Corrigendum: Health in Germany: Establishment of a population-based health panel.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.25646/11992.2.].

Erratum: Health in Germany: Establishment of a population-based health panel.

[This corrects the article on p. 2,21 in vol. 9, PMID: 38282983.].

[Reference evaluations for estimating prevalence, incidence, and mortality of public health relevant diseases based on routine data]. / Referenzauswertungen für die Schätzung von Prävalenz, Inzidenz und Mortalität Public-Health-relevanter Erkrankungen auf Basis von Routinedaten.

The routine data of all statutorily insured persons according to the Data Transparency Regulation (DaTraV data) represent a promising data source for the recurrent and timely surveillance of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in Germany. Thereby, it has become apparent that there is a high demand for reference evaluations that enable quick and regularly repeatable analyses on important NCDs. Against this background, ReFern-01 was initiated, a joint project of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) and the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM). In collaboration with experts from the field of secondary data analysis and healthcare research, reference evaluations for estimating prevalence, incidence, and mortality for important public health-relevant diseases were developed. First, 11 central NCDs were selected by means of an online survey, and initial case definitions were created in conjunction with a literature review. These were then discussed and agreed upon in a virtual workshop. The created reference evaluations (analysis scripts) allow a standardized estimation of the mentioned epidemiological figures, which are comparable over time and regionally. In addition to providing the results, the scripts will be available at the BfArM for further analysis. Provided that remote access to the analysis of the DaTraV data is available in the future, the results of the ReFern project can strengthen the surveillance of NCDs and support public health actors, for example, in the planning and implementation of health promotion and prevention measures at the federal, state, county, and local levels.

Nationally representative results on SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and testing in Germany at the end of 2020.

Pre-vaccine SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence data from Germany are scarce outside hotspots, and socioeconomic disparities remained largely unexplored. The nationwide representative RKI-SOEP study (15,122 participants, 18-99 years, 54% women) investigated seroprevalence and testing in a supplementary wave of the Socio-Economic-Panel conducted predominantly in October-November 2020. Self-collected oral-nasal swabs were PCR-positive in 0.4% and Euroimmun anti-SARS-CoV-2-S1-IgG ELISA from dry-capillary-blood antibody-positive in 1.3% (95% CI 0.9-1.7%, population-weighted, corrected for sensitivity = 0.811, specificity = 0.997). Seroprevalence was 1.7% (95% CI 1.2-2.3%) when additionally correcting for antibody decay. Overall infection prevalence including self-reports was 2.1%. We estimate 45% (95% CI 21-60%) undetected cases and lower detection in socioeconomically deprived districts. Prior SARS-CoV-2 testing was reported by 18% from the lower educational group vs. 25% and 26% from the medium and high educational group (p < 0.001, global test over three categories). Symptom-triggered test frequency was similar across educational groups. Routine testing was more common in low-educated adults, whereas travel-related testing and testing after contact with infected persons was more common in highly educated groups. This countrywide very low pre-vaccine seroprevalence in Germany at the end of 2020 can serve to evaluate the containment strategy. Our findings on social disparities indicate improvement potential in pandemic planning for people in socially disadvantaged circumstances.

The Burden of Disease in Germany at the National and Regional Level.

BACKGROUND: .Summary measures such as disability-adjusted life years (DALY) are becoming increasingly important for the standardized assessment of the burden of disease due to death and disability. The BURDEN 2020 pilot project was designed as an independent burden-of-disease study for Germany, which was based on nationwide data, but which also yielded regional estimates. METHODS: DALY is defined as the sum of years of life lost due to death (YLL) and years lived with disability (YLD). YLL is the difference between the age at death due to disease and the remaining life expectancy at this age, while YLD quantifies the number of years individuals have spent with health impairments. Data are derived mainly from causes of death statistics, population health surveys, and claims data from health insurers. RESULTS: In 2017, there were approximately 12 million DALY in Germany, or 14 584 DALY per 100 000 inhabitants. Conditions which caused the greatest number of DALY were coronary heart disease (2321 DALY), low back pain (1735 DALY), and lung cancer (1197 DALY). Headache and dementia accounted for a greater disease burden in women than in men, while lung cancer and alcohol use disorders accounted for a greater disease burden in men than in women. Pain disorders and alcohol use disorders were the leading causes of DALY among young adults of both sexes. The disease burden rose with age for some diseases, including cardiovascular diseases, dementia, and diabetes mellitus. For some diseases and conditions, the disease burden varied by geographical region. CONCLUSION: The results indicate a need for age- and sex-specific prevention and for differing interventions according to geographic region. Burden of disease studies yield comprehensive population health surveillance data and are a useful aid to decision-making in health policy.

