Current situation of allergological health care at German hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Allergic medical care in Germany is organized on an interdisciplinary basis. An overview of the current care situation is necessary to manage and improve interdisciplinary cooperation. METHODS: Between January and February 2022, questionnaires were sent online and by mail to chief physicians of inpatient clinical departments to which most allergological diseases are assigned (dermatology, otorhinolaryngology [ENT], pulmonology, pediatrics, environmental/occupational medicine, gastroenterology; n = 899). RESULTS: The response rate was 52.1%. Allergology departments of dermatology, ENT and pulmonology were predominantly located in metropolitan areas (> 100,000 inhabitants), whereas responses of pediatric departments were mostly from smaller towns. 76.8% of the respondents reported existing interdisciplinary treatment plans with other specialties. Pediatric and pulmonology clinics stated disproportionately few interdisciplinary treatment concepts with dermatology and ENT clinics, especially in smaller cities with < 100,000 inhabitants. Diagnosis and therapy of allergic rhinitis were performed in particular by the departments of ENT, asthma mainly by the pulmonology departments. Care of other allergological diseases was most frequently reported by chief physicians of dermatology and pediatrics. CONCLUSIONS: In metropolitan areas, participating departments provide allergology care in a cooperative manner. A large spectrum of care is covered in cooperation with dermatological clinics. In more rural areas, cooperation is rarer; here, mainly pediatric departments provide allergological care, which may explain the more limited range of services compared to metropolitan areas.

Limited Reimbursement and Underuse of Digital Healthcare Concepts Are Major Barriers to Clinical Allergological Care in Germany.

INTRODUCTION: Allergic diseases represent a broad spectrum of high-prevalence, chronic conditions that remain underdiagnosed and undertreated. The aims of this interdisciplinary, questionnaire-based, non-interventional study were to identify and analyze potential barriers to clinical allergological care in Germany. METHODS: All hospitals listed in the German hospital register involved in the treatment of allergological patients (n = 899) were invited to participate. The study yielded a response rate of 52.1% (n = 468). RESULTS: Overall, 88.5% of clinics agreed that allergological care in Germany needs improvement, especially in terms of reimbursement for diagnostics and therapy. More than 80% of participating clinics reported that the decreased availability of test substances and the time-intensity of allergological testing represent relevant barriers. For dermatology and pulmonology, the former is the strongest barrier, while for pediatric and ENT clinics, time-intensity is regarded as the strongest barrier. The availability of good therapy and appropriate guidelines present no barriers to allergological care. Regarding the use of digital healthcare concepts, a very large majority of clinics (n = 352; 91.4%) do not offer video consultations or the use of health applications in patient care. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, we have identified several structural barriers to allergological care in Germany. Reimbursement and the use of digital healthcare concepts in German clinics providing allergological care need improvement. Based on the results of this study, there is an urgent need for researchers and policymakers to further investigate and support allergology departments in their clinical work and in their implementation of digital healthcare concepts.

Comparison of the Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Surrogate Neutralization Assays by TECOmedical and DiaPROPH-Med with Samples from Vaccinated and Infected Individuals.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2-specific serological responses are a topic of ongoing evaluation studies. In the study presented here, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 surrogate neutralization assays by TECOmedical and DiaPROPH -Med were assessed in a head-to-head comparison with serum samples of individuals after vaccination as well as after previous infection with SARS-CoV-2. In case of discordant results, a cell culture-based neutralization assay was applied as a reference standard. The TECOmedical assay showed sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 61.3%, respectively, the DiaPROPH-Med assay 95.0% and 48.4%, respectively. As a side finding of the study, differences in the likelihood of expressing neutralizing antibodies could be shown for different exposition types. So, 60 of 81 (74.07%) of the samples with only one vaccination showed an expression of neutralizing antibodies in contrast to 85.71% (60 of 70 samples) of the samples with two vaccinations and 100% (40 of 40) of the samples from previously infected individuals. In conclusion, the both assays showed results similar to previous assessments. While the measured diagnostic accuracy of both assays requires further technical improvement of this diagnostic approach, as the calculated specificity values of 61.3% and 48.4%, respectively, appear acceptable for diagnostic use only in populations with a high percentage of positive subjects, but not at expectedly low positivity rates.