Post-viral symptoms and conditions are more frequent in COVID-19 than influenza, but not more persistent.

BACKGROUND: Post-viral symptoms have long been known in the medical community but have received more public attention during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many post-viral symptoms were reported as particularly frequent after SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, there is still a lack of evidence regarding the specificity, frequency and persistence of these symptoms in comparison to other viral infectious diseases such as influenza. METHODS: We investigated a large population-based cohort based on German routine healthcare data. We matched 573,791 individuals with a PCR-test confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from the year 2020 to contemporary controls without SARS-CoV-2 infection and controls from the last influenza outbreak in 2018 and followed them up to 18 months. RESULTS: We found that post-viral symptoms as defined for COVID-19 by the WHO as well as tissue damage were more frequent among the COVID-19 cohort than the influenza or contemporary control cohort. The persistence of post-viral symptoms was similar between COVID-19 and influenza. CONCLUSION: Post-viral symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection constitute a substantial disease burden as they are frequent and often persist for many months. As COVID-19 is becoming endemic, the disease must not be trivialized. Research should focus on the development of effective treatments for post-viral symptoms.

[Postpartum Care by Midwives: Socioeconomic Status has a Strong Influence on the Amount of Care Received An Analysis with Routine Data from BARMER Health Insurance]. / Aufsuchende Wochenbettbetreuung: Die sozioökonomische Lage hat einen starken Einfluss auf den Betreuungsumfang Eine Analyse mit Routinedaten der BARMER.

BACKGROUND: Socio-economic situation is associated with inequalities in access to health care and health-related resources. This also applies to pregnancy, birth and the postpartum period. Compared to other European countries, Germany has very good care options for the postpartum period. It has an unique system of postpartum care, which comprises home visits by midwives for 12 weeks after birth and beyond in problem cases and thus has structurally good care options. So far, however, there are hardly any studies based on routine data that show which mothers receive homevisits in postpartum care and to what extent. METHOD: The study population comprised 199,978 women insured with BARMER who gave birth to at least one child in the years 2017-2020. Some women were pregnant several times in this period of time. The services billed by freelance midwives for outreach midwifery care in the puerperium were considered for 227,088 births, taking into account the socioeconomic situation of the mothers. RESULTS: According to the definition of the German Institute for Economic Research, 26% of the mothers belonged to a low income group, 46% to a medium income group and 29% to a high income group. Similar to what was shown for midwifery care during pregnancy, large differences were also found with regard to postpartum care: While 90.5% of the women with a high income received home visits, only 83.5% of women with a medium income did so, and only 67.9% of women with a low income. The groups did not differ with regard to other characteristics such as rate of caesarean section, preterm births, twins, age or concomitant diseases to an extent that could explain the differences in care. Women who had received midwifery services in pregnancy were much more likely to receive home visits by a midwife in the postpartum period. Furthermore, there was a correlation with the density of midwives in the respective region. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that access to home-based postpartum care by freelance midwives is significantly limited for low-income women. In contrast to antenatal care, women in the postpartum period cannot switch to other service providers, as outreach postpartum care is a reserved activity of midwives. Women with low incomes thus receive less midwifery care, although they have a higher need for support (Eickhorst et al. 2016).

Multilevel Quality Indicators: Methodology and Monte Carlo Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Quality indicators are frequently used to assess the performance of health care providers, in particular hospitals. Established approaches to the design of such indicators are subject to distortions due to indirect standardization and high variance of estimators. Indicators for geographical regions are rarely considered. OBJECTIVES: To develop and evaluate a methodology of multilevel quality indicators (MQIs) for both health care providers and geographical regions. RESEARCH DESIGN: We formally derived MQIs from a statistical multilevel model, which may include characteristics of patients, providers, and regions. We used Monte Carlo simulation to assess the performance of MQIs relative to established approaches based on the standardized mortality/morbidity ratio (SMR) and the risk-standardized mortality rate (RSMR). MEASURES: Rank correlation between true provider/region effects and quality indicator estimates; shares of the 10% best and 10% worst providers identified by the quality indicators. RESULTS: The proposed MQIs are (1) standardized hospital outcome rate (SHOR), (2) regional SHOR, and (3) regional standardized patient outcome rate. Monte Carlo simulations indicated that the SHOR provides substantially better estimates of provider performance than the SMR and risk-standardized mortality rate in almost all scenarios. The regional standardized patient outcome rate was slightly more stable than the regional SMR. We also found that modeling of regional characteristics generally improves the adequacy of provider-level estimates. CONCLUSIONS: MQIs methodology facilitates adequate and efficient estimation of quality indicators for both health care providers and geographical regions.