The InfAct proposal for a sustainable European health information infrastructure on population health: the Distributed Infrastructure on Population Health (DIPoH).

BACKGROUND: In Europe, data on population health is fragmented, difficult to access, project-based and prone to health information inequalities in terms of availability, accessibility and especially in quality between and within countries. This situation is further exacerbated and exposed by the recent COVID-19 pandemic. The Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct) that builds on previous works of the BRIDGE Health project, carried out collaborative action to set up a sustainable infrastructure for health information in the European Union (EU). The aim of this paper is to present InfAct's proposal for a sustainable research infrastructure, the Distributed Infrastructure on Population Health (DIPoH), which includes the setup of a Health Information Portal on population health to be maintained beyond InfAct's time span. METHODS: The strategy for the proposal was based on three components: scientific initiatives and proposals to improve Health Information Systems (HIS), exploration of technical acceptability and feasibility, and finally obtaining high-level political support.. The technical exploration (Technical Dialogues-TD) was assumed by technical experts proposed by the countries, and political guidance was provided by the Assembly of Members (AoM), which gathered representatives from Ministries of Health and Science of EU/EEA countries. The results from the AoM and the TD were integrated in the sustainability plan compiling all the major outputs of InfAct. RESULTS: The InfAct sustainability plan was organized in three main sections: a proposal of a new research infrastructure on population health (the DIPoH), new health information tools and innovative proposals for HIS, and a comprehensive capacity building programme. These activities were carried out in InfAct and are being further developed in the Population Health Information Research Infrastructure (PHIRI). PHIRI is a practical rollout of DIPoH facilitating and generating the best available evidence for research on health and wellbeing of populations as impacted by COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: The sustainability plan received wide support from Member States and was recognized to have an added value at EU level. Nevertheless, there were several aspects which still need to be considered for the near future such as: (i) a commitment of stable financial and political support by Member States (MSs), (ii) the availability of resources at regional, national and European level to deal with innovations, and (iii) a more direct involvement from EU and international institutions such as the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD for providing support and sustainable contributions.

Results and Strategies for a Diversity-Oriented Public Health Monitoring in Germany.

Germany is a country of immigration; 27% of the population are people with a migration background (PMB). As other countries, Germany faces difficulties in adequately including hard-to-survey populations like PMB into national public health monitoring. The IMIRA project was initiated to develop strategies to adequately include PMB into public health monitoring and to represent diversity in public health reporting. Here, we aim to synthesize the lessons learned for diversity-oriented public health monitoring and reporting in Germany. We also aim to derive recommendations for further research on migration and health. We conducted two feasibility studies (interview and examination surveys) to improve the inclusion of PMB. Study materials were developed in focus groups with PMB. A systematic review investigated the usability of the concept of acculturation. A scoping review was conducted on discrimination as a health determinant. Furthermore, core indicators were defined for public health reporting on PMB. The translated questionnaires were well accepted among the different migrant groups. Home visits increased the participation of hard-to-survey populations. In examination surveys, multilingual explanation videos and video-interpretation services were effective. Instead of using the concept of acculturation, we derived several dimensions to capture the effects of migration status on health, which were more differentiated. We also developed an instrument to measure subjectively perceived discrimination. For future public health reporting, a set of 25 core indicators was defined to report on the health of PMB. A diversity-oriented public health monitoring should include the following: (1) multilingual, diversity-sensitive materials, and tools; (2) different modes of administration; (3) diversity-sensitive concepts; (4) increase the participation of PMB; and (5) continuous public health reporting, including constant reflection and development of concepts and methods.

Prioritizing health information for national health reporting - a Delphi study of the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct).

