Feasibility of self-organized blood sample collection in adults for study purposes in a primary care setting.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The COVID-19 pandemic situation poses new challenges for research. Ethical issues might arise if especially vulnerable individuals for severe COVID-19 course expose themselves because of participation in studies to a higher risk of infection for study purposes. How is the feasibility and acceptance of self-organized blood sample collections to measure anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG antibodies in persons with a high risk for a severe COVID-19 disease progression? METHODS: Persons with a high risk for a severe COVID-19 disease progression (immunocompromised, oncology patients or over 80 years old) were recruited between January and September 2021 to send in blood samples (at least 500 µl) 1 month and 6 months after second COVID-19 vaccination. Participants were given the choice of drawing capillary or venous blood themselves or having blood drawn by health professionals belonging to either the study's own research team or the personnel found in local practices or clinics. Participants were surveyed via a telephone interview in December 2021 and January 2022 about their choice of blood sampling methods and influence of blood collection choice upon study participation. RESULTS: Data from 360 participants was collected via telephone follow-up. First blood samples were collected by the participants themselves (35.8%), local practices or clinics (31.9%) and the research team (22.5%). Second blood samples were mostly collected in local practices or clinics (35.6%) followed by participants themselves (25.9%) and the research team (11.5%). Blood samples were not collected in 2.5% and 19.1% of persons during first and second blood draw, respectively. Only 2% of blood samples did not reach the laboratory or were not analyzable. About one-fourth (26%) of participants stated that they would not have participated in the study if it would have been required to travel to the university hospital to give their blood sample. CONCLUSIONS: Participants were able to self-organize blood collection, making use of several different blood sample methods. Nearly all blood samples were analyzable when self-collected and sent in by post. One-fourth of the participants would not have participated in the study if required to give their blood sample in the study location. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trial Registry, DRKS00021152.

Violence against healthcare workers in the middle of a global health crisis: what is it about policy and what to learn from international comparison?

Introduction: Violence against healthcare workers is a global health problem threatening healthcare workforce retention and health system resilience in a fragile post-COVID 'normalisation' period. In this perspective article, we argue that violence against healthcare workers must be made a greater priority. Our novel contribution to the debate is a comparative health system and policy approach. Methods: We have chosen a most different systems comparative approach concerning the epidemiological, political, and geographic contexts. Brazil (under the Bolsonaro government) and the United Kingdom (under the Johnson government) serve as examples of countries that were strongly hit by the pandemic in epidemiological terms while also displaying policy failures. New Zealand and Germany represent the opposite. A rapid assessment was undertaken based on secondary sources and country expertise. Results: We found similar problems across countries. A global crisis makes healthcare workers vulnerable to violence. Furthermore, insufficient data and monitoring hamper effective prevention, and lack of attention may threaten women, the nursing profession, and migrant/minority groups the most. There were also relevant differences. No clear health system pattern can be identified. At the same time, professional associations and partly the media are strong policy actors against violence. Conclusion: In all countries, muchmore involvement from political leadership is needed. In addition, attention to the political dimension and all forms of violence are essential.

[Immunosuppressed people's beliefs, expectations, and experiences with COVID-19 vaccinations : Results of a longitudinal study]. / Impfeinstellung, Erwartungen und Impferfahrung von Immunsupprimierten bei COVID-19-Impfungen : Ergebnisse einer Längsschnittstudie.

BACKGROUND: Immunocompromised people are less likely to be vaccinated, despite an increased benefit of many vaccinations in terms of benefit-risk assessment, including the vaccines against SARS CoV-2 (COVID-19). Attitudes, expectations, and experiences with previous vaccinations influence the decision to get vaccinated. OBJECTIVE: To explore the attitudes of immunocompromised people towards vaccinations in general and COVID-19 vaccination in particular and their experiences with COVID-19 vaccinations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: As part of the CoCo Immune study, immunocompromised participants were surveyed in the spring and summer of 2021 (1 November 2021-7 September 2021) using questionnaires. Initially, they were asked about their expectations concerning a COVID-19 vaccination and followed up about their experience after COVID-19 vaccination. In addition, sociodemographic data, general attitudes toward vaccinations and experiences with previous vaccinations were collected. Analysis was performed using descriptive and bivariate statistics. RESULTS: The 243 participants mostly approved vaccinations and expected the COVID-19 vaccination to be effective and well-tolerated. Women were more concerned about the safety of vaccinations and were more often worried about side effects. Older persons felt better informed than younger persons. Participants who reported subjective side effects of previous vaccinations were more skeptical about vaccinations as well as the government institutions that recommend vaccinations. They less often agreed with the statement "in retrospect, the COVID-19 vaccination has been harmless for me so far". DISCUSSION: The participants mostly expressed a positive attitude and anticipation towards COVID-19 vaccinations; however, the age and sex differences found suggest that there are different information needs which should be addressed when educating individuals about vaccinations or designing vaccination campaigns.

