RESUMEN
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).
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: This study investigates the care provision and the role of infectious disease (ID) specialists during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: A survey was conducted at German study sites participating in the Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 infected patients (LEOSS). Hospitals certified by the German Society of Infectious diseases (DGI) were identified as ID centers. We compared care provision and the involvement of ID specialists between ID and non-ID hospitals. Then we applied a multivariable regression model to analyse how clinical ID care influenced the mortality of COVID-19 patients in the LEOSS cohort. RESULTS: Of the 40 participating hospitals in the study, 35% (14/40) were identified as ID centers. Among those, clinical ID care structures were more commonly established, and ID specialists were always involved in pandemic management and the care of COVID-19 patients. Overall, 68% (27/40) of the hospitals involved ID specialists in the crisis management team, 78% (31/40) in normal inpatient care, and 80% (28/35) in intensive care. Multivariable analysis revealed that COVID-19 patients in ID centers had a lower mortality risk compared to those in non-ID centers (odds ratio: 0.61 (95% CI 0.40-0.93), p = 0.021). CONCLUSION: ID specialists played a crucial role in pandemic management and inpatient care.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The objective examination of the Post-COVID syndrome (PCS) remains difficult due to heterogeneous definitions and clinical phenotypes. The aim of the study was to verify the functionality and correlates of a recently developed PCS score. METHODS: The PCS score was applied to the prospective, multi-center cross-sectoral cohort (in- and outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection) of the "National Pandemic Cohort Network (NAPKON, Germany)". Symptom assessment and patient-reported outcome measure questionnaires were analyzed at 3 and 12 months (3/12MFU) after diagnosis. Scores indicative of PCS severity were compared and correlated to demographic and clinical characteristics as well as quality of life (QoL, EQ-5D-5L). RESULTS: Six hundred three patients (mean 54.0 years, 60.6% male, 82.0% hospitalized) were included. Among those, 35.7% (215) had no and 64.3% (388) had mild, moderate, or severe PCS. PCS severity groups differed considering sex and pre-existing respiratory diseases. 3MFU PCS worsened with clinical severity of acute infection (p = .011), and number of comorbidities (p = .004). PCS severity was associated with poor QoL at the 3MFU and 12MFU (p < .001). CONCLUSION: The PCS score correlated with patients' QoL and demonstrated to be instructive for clinical characterization and stratification across health care settings. Further studies should critically address the high prevalence, clinical relevance, and the role of comorbidities. TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The cohort is registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov under NCT04768998.
RESUMEN
With the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), global researchers were confronted with major challenges. The German National Pandemic Cohort Network (NAPKON) was launched in fall 2020 to effectively leverage resources and bundle research activities in the fight against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We analyzed the setup phase of NAPKON as an example for multicenter studies in Germany, highlighting challenges and optimization potential in connecting 59 university and nonuniversity study sites. We examined the ethics application process of 121 ethics submissions considering durations, annotations, and outcomes. Study site activation and recruitment processes were investigated and related to the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections. For all initial ethics applications, the median time to a positive ethics vote was less than two weeks and 30 of these study sites (65%) joined NAPKON within less than three weeks each. Electronic instead of postal ethics submission (9.5 days (Q1: 5.75, Q3: 17) vs. 14 days (Q1: 11, Q3: 26), p value = 0.01) and adoption of the primary ethics vote significantly accelerated the ethics application process. Each study center enrolled a median of 37 patients during the 14-month observation period, with large differences depending on the health sector. We found a positive correlation between recruitment performance and COVID-19 incidence as well as hospitalization incidence. Our analysis highlighted the challenges and opportunities of the federated system in Germany. Digital ethics application tools, adoption of a primary ethics vote and standardized formal requirements lead to harmonized and thus faster study initiation processes during a pandemic.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , SARS-CoV-2 , Pandemias , Estudios de Cohortes , Alemania/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Vulnerability to infectious diseases in refugees is dependent on country of origin, flight routes, and conditions. Information on specific medical needs of different groups of refugees is lacking. We assessed the prevalence of infectious diseases, immunity to vaccine-preventable diseases, and chronic medical conditions in children, adolescents, and adult refugees from Ukraine who arrived in Germany in 2022. METHODS: Using different media, we recruited Ukrainian refugees at 13 sites between 9-12/2022. An antigen test for acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, serologies for a range of vaccine-preventable diseases, as well as interferon gamma release assays (IGRAs) for tuberculosis (TB), and SARS-CoV-2 were performed. We assessed personal and family history of chronic medical conditions, infectious diseases, vaccination status, and conditions during migration. RESULTS: Overall, 1793 refugees (1401 adults and 392 children/adolescents) were included. Most participants were females (n = 1307; 72·3%) and from Eastern or Southern Ukraine. TB IGRA was positive in 13% (n = 184) of the adults and in 2% (n = 7) of the children. Serology-based immunological response was insufficient in approximately 21% (360/1793) of the participants for measles, 32% (572/1793) for diphtheria, and 74% (1289/1793) for hepatitis B. CONCLUSIONS: We show evidence of low serological response to vaccine-preventable infections and increased LTBI prevalence in Ukrainian refugees. These findings should be integrated into guidelines for screening and treatment of infectious diseases in migrants and refugees in Germany and Europe. Furthermore, low immunity for vaccine-preventable diseases in Ukrainians independent of their refugee status, calls for tailor-made communication efforts.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Transmisibles , Pueblos de Europa Oriental , Refugiados , Tuberculosis , Enfermedades Prevenibles por Vacunación , Adolescente , Adulto , Niño , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Enfermedades Transmisibles/epidemiología , Estudios Transversales , Alemania/epidemiología , Prevalencia , Tuberculosis/epidemiología , Tuberculosis/prevención & control , UniversidadesRESUMEN
Fair allocation of funding in multi-centre clinical studies is challenging. Models commonly used in Germany - the case fees ("fixed-rate model", FRM) and up-front staffing and consumables ("up-front allocation model", UFAM) lack transparency and fail to suitably accommodate variations in centre performance. We developed a performance-based reimbursement model (PBRM) with automated calculation of conducted activities and applied it to the cohorts of the National Pandemic Cohort Network (NAPKON) within the Network of University Medicine (NUM). The study protocol activities, which were derived from data management systems, underwent validation through standardized quality checks by multiple stakeholders. The PBRM output (first funding period) was compared among centres and cohorts, and the cost-efficiency of the models was evaluated. Cases per centre varied from one to 164. The mean case reimbursement differed among the cohorts (1173.21 [95% CI 645.68-1700.73] to 3863.43 [95% CI 1468.89-6257.96]) and centres and mostly fell short of the expected amount. Model comparisons revealed higher cost-efficiency of the PBRM compared to FRM and UFAM, especially for low recruitment outliers. In conclusion, we have developed a reimbursement model that is transparent, accurate, and flexible. In multi-centre collaborations where heterogeneity between centres is expected, a PBRM could be used as a model to address performance discrepancies.Trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04768998 ; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04747366 ; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04679584 .
Asunto(s)
Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Humanos , Alemania , Mecanismo de Reembolso , Estudios de Cohortes , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/economíaRESUMEN
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.