BACKGROUND: Health information (HI) strategies exist in several EU Member States, however, they mainly focus on technical issues and improving governance rather than on content-related priority setting. There is also little research available about national prioritization processes underlying HI development for policy support in the EU. The aim of this study was to broaden the knowledge base on HI prioritization strategies and to encourage expert exchange towards good practice models. A specific focus was put on HI produced for national health reporting, this being a crucial tool for policy advice. METHODS: We conducted a literature search to identify published and grey literature on national HI prioritization. This was followed by a two-round Policy Delphi study, where we explored which processes and methods exist in EU Member States and associated countries for the prioritization of HI collection. In the first round, information about these processes was gathered in semi-structured questions; in the second round, participants were asked to rank the identified approaches for desirability and feasibility. The survey was conducted online; participants were recruited from the membership of the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct - Information for Action). RESULTS: 119 experts were contacted, representing 40 InfAct partner institutions in 28 EU Member States and associated countries. Of these, 28 experts responded fully or partially to the first round, and six to the second round. In the first round, more than half of the respondents reported the existence of structured HI prioritization processes in their countries. To prioritize HI, a clear preference was given in the second round for a formal, horizontal process which includes different experts and stakeholders. National public health institutes were named desirable key stakeholders in this process, and also desirable and feasible coordinators for stakeholder coordination. CONCLUSION: Health information prioritization methods and procedures reflect the heterogeneity of national public health systems in European countries. Mapping, sharing and ranking prioritization methods and procedures for "good practices" provides a meaningful basis for expert knowledge exchange on HI development. We recommend to make this process part of a future sustainable EU health information system and to use the information gathered in this project to initiate the development of a guidance "Good Practice HI Prioritization" among EU Member States and associated countries.

Integrating technical and political views for a sustainable European Distributed Infrastructure on Population Health.

BACKGROUND: Non-Communicable diseases (NCD) are the main contributors to mortality and burden of disease. There is no infrastructure in Europe that could provide health information (HI) on Public Health monitoring and Health Systems Performance (HSP) for research and evidence-informed decision-making. Moreover, there was no EU and European Economic Area Member States (EU/EEA MSs) general consensus, on developing this initiative and guarantee its sustainability. The aim of this study is to analyze the integration of technical and political views made by the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct; Information for Action) and the results obtained from those activities, in terms of advice and national and institutional support to develop an integrated and sustainable European Distributed Infrastructure on Population Health (DIPoH) for research and evidence-informed policy-making. METHODS: InfAct established two main boards, the Technical Dialogues (TDs) and the Assembly of Members (AoM), to provide a platform for discussion with EU/EEA MSs to establish a sustainable infrastructure for HI: 1) The TDs were composed by national technical experts (NTE) with the aim to discuss and provide feedback about scientific aspects, feasibility and EU-added value of the infrastructure proposed by InfAct. 2) The AoM gathered country representatives from Ministries of Health and Research at the highest political level, with the aim of providing policy-oriented advice for the future political acceptance, support, implementation, and development of InfAct's outcomes including DIPoH. The documentation provided for the meetings consisted in Fact-Sheets, where the main results, new methods and proposals were clearly exposed for discussion and assessment; altogether with more extended information of the DIPoH. The documentation was provided to national representatives within one more before each TD and AoM meeting. The Agenda and methodological approaches for each TD and AoM meeting consisted in the presentations of the InfAct outcomes extending the information provided in the Fact-Sheets; followed by a non-structured interaction, exchange of information, discussion and suggestions by the MSs representatives. The outcomes of the non-structured discussions were collected in Minutes of the TD and AoM meetings, and the final version was obtained with the consensus of all participants. Additionally, structured letters of political support were provided to the AoM representatives, for them to consider providing their MS written support for DIPoH. RESULTS: NTE, within the TDs, considered that DIPoH was useful for technical mutual learning and cooperation among and within countries; although they considered that the technical feasibility to uptake InfAct deliverables at the national and EU level was complex. The AoM focused on political support, resources, and expected MSs returns. The AoM representatives agreed in the interest of setting up an integrated and sustainable HI infrastructure and they considered DIPoH to be well-articulated and defined; although, some of them, expressed some barriers for providing DIPoH political support. The AoM representatives stated that the AoM is the most suitable way to inform EU MSs/ACs about future advances of DIPoH. Both boards provided valuable feedback to develop this infrastructure. Eleven countries and sixteen institutions supported the proposal, either by letters of political support or by signing the Memorandum of Understandings (MoU) and three countries, additionally, provided expression of financial commitment, for DIPoH to be added to the ESFRI 2021 roadmap. CONCLUSIONS: TDs and AoM were key forums to develop, advise, advocate and provide support for a sustainable European research infrastructure for Population Health.