Social participation and mental health of immunocompromised individuals before and after COVID-19 vaccination-Results of a longitudinal observational study over three time points.

Introduction: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic impacted how people perform their daily lives in manifold and sometimes massive ways. Particularly, individuals who are at high risk for a severe disease progression, like immunocompromised people, may have experienced drastic changes in social participation during the pandemic. A COVID-19 basic vaccination may have changed the safety behavior of immunocompromised individuals in terms of infection risk and thereby influence social participation and mental wellbeing. Methods: This study aims to investigate self-perceived social participation at baseline before and at follow-up 1 and 6 months after basic vaccination. Beginning in March 2021, 274 immunocompromised persons 18 years or older were enrolled in the COVID-19 Contact Immune study (CoCo study) in Lower Saxony, Germany. Measurements were performed at three time points regarding social participation [Index for the Assessment of Health Impairments (IMET)], mental health [Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4)], subjective health status (five-point Likert-scale) and quality of life (five-point Likert-scale). Results: In total, 126 participants were included in the final analysis. About 60% of the participants showed increasing social participation over time. The greatest increase in social participation was observed within the first month after basic vaccination (p < 0.001). During the following 5 months, social participation remained stable. The domains "social activities," "recreation and leisure" and "close personal relationships" were responsible for the overall change in social participation. No association was found between social participation and mental health, sociodemographic or medical factors (except hypertension). Discussion: It is unclear why social participation increased after basic vaccination. Perceived vaccine efficacy and a feeling of being protected by the vaccine may have caused relaxed social distancing behaviors. Reducing safety behaviors may, however, increase the risk of a COVID-19 infection for immunocompromised individuals. Further investigations are needed to explore the health-related consequences of more social participation among immunocompromised persons.

Long-term Consequences of COVID-19 and the Pandemic: Protocol for a Web-Based, Longitudinal Observational Study (DEFEAT).

BACKGROUND: With population-wide vaccination availability, the global COVID-19 pandemic entered a new phase. Despite vaccination status, some people who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 experience long-term symptoms. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aim to characterize the long-term effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the pandemic. We also aim to build symptom clusters and determine risk factors for developing long COVID symptoms. Furthermore, we assess social participation and health-related quality of life in patients with long COVID and in the general population during a global pandemic. METHODS: With a mixed-methods, web-based approach, we aim to recruit 2000 people in Germany who are older than 18 years and can provide informed consent. In the quantitative arm of the study, we identify symptoms of and predictive factors for long COVID manifestations with cluster analysis and assess social participation during the pandemic with standardized questionnaires. The qualitative arm of the study uses individual interviews and focus group discussions to better understand the illness experience of persons who experience long COVID. RESULTS: Recruitment started in September 2021. Up until July 2022, we recruited approximately 4500 participants via our web-based database. CONCLUSIONS: This study aims to build an innovative, patient-centered, web-based research platform appropriate for the pandemic by minimizing physical contact between study personnel and participants. All study activities are designed to better understand the long COVID syndrome, social participation during the pandemic, and the illness experiences of persons affected by long COVID. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trial Registry DRKS00026007; https://tinyurl.com/yh282fkt. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/38718.

Longitudinal cellular and humoral immune responses after triple BNT162b2 and fourth full-dose mRNA-1273 vaccination in haemodialysis patients.