[Healthcare in Pregnancy and Access to Midwives according to Socio-Economic Situation: An Analysis with Routine Data from BARMER Health Insurance]. / Schwangerenversorgung und Zugang zur Hebamme nach sozialem Status: Eine Analyse mit Routinedaten der BARMER.

BACKGROUND: Socio-economic status is an important cause of inequality in health status and access to healthcare. This also applies to pregnancy, birth and the postpartum period. Healthcare during pregnancy plays a crucial role in the success of the life phase around birth. On the basis of routine data from BARMER health insurance, the study investigated which services pregnant women received during pregnancy depending on their socio-economic situation. METHODS: The study population comprised 237,251 women insured with BARMER with 278,237 births in 2015-2019. The services billed by gynaecologists and midwives during pregnancy were considered in relation to the socio-economic situation of the women involved. RESULTS: Physicians dominated the provision of preventive healthcare. For almost 98% of the pregnant women, a medical preventive healthcare flat rate was billed in at least three quarters. A regular participation of the midwife in preventive healthcare from the fourth month of pregnancy with more than four preventive services was the case in only 1.2% of women. Women from low-income backgrounds received fewer antenatal healthcare services from both gynaecologists and midwives, with 31% of women with low income having no antenatal midwife contact at all, compared to only 11% of high-income women. High-income earning women were also more likely to have had early contact with a midwife (47 vs. 37% in the first trimester). The timing of the first contact seemed to be relevant for the subsequent cooperative antenatal healthcare by both professional groups. CONCLUSION: The potentials of midwifery healthcare are not being leveraged. Midwives should be significantly more involved in prenatal healthcare overall, and access to midwives must be improved, especially for socially disadvantaged women. These women could benefit in particular from midwifery healthcare, as it takes greater account of social aspects in healthcare and also provides outreach services.

[Digital midwifery care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany-acceptance of mothers]. / Digitale Hebammenbetreuung in der COVID-19-Pandemie in Deutschland ­ Akzeptanz bei Müttern.

BACKGROUND: To ensure outpatient midwifery care during the COVID-19 pandemic, digital midwifery services were enabled for the first time in Germany in March 2020. The aim of the survey "Digital midwifery care in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic" was to conduct an initial evaluation of the newly introduced digital services from the perspective of the midwives and the users. This publication presents the results of the mothers' survey. METHOD: In February and March 2021, a cross-sectional study with an online survey was conducted. Women insured with BARMER who gave birth to a healthy child between May and November 2020 were surveyed anonymously throughout Germany using an exploratively developed online questionnaire on the utilization, satisfaction, and potential of digital midwifery care in pregnancy and the postpartum period. RESULTS: Feedback was provided by 1821 mothers. Around one third of the responding women had used digital midwifery services during pregnancy and/or the postpartum period and rated these services positively by over 80%. From the respondents' point of view, courses and counselling are very well suited whereas postpartum care often requires the midwife's presence. Advantages were seen in infection control and in saving time and travel. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has become a catalyst for digitalization in midwifery care. The digital services were quickly implemented by freelance midwives and well accepted by women and can usefully complement the care provided in the presence of the midwife. The opportunity to utilize and further develop these offers should be taken.