Overview of national health reporting in the EU and quality criteria for public health reports - results of the Joint Action InfAct.

BACKGROUND: Health reporting shall provide up-to-date health-related data to inform policy-makers, researchers and the public. To this end, health reporting formats should be tailored to the needs and competencies of the target groups and provide comparable and high-quality information. Within the Joint Action on Health Information 'InfAct', we aimed at gaining an overview of health reporting practices in the EU Member States and associated countries, and developed quality criteria for the preparation of public health reports. The results are intended to facilitate making health information adequately available while reducing inequalities in health reporting across the EU. METHODS: A web-based desk research was conducted among EU Member States and associated countries to generate an overview of different formats of national health reporting and their respective target groups. To identify possible quality criteria for public health reports, an exploratory literature review was performed and earlier projects were analysed. The final set of criteria was developed in exchange with experts from the InfAct consortium. RESULTS: The web-based desk research showed that public health reports are the most frequently used format across countries (94%), most often addressed to scientists and researchers (51%), politicians and decision-makers (41%). However, across all reporting formats, the general public is the most frequently addressed target group. With regards to quality criteria for public health reports, the literature review has yielded few results. Therefore, two earlier projects served as main sources: the 'Evaluation of National and Regional Public Health Reports' and the guideline 'Good Practice in Health Reporting'from Germany. In collaboration with experts, quality criteria were identified and grouped into eight categories, ranging from topic selection to presentation of results, and compiled in a checklist for easy reference. CONCLUSION: Health reporting practices in the EU are heterogeneous across Member States. The assembled quality criteria are intended to facilitate the preparation, dissemination and access to better comparable high-quality public health reports as a basis for evidence-based decision-making. A comprehensive conceptual and integrative approach that incorporates the policy perspective would be useful to investigate which dissemination strategies are the most suitable for specific requirements of the targeted groups.

Recommendations to plan a national burden of disease study.

BACKGROUND: The InfAct (Information for Action) project is a European Commission Joint Action on Health Information which has promoted the potential role of burden of disease (BoD) approaches to improve the current European Union-Health Information System (EU-HIS). It has done so by raising awareness of the concept, the methods used to calculate estimates and their potential implications and uses in policymaking. The BoD approach is a systematic and scientific effort to quantify and compare the magnitude of health loss due to different diseases, injuries, and risk factors with estimates produced by demographic characteristics and geographies for specific points in time. Not all countries have the resources to undertake such work, and may therefore start with a more restricted objective, e.g., a limited number of diseases, or the use of simple measures of population health such as disease prevalence or life expectancy. The main objective to develop these recommendations was to facilitate those countries planning to start a national burden of disease study. RESULTS: These recommendations could be considered as minimum requirements for those countries planning to start a BoD study and includes following elements: (1) Define the objectives of a burden of disease study within the context of your country, (2) Identify, communicate and secure the benefits of performing national burden of disease studies, (3) Secure access to the minimum required data sources, (4) Ensure the minimum required capacity and capability is available to carry out burden of disease study, (5) Establish a clear governance structure for the burden of disease study and stakeholder engagement/involvement, (6) Choose the appropriate methodological approaches and (7) Knowledge translation. These were guided by the results from our survey performed to identify the needs of European countries for BoD studies, a narrative overview from four European countries (Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands and Scotland) and the summary of a comparative study of country health profiles with national health statistics. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations as minimum requirements would facilitate efforts by those European countries who intend to perform national BoD studies.

Perceived Access to Health Care Services and Relevance of Telemedicine during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Germany.

During the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany, non-pharmaceutical interventions were imposed to contain the spread of the virus. Based on cross-sectional waves in March, July and December 2020 of the COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO), the present study investigated the impact of the introduced measures on the perceived access to health care. Additionally, for the wave in December, treatment occasion as well as utilization and satisfaction regarding telemedicine were analysed. For 18-74-year-old participants requiring medical care, descriptive and logistic regression analyses were performed. During the less strict second lockdown in December, participants reported more frequently ensured access to health care (91.2%) compared to the first lockdown in March (86.8%), but less frequently compared to July (94.2%) during a period with only mild restrictions. In December, main treatment occasions of required medical appointments were check-up visits at the general practitioner (55.2%) and dentist (36.2%), followed by acute treatments at the general practitioner (25.6%) and dentist (19.0%), treatments at the physio-, ergo- or speech therapist (13.1%), psychotherapist (11.9%), and scheduled hospital admissions or surgeries (10.0%). Of the participants, 20.0% indicated utilization of telemedical (15.4% telephone, 7.6% video) consultations. Of them, 43.7% were satisfied with the service. In conclusion, for the majority of participants, access to medical care was ensured during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, access slightly decreased during phases of lockdown. Telemedicine complemented the access to medical appointments.