Haemodialysis patients respond poorly to vaccination and continue to be at-risk for severe COVID-19. Therefore, dialysis patients were among the first for which a fourth COVID-19 vaccination was recommended. However, targeted information on how to best maintain immune protection after SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations in at-risk groups for severe COVID-19 remains limited. We provide, to the best of our knowledge, for the first time longitudinal vaccination response data in dialysis patients and controls after a triple BNT162b2 vaccination and in the latter after a subsequent fourth full-dose of mRNA-1273. We analysed systemic and mucosal humoral IgG responses against the receptor-binding domain (RBD) and ACE2-binding inhibition towards variants of concern including Omicron and Delta with multiplex-based immunoassays. In addition, we assessed Spike S1-specific T-cell responses by interferon γ release assay. After triple BNT162b2 vaccination, anti-RBD B.1 IgG and ACE2 binding inhibition reached peak levels in dialysis patients, but remained inferior compared to controls. Whilst we detected B.1-specific ACE2 binding inhibition in 84% of dialysis patients after three BNT162b2 doses, binding inhibition towards the Omicron variant was only detectable in 38% of samples and declining to 16% before the fourth vaccination. By using mRNA-1273 as fourth dose, humoral immunity against all SARS-CoV-2 variants tested was strongly augmented with 80% of dialysis patients having Omicron-specific ACE2 binding inhibition. Modest declines in T-cell responses in dialysis patients and controls after the second vaccination were restored by the third BNT162b2 dose and significantly increased by the fourth vaccination. Our data support current advice for a four-dose COVID-19 immunisation scheme for at-risk individuals such as haemodialysis patients. We conclude that administration of a fourth full-dose of mRNA-1273 as part of a mixed mRNA vaccination scheme to boost immunity and to prevent severe COVID-19 could also be beneficial in other immune impaired individuals. Additionally, strategic application of such mixed vaccine regimens may be an immediate response against SARS-CoV-2 variants with increased immune evasion potential.

BNT162b2-boosted immune responses six months after heterologous or homologous ChAdOx1nCoV-19/BNT162b2 vaccination against COVID-19.

Heterologous prime/boost vaccination with a vector-based approach (ChAdOx-1nCov-19, ChAd) followed by an mRNA vaccine (e.g. BNT162b2, BNT) has been reported to be superior in inducing protective immunity compared to repeated application of the same vaccine. However, data comparing immunity decline after homologous and heterologous vaccination as well as effects of a third vaccine application after heterologous ChAd/BNT vaccination are lacking. Here we show longitudinal monitoring of ChAd/ChAd (n = 41) and ChAd/BNT (n = 88) vaccinated individuals and the impact of a third vaccination with BNT. The third vaccination greatly augments waning anti-spike IgG but results in only moderate increase in spike-specific CD4 + and CD8 + T cell numbers in both groups, compared to cell frequencies already present after the second vaccination in the ChAd/BNT group. More importantly, the third vaccination efficiently restores neutralizing antibody responses against the Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants of the virus, but neutralizing activity against the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant remains severely impaired. In summary, inferior SARS-CoV-2 specific immune responses following homologous ChAd/ChAd vaccination can be compensated by heterologous BNT vaccination, which might influence the choice of vaccine type for subsequent vaccination boosts.

Effects of Pre-Existing Mental Conditions on Fatigue and Psychological Symptoms Post-COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Patients who are post-COVID-19 will require more treatment soon. Therefore, it is important to understand the root cause of their psychological and somatic conditions. Previous studies showed contradictory results on the influence of pre-existing mental conditions. The present study examines the influence of these pre-existing conditions and their pre-treatment on the severity of post-COVID-19 symptoms. METHODS: This analysis employs questionnaire data from a large study sample in Germany. Overall, 801 participants were included. All participants rated their health status on a scale from 0 to 100. Fatigue, depression, and anxiety were measured using the FAS, PHQ-9, and GAD-7 scales. RESULTS: All pre-pandemic values showed no significant differences between the groups. The current health status was rated similarly by the recovered patients (µ = 80.5 ± 17.0) and the control group (µ = 81.2 ± 18.0) but significantly worse by acutely infected (µ = 59.0 ± 21.5) and post-COVID-19 patients (µ = 54.2 ± 21.1). Fatigue, depression, and anxiety were similar for recovered patients and the control group. By contrast, there were significant differences between the control and the post-COVID-19 groups concerning fatigue (45.9% vs. 93.1%), depression (19.3% vs. 53.8%), and anxiety (19.3% vs. 22.3%). CONCLUSION: Fatigue and psychological conditions of post-COVID-19 patients are not associated with pre-existing conditions.

Healthcare Workers' Perceptions and Medically Approved COVID-19 Infection Risk: Understanding the Mental Health Dimension of the Pandemic. A German Hospital Case Study.

