were not aware of direct COVID‐19 exposure and 9 (42.9%) did not report any clinical symptoms. COVID‐19 exposure at home (adjusted OR (aOR) with 95% CI: 47.82 (5.49, 416.62)) was associated with SARS‐CoV‐2 seroprevalence. We observed no evidence for an association between seroprevalence and exposure at work (aOR 0.48 (0.13, 1.70)) or with COVID‐19 risk area according to the working place (aOR for intermediate‐risk vs. high‐risk: 1.97 (0.42, 9.22), aOR for low‐risk versus high‐risk: 2.10 (0.40, 11.06); p = .655). Reported compliance of HCWs to wear PPE differed (p

BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) are at particular risk to acquire SARS-CoV-2 infections.AimThe objectives of this study were to compare SARS-CoV-2 IgG seroprevalence and compliance to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) between HCWs working within (high-risk) or outside (intermediate-risk) units treating suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients. In addition, administration staff (low-risk) was included.MaterialsCo-HCW is a prospective cohort study among employees at the Jena University Hospital, Germany. Since 16th March 2020, 50 SARS-CoV-2 inpatients and 73 outpatients were treated in our hospital. Mandatory masking was implemented on 20th March 2020. We here evaluated seroprevalence using two IgG detecting immunoassays, assessed COVID-19 exposure, clinical symptoms and compliance to wear PPE.FindingsBetween 19th May and 19th June 2020 we analysed 660 employees [out of 3,228; 20.4%]. Eighteen participants (2.7%) had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in at least one immunoassay. Among them, 13 (72.2%) were not aware of direct COVID-19 exposure and 9 (50.0%) did not report any clinical symptoms. We observed no evidence for an association between seroprevalence and risk area (high-risk: 2 of 137 HCWs (1.5%), intermediate-risk: 10 of 343 HCWs (2.9%), low-risk: 6 of 180 administration employees (3.3%); p=0.574). Reported compliance to wear PPE differed (pConclusionNo evidence for higher seroprevalence against SARS-CoV-2 in HCWs working in high-risk COVID-19 areas could be observed, probably due to high compliance to wear PPE. Compared to administration employees, we observed no additional risk to acquire SARS-CoV-2 infections by patient care.

BackgroundDue to the substantial proportion of asymptomatic and mild courses many SARS-CoV-2 infections remain unreported. Therefore, assessment of seroprevalence may detect the real burden of disease. We aimed at determining and characterizing the rate of SARS-CoV-2 infections and the resulting immunity in a defined population.MethodsCoNAN is a population-based cohort study in the previously quarantined community Neustadt-am-Rennsteig, Germany six weeks after a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak with 49 cases identified by PCR screening of all 883 inhabitants. The primary objective of the study was to assess SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroconversion rate using six different IgG detecting immunoassays. Secondary objectives of the study were: i.) to determine the rate of seroconversion in children; ii.) to determine potential risk factors for symptomatic vs. asymptomatic Covid19 courses; iii.) to investigate the rate of virus persistence.FindingsWe enrolled 626 participants (71% of the community population). All actual SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests were negative; while a total of 8·4% (52 of 620 tested) had antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in at least two independent tests. Twenty of the antibody positive participants had previously a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR. On the contrary, of those 38 participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection, only 20 (52·6%) were antibody positive.InterpretationSeveral antibody tests conducted six weeks after an outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 did not detect all previously PCR-positive tested individuals. Cautious evaluation of antibody testing strategies to assess immunity against the infection is warranted.FundingCoNAN was funded by the Thuringian Ministry for Economic Affairs, Science and Digital Society (TMWWDG).

