Comparison of post-COVID-19 symptoms in patients infected with the SARS-CoV-2 variants delta and omicron-results of the Cross-Sectoral Platform of the German National Pandemic Cohort Network (NAPKON-SUEP).

PURPOSE: The influence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants on the post-COVID-19 condition (PCC) remains unanswered. Therefore, we examined the prevalence and predictors of PCC-related symptoms in patients infected with the SARS-CoV-2 variants delta or omicron. METHODS: We compared prevalences and risk factors of acute and PCC-related symptoms three months after primary infection (3MFU) between delta- and omicron-infected patients from the Cross-Sectoral Platform of the German National Pandemic Cohort Network. Health-related quality of life (HrQoL) was determined by the EQ-5D-5L index score and trend groups were calculated to describe changes of HrQoL between different time points. RESULTS: We considered 758 patients for our analysis (delta: n = 341; omicron: n = 417). Compared with omicron patients, delta patients had a similar prevalence of PCC at the 3MFU (p = 0.354), whereby fatigue occurred most frequently (n = 256, 34%). HrQoL was comparable between the groups with the lowest EQ-5D-5L index score (0.75, 95% CI 0.73-0.78) at disease onset. While most patients (69%, n = 348) never showed a declined HrQoL, it deteriorated substantially in 37 patients (7%) from the acute phase to the 3MFU of which 27 were infected with omicron. CONCLUSION: With quality-controlled data from a multicenter cohort, we showed that PCC is an equally common challenge for patients infected with the SARS-CoV-2 variants delta and omicron at least for the German population. Developing the EQ-5D-5L index score trend groups showed that over two thirds of patients did not experience any restrictions in their HrQoL due to or after the SARS-CoV-2 infection at the 3MFU. CLINICAL TRAIL REGISTRATION: The cohort is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov since February 24, 2021 (Identifier: NCT04768998).

Impact of Clinical Study Implementation on Data Quality Assessments - Using Contradictions within Interdependent Health Data Items as a Pilot Indicator.

INTRODUCTION: Contradiction is a relevant data quality indicator to evaluate the plausibility of interdependent health data items. However, while contradiction assessment is achieved using domain-established contradictory dependencies, recent studies have shown the necessity for additional requirements to reach conclusive contradiction findings. For example, the oral or rectal methods used in measuring the body temperature will influence the thresholds of fever definition. The availability of this required information as explicit data items must be guaranteed during study design. In this work, we investigate the impact of activities related to study database implementation on contradiction assessment from two perspectives including: 1) additionally required metadata and 2) implementation of checks within electronic case report forms to prevent contradictory data entries. METHODS: Relevant information (timestamps, measurement methods, units, and interdependency rules) required for contradiction checks are identified. Scores are assigned to these parameters and two different studies are evaluated based on the fulfillment of the requirements by two selected interdependent data item sets. RESULTS: None of the studies have fulfilled all requirements. While timestamps and measurement units are found, missing information about measurement methods may impede conclusive contradiction assessment. Implemented checks are only found if data are directly entered. DISCUSSION: Conclusive contradiction assessment typically requires metadata in the context of captured data items. Consideration during study design and implementation of data capture systems may support better data quality in studies and could be further adopted in primary health information systems to enhance clinical anamnestic documentation.