Introduction: This study analyses how healthcare workers (HCWs) perceived risks, protection and preventive measures during the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to medically approved risks and organizational measures. The aim is to explore "blind spots" of pandemic protection and make mental health needs of HCWs visible. Methods: We have chosen an "optimal-case" scenario of a high-income country with a well-resourced hospital sector and low HCW infection rate at the organizational level to explore governance gaps in HCW protection. A German multi-method hospital study at Hannover Medical School served as empirical case; document analysis, expert information and survey data (n = 1,163) were collected as part of a clinical study into SARS-CoV-2 serology testing during the second wave of the pandemic (November 2020-February 2021). Selected survey items included perceptions of risks, protection and preventive measures. Descriptive statistical analysis and regression were undertaken for gender, profession and COVID-19 patient care. Results: The results reveal a low risk of 1% medically approved infections among participants, but a much higher mean personal risk estimate of 15%. The majority (68.4%) expressed "some" to "very strong" fear of acquiring infection at the workplace. Individual protective behavior and compliance with protective workplace measures were estimated as very high. Yet only about half of the respondents felt strongly protected by the employer; 12% even perceived "no" or "little" protection. Gender and contact with COVID-19 patients had no significant effect on the estimations of infection risks and protective workplace behavior, but nursing was correlated with higher levels of personal risk estimations and fear of infection. Conclusions: A strong mismatch between low medically approved risk and personal risk perceptions of HCWs brings stressors and threats into view, that may be preventable through better information, training/education and risk communication and through investment in mental health and inclusion in pandemic preparedness plans.

The Impact of COVID-19 Vaccination on the Social Participation of Immunocompromised Persons - Results of a Multicenter Observational Study.

Immunocompromised persons are at an increased risk for a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection and their safety behaviors may influence their social participation. Vaccinated persons have a lower incidence of infection and severe disease when infected compared to non-vaccinated persons. Therefore, their behavior may change and their social participation may increase after a complete vaccination. The aim of this study was to explore social participation of immunocompromised persons before and after complete COVID-19 vaccination. Between March and September 2021, 274 immunocompromised participants were recruited. Survey data were collected at baseline and follow-up from 194 participants including the Index for the Assessment of Health Impairments [IMET], Patient Health Questionnaire-4 [PHQ-4], subjective health status and quality of life. At baseline, participants were not yet completely vaccinated. Complete vaccination was achieved prior to the follow-up questionnaire. IMET scores decreased significantly at follow-up, indicating a higher social participation after complete vaccination. PHQ-4, subjective health status and quality of life did not differ between baseline and follow-up. There were no significant differences across sociodemographic factors. Significant PHQ-4 differences were observed regarding the population size of the participants' home community. Social participation of immunocompromised persons in our study increased after COVID-19 vaccination. Therefore, social participation should be explored further, especially with regards to the impact of vaccination on groups with a high health risk.

Self-reported Tinnitus and Vertigo or Dizziness in a Cohort of Adult Long COVID Patients.

Tinnitus, vertigo and dizziness are symptoms commonly reported among Long and Post COVID patients, however the severity of these symptoms has not been assessed in large trials. Therefore, in this study a large cohort of Long COVID patients was surveyed about the presence and severity of tinnitus and vertigo or dizziness symptoms. The online survey was completed by a German cohort of 1,082 adult Long COVID patients after a mean period of 43.2 weeks ± 23.4 weeks after infection. Eighty percent were not fully vaccinated (at least two vaccinations) at the time of their first COVID symptoms and 9.8% were hospitalized in the course of their acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. At the time of the survey, 60% of patients reported the presence of vertigo or dizziness with a mean severity of 4.6 ± 2.7 on a scale of 1 (least severe) to 10 (most severe) and 30% complained of tinnitus with a mean severity of 4.8 ± 3.0. Approximately one fifth of the participants with tinnitus and vertigo or dizziness, rated their symptoms to be severe. The data shown in this study confirms that tinnitus and vertigo or dizziness are common symptoms in Long COVID patients and demonstrates, that a compelling number of patients rate their symptoms as severe. The self-reported severity highlights the need for Long COVID clinics to address these symptoms effectively. We suggest a multidisciplinary diagnostic and therapeutic approach to prevent further morbidity and socioeconomic burden for Long COVID patients suffering from severe vertigo, dizziness or tinnitus.

Immunogenicity of COVID-19 Vaccination in Melanoma Patients under Immune Checkpoint Blockade.