Einleitung Staphylococcus-aureus-Bakteriamien sind schwere Infektionserkrankungen mit oftmals langwierigen klinischen Verlaufen und hoher Sterblichkeit. Retrospektive Studien zeigen, dass infektiologische Konsile die Adharenz an Therapiestandards erhohen und das Uberleben von Staphylococcus-aureus-Bakteriamie-Patienten verbessern konnen. Methoden In dieser retrospektiven, monozentrischen Beobachtungsstudie wurde der Einfluss von infektiologischen Konsilen auf das Uberleben von Patienten mit Staphylococcus-aureus-Bakteriamie am Universitatsklinikum Jena mittels logistischer Regressions- und Uberlebenszeitanalyse untersucht. Der primare Endpunkt der Studie war die Krankenhaussterblichkeit. Ergebnisse Insgesamt wurden Daten von 297 Patienten (≥ 18 Jahre) mit Staphylococcus-aureus-Bakteriamie im Zeitraum zwischen Dezember 2012 und August 2015 analysiert. Bei 159 dieser Patienten wurde ein infektiologisches Konsil durchgefuhrt. Die Durchfuhrung eines Konsils war mit einer geringeren Krankenhaussterblichkeit assoziiert (23 % ohne Konsil, 11 % mit Konsil; multiple Regressionsanalyse: Odds-Ratio = 0,27 [95 %-Konfidenzintervall: 0,12 – 0,64]; p = 0,003). Ferner gab es Unterschiede bei der Erfullung definierter Qualitatsindikatoren der Behandlung einer Staphylococcus-aureus-Bakteriamie. Dabei war die komplette Umsetzung aller im Konsil empfohlenen Masnahmen mit der niedrigsten Krankenhaussterblichkeit verbunden. Diskussion Die Mitbehandlung von Patienten mit Staphylococcus-aureus-Bakteriamie durch klinische Infektiologen war mit einer geringeren Krankenhaussterblichkeit assoziiert. Background Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is frequently associated with complications and a high mortality. Recent retrospective studies provide evidence that infectious disease specialist consultations improve the outcome of patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia by increasing adherence to treatment standards. Methods In this retrospective, single-centre observational study, we investigated the impact of infectious disease consultations on the outcome of patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia at the Jena University Hospital applying logistic regression and survival analyses. The primary endpoint was intra-hospital mortality. Results We analysed patients (≥ 18 years) with Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia between December 2012 and August 2015 (n = 297), of whom 159 received infectious disease consultations. Specialist consultations were associated with lower intra-hospital mortality (23 % without consultations, 11 % with consultations; multiple regression analysis: odds ratio = 0.27 [95 % confidence interval: 0.12 – 0.64]; p = 0.003). Furthermore, the adherence to defined quality-of-care indicators differed. The complete implementation of all recommendations was associated with the lowest intra-hospital mortality rates. Conclusion Infectious disease consultations in patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia were associated with a lower intra-hospital mortality rate.

Objectives Due to a substantial proportion of asymptomatic and mild courses, many severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections remain unreported. Therefore, assessment of seroprevalence may detect the real burden of disease. We aimed to determine and characterize the rate of SARS-CoV-2 infections and the resulting seroprevalence in a defined population. The primary objective of the study was to assess SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroprevalence using six different IgG-detecting immunoassays. Secondary objectives of the study were: (a) to determine potential risk factors for symptomatic versus asymptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 courses, and (b) to investigate the rate of virus RNA-persistence. Methods CoNAN is a population-based cohort study performed in the community Neustadt am Rennsteig, Germany, which was quarantined from 22 March to 5 April after six SARS-CoV-2 cases were detected in the village's population. The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak comprised 51 cases and 3 deaths. The CoNAN study was performed from 13 May to 22 May 2020, 6 weeks after a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. Results We enrolled a total of 626 participants (71% of the community population) for PCR and antibody testing in the study. All actual SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests were negative. Fifty-two out of 620 (8.4%) participants had antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in at least two different assays. There were 38 participants with previously PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of those, only 19 (50%) displayed anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We also show that antibody-positive participants with symptoms compatible with a respiratory tract infection had significantly higher antibody levels then asymptomatic participants (EU-assay: median 2.9 versus 7.2 IgG-index, p 0.002; DS-assay: median 45.2 versus 143 AU/mL, p 0.002). Persisting viral replication was not detected. Conclusions Our data question the relevance and reliability of IgG antibody testing to detect past SARS-CoV-2 infections 6 weeks after an outbreak. We conclude that assessing immunity for SARS-CoV-2 infection should not rely on antibody tests alone.