Post-COVID-19-associated morbidity in children, adolescents, and adults: A matched cohort study including more than 157,000 individuals with COVID-19 in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Long-term health sequelae of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) are a major public health concern. However, evidence on post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (post-COVID-19) is still limited, particularly for children and adolescents. Utilizing comprehensive healthcare data on approximately 46% of the German population, we investigated post-COVID-19-associated morbidity in children/adolescents and adults. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used routine data from German statutory health insurance organizations covering the period between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2020. The base population included all individuals insured for at least 1 day in 2020. Based on documented diagnoses, we identified individuals with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed COVID-19 through June 30, 2020. A control cohort was assigned using 1:5 exact matching on age and sex, and propensity score matching on preexisting medical conditions. The date of COVID-19 diagnosis was used as index date for both cohorts, which were followed for incident morbidity outcomes documented in the second quarter after index date or later.Overall, 96 prespecified outcomes were aggregated into 13 diagnosis/symptom complexes and 3 domains (physical health, mental health, and physical/mental overlap domain). We used Poisson regression to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). The study population included 11,950 children/adolescents (48.1% female, 67.2% aged between 0 and 11 years) and 145,184 adults (60.2% female, 51.1% aged between 18 and 49 years). The mean follow-up time was 236 days (standard deviation (SD) = 44 days, range = 121 to 339 days) in children/adolescents and 254 days (SD = 36 days, range = 93 to 340 days) in adults. COVID-19 and control cohort were well balanced regarding covariates. The specific outcomes with the highest IRR and an incidence rate (IR) of at least 1/100 person-years in the COVID-19 cohort in children and adolescents were malaise/fatigue/exhaustion (IRR: 2.28, 95% CI: 1.71 to 3.06, p < 0.01, IR COVID-19: 12.58, IR Control: 5.51), cough (IRR: 1.74, 95% CI: 1.48 to 2.04, p < 0.01, IR COVID-19: 36.56, IR Control: 21.06), and throat/chest pain (IRR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.39 to 2.12, p < 0.01, IR COVID-19: 20.01, IR Control: 11.66). In adults, these included disturbances of smell and taste (IRR: 6.69, 95% CI: 5.88 to 7.60, p < 0.01, IR COVID-19: 12.42, IR Control: 1.86), fever (IRR: 3.33, 95% CI: 3.01 to 3.68, p < 0.01, IR COVID-19: 11.53, IR Control: 3.46), and dyspnea (IRR: 2.88, 95% CI: 2.74 to 3.02, p < 0.01, IR COVID-19: 43.91, IR Control: 15.27). For all health outcomes combined, IRs per 1,000 person-years in the COVID-19 cohort were significantly higher than those in the control cohort in both children/adolescents (IRR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.25 to 1.35, p < 0.01, IR COVID-19: 436.91, IR Control: 335.98) and adults (IRR: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.31 to 1.34, p < 0.01, IR COVID-19: 615.82, IR Control: 464.15). The relative magnitude of increased documented morbidity was similar for the physical, mental, and physical/mental overlap domain. In the COVID-19 cohort, IRs were significantly higher in all 13 diagnosis/symptom complexes in adults and in 10 diagnosis/symptom complexes in children/adolescents. IRR estimates were similar for age groups 0 to 11 and 12 to 17. IRs in children/adolescents were consistently lower than those in adults. Limitations of our study include potentially unmeasured confounding and detection bias. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective matched cohort study, we observed significant new onset morbidity in children, adolescents, and adults across 13 prespecified diagnosis/symptom complexes, following COVID-19 infection. These findings expand the existing available evidence on post-COVID-19 conditions in younger age groups and confirm previous findings in adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05074953.

Incident autoimmune diseases in association with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the risk of developing an incident autoimmune disease is increased in patients with prior COVID-19 disease compared to those without COVID-19, a large cohort study was conducted. METHOD: A cohort was selected from German routine health care data. Based on documented diagnoses, we identified individuals with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed COVID-19 through December 31, 2020. Patients were matched 1:3 to control patients without COVID-19. Both groups were followed up until June 30, 2021. We used the four quarters preceding the index date until the end of follow-up to analyze the onset of autoimmune diseases during the post-acute period. Incidence rates (IR) per 1000 person-years were calculated for each outcome and patient group. Poisson models were deployed to estimate the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of developing an autoimmune disease conditional on a preceding diagnosis of COVID-19. RESULTS: In total, 641,704 patients with COVID-19 were included. Comparing the incidence rates in the COVID-19 (IR=15.05, 95% CI: 14.69-15.42) and matched control groups (IR=10.55, 95% CI: 10.25-10.86), we found a 42.63% higher likelihood of acquiring autoimmunity for patients who had suffered from COVID-19. This estimate was similar for common autoimmune diseases, such as Hashimoto thyroiditis, rheumatoid arthritis, or Sjögren syndrome. The highest IRR was observed for autoimmune diseases of the vasculitis group. Patients with a more severe course of COVID-19 were at a greater risk for incident autoimmune disease. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with an increased risk of developing new-onset autoimmune diseases after the acute phase of infection. Key Points • In the 3 to 15 months after acute infection, patients who had suffered from COVID-19 had a 43% (95% CI: 37-48%) higher likelihood of developing a first-onset autoimmune disease, meaning an absolute increase in incidence of 4.50 per 1000 person-years over the control group. • COVID-19 showed the strongest association with vascular autoimmune diseases.

Development of a risk score to identify patients at high risk for a severe course of COVID-19.