BACKGROUND: Immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is modestly impaired in cancer patients due to a generally weakened immune system. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are expected to enhance immune response. This has already been described to be the case in influenza vaccines, and first data about COVID-19 vaccines show a trend in this direction. AIM: We aimed to investigate the immune response of patients with melanoma under ICI therapy after COVID-19 vaccination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the Skin Cancer Center Hanover (Germany), we recruited 60 patients with advanced melanoma who either received ICI therapy during or before the vaccination period. Serological blood analysis was performed using quantitative ELISA for Anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein 1 IgG antibodies. RESULTS: We did not observe an enhanced humoral immune response in patients under active or past ICI therapy after COVID-19 vaccination. Nevertheless, there is a tendency of higher antibody levels when ICI therapy was received within the last 6 months before vaccination. Subgroup analysis revealed that patients in our study population under ongoing targeted therapy during vaccination period had significantly higher median antibody levels than patients without any active antitumor treatment. CONCLUSION: Melanoma patients under ICI therapy show comparable antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination to healthy health care professionals. This finding is independent of the timing of ICI therapy.

SARS-CoV-2 Omicron sublineages show comparable cell entry but differential neutralization by therapeutic antibodies.

The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 evades antibody-mediated neutralization with unprecedented efficiency. At least three Omicron sublineages have been identified-BA.1, BA.2, and BA.3-and BA.2 exhibits increased transmissibility. However, it is currently unknown whether BA.2 differs from the other sublineages regarding cell entry and antibody-mediated inhibition. Here, we show that BA.1, BA.2, and BA.3 enter and fuse target cells with similar efficiency and in an ACE2-dependent manner. However, BA.2 was not efficiently neutralized by seven of eight antibodies used for COVID-19 therapy, including Sotrovimab, which robustly neutralized BA.1. In contrast, BA.2 and BA.3 (but not BA.1) were appreciably neutralized by Cilgavimab, which could constitute a treatment option. Finally, all sublineages were comparably and efficiently neutralized by antibodies induced by BNT162b2 booster vaccination after previous two-dose homologous or heterologous vaccination. Collectively, the Omicron sublineages show comparable cell entry and neutralization by vaccine-induced antibodies but differ in susceptibility to therapeutic antibodies.

SARS-CoV-2-specific immune responses in elderly and immunosuppressed participants and patients with hematologic disease or checkpoint inhibition in solid tumors: study protocol of the prospective, observational CoCo immune study.

BACKGROUND: Immunocompromised people (ICP) and elderly individuals (older than 80 years) are at increased risk for severe coronavirus infections. To protect against serious infection with SARS-CoV-2, ICP are taking precautions that may include a reduction of social contacts and participation in activities which they normally enjoy. Furthermore, for these people, there is an uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of the vaccination. The COVID-19 Contact (CoCo) Immune study strives to characterize the immune response to COVID-19 vaccination in immunocompromised, elderly people, and patients with hematological or oncological diseases. The study uses blood-based screenings to monitor the humoral and cellular immune response in these groups after vaccination. Questionnaires and qualitative interviews are used to describe the level of social participation. METHODS: The CoCo Immune Study is a mixed methods prospective, longitudinal, observational study at two large university hospitals in Northern Germany. Starting in March 2021, it monitors anti-SARS-CoV-2 immune responses and collects information on social participation in more than 600 participants, at least 18 years old. Inclusion criteria and subcohorts: Participants with (1) regularly intake of immunosuppressive medication (ICP-cohort) or (2) age ≥ 80 years (80 + -cohort). Additionally, patients with current or former (3) myeloid, (4) lymphatic disease or (5) solid tumor under checkpoint inhibition (3-5: HO-cohort). EXCLUSION CRITERIA: (1) refusal to give informed consent, (2) contraindication to blood testing, (3) inability to declare consent. Participants complete a questionnaire at four different time points: prior to full vaccination, and 1, 6 and 12 months after completed vaccination. In addition, participants draw blood samples themselves or through a local health care provider and send them with their questionnaires per post at the respective time points after vaccination. Patients of the HO cohort dispense additional blood samples at week 3 to 12 and at month 6 to 9 after 2nd vaccination to gain additional knowledge in B and T cell responses. Selected participants are invited to qualitative interviews about social participation. DISCUSSION: This observational study is designed to gain insight into the immune response of people with weakened immune systems and to find out how social participation is affected after COVID-19 vaccination. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with German Clinical Trial Registry (registration number: DRKS00023972) on 30th December 2020.