Protein Biomarkers in Blood Reflect the Interrelationships Between Stroke Outcome, Inflammation, Coagulation, Adhesion, Senescence and Cancer.

The most important predictors for outcomes after ischemic stroke, that is, for health deterioration and death, are chronological age and stroke severity; gender, genetics and lifestyle/environmental factors also play a role. Of all these, only the latter can be influenced after the event. Recurrent stroke may be prevented by antiaggregant/anticoagulant therapy, angioplasty of high-grade stenoses, and treatment of cardiovascular risk factors. Blood cell composition and protein biomarkers such as C-reactive protein or interleukins in serum are frequently considered as biomarkers of outcome. Here we aim to provide an up-to-date protein biomarker signature that allows a maximum of mechanistic understanding, to predict health deterioration following stroke. We thus surveyed protein biomarkers that were reported to be predictive for outcome after ischemic stroke, specifically considering biomarkers that predict long-term outcome (≥ 3 months) and that are measured over the first days following the event. We classified the protein biomarkers as immune­inflammatory, coagulation-related, and adhesion-related biomarkers. Some of these biomarkers are closely related to cellular senescence and, in particular, to the inflammatory processes that can be triggered by senescent cells. Moreover, the processes that underlie inflammation, hypercoagulation and cellular senescence connect stroke to cancer, and biomarkers of cancer-associated thromboembolism, as well as of sarcopenia, overlap strongly with the biomarkers discussed here. Finally, we demonstrate that most of the outcome-predicting protein biomarkers form a close-meshed functional interaction network, suggesting that the outcome after stroke is partially determined by an interplay of molecular processes relating to inflammation, coagulation, cell adhesion and cellular senescence.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in Employees of Three Hospitals of a Secondary Care Hospital Network in Germany and an Associated Fire Brigade: Results of a Repeated Cross-Sectional Surveillance Study Over 1 Year.

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are playing a vital role in the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This study investigated how infection spreads within three local hospitals and an associated fire brigade in Germany by testing employees for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies over one year. The three observational periods corresponded to the initial three pandemic waves: first wave: June-September 2020, second wave: October 2020-January 2021, and third wave: February-June 2021. We analysed 3285 serum samples of 1842 employees, which represents 65.7% of all employees. Altogether, 13.2% employees were seropositive: 194/1411 HCWs (13.7%) and 49/431 non-HCWs (11.4%) with a clear increase of seroprevalence from the first (1.1%) to the second (13.2%) and third (29.3%) pandemic wave. HCWs presumably had an additional occupational risk for infection in the second and third wave due to an increase of infection pressure with more COVID-19 patients treated, showing possible weak points in the recommended infection prevention strategy.

COVID-19: Hotspot hospital?- seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in hospital employees in a secondary care hospital network in Germany: Intermediate results of a prospective surveillance study.

PURPOSE: The objective of the ongoing study was to investigate how SARS-CoV-2 infection spread within two hospitals in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany by testing the employees working in high-risk, intermediate-risk and low-risk-areas for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies. Presented intermediate results evaluate the first infection period until the end of September 2020. METHODS: The study "COVID-19: Hotspot hospital?- Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in hospital employees in a secondary care hospital network in Germany " is a prospective, single centre observational cohort study conducted at the St. Vincenz Hospital Datteln with 316 beds. The presented data include one other hospital: St. Laurentius Stift Waltrop, Germany with 172 beds. RESULTS: Between June 2020 and September 2020 we analyzed serum samples of 907 employees which represents 62.1% of all employees. Thirteen employees (1.4%), respectively 13/696 healthcare workers (HCWs) (1.9%) had detectable SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies. Among them, 4 (30.8%) were aware of COVID-19 exposure, and 5 (38.5%) reported clinical symptoms. HCWs working in high-risk areas had a seroprevalence rate of 1.6% (1/64), HCWs working in intermediate-risk area 1.7% (11/632) and 0.5% employees (1/211) in low-risk areas with no contact to patients were seropositive. CONCLUSION: Even if we treated COVID-19 positive patients, we found no clear evidence that infection was transmitted to HCWs in contact to these patients. As knowledge about SARS-CoV-2 transmission evolves, the concept of infection prevention must be continuously reviewed and adapted as needed to keep hospitals a safe place.