Influencing factors of anti-SARS-CoV-2-spike-IgG antibody titers in healthcare workers: A cross-section study.

Against the background of the current COVID-19 infection dynamics with its rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC), the immunity and the vaccine prevention of healthcare workers (HCWs) against SARS-CoV-2 continues to be of high importance. This observational cross-section study assesses factors influencing the level of anti-SARS-CoV-2-spike IgG after SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. One thousand seven hundred and fifty HCWs were recruited meeting the following inclusion criteria: age ≥18 years, PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection convalescence and/or at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination. anti-SARS-CoV-2-spike IgG titers were determined by SERION ELISA agile SARS-CoV-2 IgG. Mean anti-SARS-CoV-2-spike IgG levels increased significantly by number of COVID-19 vaccinations (92.2 BAU/ml for single, 140.9 BAU/ml for twice and 1144.3 BAU/ml for threefold vaccination). Hybrid COVID-19 immunized respondents (after infection and vaccination) had significantly higher antibody titers compared with convalescent only HCWs. Anti-SARS-CoV-2-spike IgG titers declined significantly with time after the second vaccination. Smoking and high age were associated with lower titers. Both recovered and vaccinated HCWs presented a predominantly good humoral immune response. Smoking and higher age limited the humoral SARS-CoV-2 immunity, adding to the risk of severe infections within this already health impaired collective.

General practitioner involvement in follow-up of childhood cancer survivors: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of childhood cancer survivors need long-term follow-up care. Different models address this problem, including that of follow-up by general practitioners (GP). We describe models that involve GPs in follow-up for childhood cancer survivors, their advantages and disadvantages, clinics that employ these models, and the elements essential to high-quality, GP-led follow-up care. PROCEDURE: We searched four databases (PubMed [including Medline], Embase, Cochrane, and CINAHL) without language restrictions. RESULTS: We found 26 publications, which explicitly mentioned GP-led follow-up. Two models were commonly described: GP-only, and shared care between GP and pediatric oncology or late effects clinic. The shared care model appears to have advantages over GP-only follow-up. We found four clinics using models of GP-led follow-up, described in five papers. We identified well-organized transition, treatment summary, survivorship care plan, education of GPs and guidelines as necessary components of successful follow-up. CONCLUSION: Scarcity of literature necessitated a review rather than a meta-analysis. More research on the outcomes of GP-led care is necessary to confirm the model for follow-up of childhood cancer survivors in the long term. However, with the necessary elements in place, the model of GP-led follow-up, and shared care in particular, holds promise.