Aim: We aimed to develop a risk score to calculate a person's individual risk for a severe COVID-19 course (POINTED score) to support prioritization of especially vulnerable patients for a (booster) vaccination. Subject and methods: This cohort study was based on German claims data and included 623,363 individuals with a COVID-19 diagnosis in 2020. The outcome was COVID-19 related treatment in an intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation, or death after a COVID-19 infection. Data were split into a training and a test sample. Poisson regression models with robust standard errors including 35 predefined risk factors were calculated. Coefficients were rescaled with a min-max normalization to derive numeric score values between 0 and 20 for each risk factor. The scores' discriminatory ability was evaluated by calculating the area under the curve (AUC). Results: Besides age, down syndrome and hematologic cancer with therapy, immunosuppressive therapy, and other neurological conditions were the risk factors with the highest risk for a severe COVID-19 course. The AUC of the POINTED score was 0.889, indicating very good predictive validity. Conclusion: The POINTED score is a valid tool to calculate a person's risk for a severe COVID-19 course. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10389-023-01884-7.

Midwives' and women's views on digital midwifery care in Germany: Results from an online survey.

BACKGROUND: Digital midwifery services were enabled for the first time in Germany from March 2020 to ensure outpatient midwifery care in times of COVID-19. METHODS: In February and March 2021, a cross-sectional study with an online survey of midwives and mothers was conducted to find out to what extent digital services were offered by the midwives and used by the women, and to obtain information about the level of satisfaction and potential of digital midwifery care in pregnancy and post partum. RESULTS: 1821 mothers of 18,784 women, who had given birth between May and November 2020 and were asked to participate in the survey, provided feedback (response rate: 9,7%). 1551 midwives responded to the call to participate in the survey and completed the questionnaire. Around one third of the responding mothers had used digital midwifery services in pregnancy and/or the postpartum period and rated these services positively by over 80%. Half of the responding midwives offered digital services and wished to continue this care option. However, not all services were considered equally suitable for digital implementation. From the respondents' point of view, classes and counselling are very well suited whereas postpartum care often requires the midwife's presence. Mothers and midwives alike saw the advantages in COVID-19 infection control and in saving time and travel. The main challenges were seen in handling IT equipment and providing high quality care despite the lack of physical examination and direct assessment of clinical findings. The mothers wished for more interactivity and networking with each other. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has become a catalyst for digitalisation in midwifery care in Germany. The digital services were, mostly, well accepted and seen to usefully complement the in-person care of midwives. IT-support, guidelines and quality standards could help to optimise the digital services.

Optimising the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on mortality and hospitalisations using an individual additive risk measuring approach based on a risk adjustment scheme.

In this population-based cohort study, billing data from German statutory health insurance (BARMER, 10% of population) are used to develop a prioritisation model for COVID-19 vaccinations based on cumulative underlying conditions. Using a morbidity-based classification system, prevalence and risks for COVID-19-related hospitalisations, ventilations and deaths are estimated. Trisomies, behavioural and developmental disorders (relative risk: 2.09), dementia and organic psychoorganic syndromes (POS) (2.23) and (metastasised) malignant neoplasms (1.99) were identified as the most important conditions for escalations of COVID-19 infection. Moreover, optimal vaccination priority schedules for participants are established on the basis of individual cumulative escalation risk and are compared to the prioritisation scheme chosen by the German Government. We estimate how many people would have already received a vaccination prior to escalation. Vaccination schedules based on individual cumulative risk are shown to be 85% faster than random schedules in preventing deaths, and as much as 57% faster than the German approach, which was based primarily on age and specific diseases. In terms of hospitalisation avoidance, the individual cumulative risk approach was 51% and 28% faster. On this basis, it is concluded that using individual cumulative risk-based vaccination schedules, healthcare systems can be relieved and escalations more optimally avoided.

[Potentials of cooperative quality management initiatives: BQS Institute projects, January 2010 - July 2013]. / Bericht aus der Praxis: Möglichkeiten einrichtungsübergreifender Qualitätsinitiativen. QS-Projekte des BQS-Instituts Januar 2010 bis Juli 2013.

Alongside the projects of internal quality management and mandatory quality assurance there is a variety of quality driven projects across institutions initiated and run by various partners to continuously improve the quality of care. The multiplicity and characteristics of these projects are discussed on the basis of projects run by the BQS Institute between 2010 and 2013. In addition, useful interactions and linking with mandatory quality benchmarking and with internal quality management are discussed. (As supplied by publisher).