Years of Life Lost to Death­A Comprehensive Analysis of Mortality in Germany Conducted as Part of the BURDEN 2020 Project

BACKGROUND: Knowing which diseases and causes of death account for most of the years of life lost (YLL) can help to better target appropriate prevention and intervention measures. The YLL in Germany for specific causes of death were estimated as part of the BURDEN 2020 project at the Robert Koch Institute. METHODS: Data from cause-of-death statistics were used for the analysis. ICD codes were grouped into causes of death categories at different levels of disaggregation. The YLL were estimated by combining each cause of death with the remaining life expectancy at the age of death. Deaths and YLL were compared by sex, age category, and regional distribution. RESULTS: Approximately 11.6 million years were estimated to be lost in Germany in 2017, of which 42.8% were lost by women and 57.2% by men. The largest number of YLL were due to (malignant) neoplasms (35.2%), followed by cardiovascular diseases (27.6%), gastrointestinal diseases (5.8%), and neurological diseases (5.7%). Deaths at younger ages had a greater impact on population health if expressed in YLL: the death share of persons under age 65 was 14.7%, but the years of life lost in this age group amounted to 38.3% of all YLL. The most common causes of death in this group include accidents, self-injury and violence, malignant neoplasms, and alcohol-related diseases. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of YLL is borne by young and middle-aged persons. These findings emphasize the need to introduce preventive strategies early in life to reduce the YLL at younger ages, as well as to prevent risk factors for diseases in older ages.

The COVID-19 Disease Burden in Germany in 2020­Years of Life Lost to Death and Disease Over the Course of the Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic presented major challenges to the health sector in 2020. The burden of disease arising from COVID-19 can be expressed as the number of years of life lost to disease or death. For example, death at age 40 involves a loss of far more years of life than death at age 80. METHODS: The disability-adjusted life years (DALY) lost to COVID-19 were calculated as the sum of the years of life lost through death (YLL) and the number of years lived with disability (YLD), on the basis of laboratory-confirmed notifiable cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Germany in 2020 (documented as of 18 January 2021). The methodology was based on that used in the Global Burden of Disease Study. Pre-existing diseases do not enter into the determination of YLL; rather, the residual life expectancy that is applied in this calculation corresponds to a mean age-specific level of morbidity. RESULTS: 305 641 years of life were lost to COVID-19 in Germany in 2020. The percentage of DALY lost by persons under 70 was 34.8% in men and 21.0% in women. 99.3% of the COVID-19 disease burden was accounted for by death (YLL). The daily average years of life lost due to death was lower for COVID-19 than for the major non-communicable diseases. Persons who died of COVID-19 lost a mean of 9.6 years of life; those who were under 70 when they died lost a mean of 25.2 years of life. Men lost more years of life than women (11.0 vs. 8.1 years). CONCLUSION: The effects of COVID-19 on public health can be expressed through the burden of disease indicators. This method yields additional information that should be put to use early in the course of future outbreaks.

Excess mortality in adults with documented diabetes in Germany: routine data analysis of all insurance claims in Germany 2013-2014.

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the age-specific excess mortality pattern of people with diagnosed diabetes in Germany. Thus, our goal was to determine the excess mortality in diagnosed diabetes overall and stratified by age and sex based on claims data. DESIGN: Routine data analysis using a claims dataset from all statutory health-insured persons in Germany in 2013, which accounts for about 90% of the population. PARTICIPANTS: We included persons who lived in Germany, were insured at least 360 days, were not self-paying any health services and were aged 30 years or older leading to a total number of 47.3 million insured persons for analyses. EXPOSURE: Diabetes was determined by the International Classification of Diseases-10 codes E10-E14, which were documented in 2013 in at least two-quarters on an outpatient setting or at least once on an inpatient setting. OUTCOME MEASURES: The vital status in the study population was drawn from the claims dataset for the year 2014. We derived the excess mortality estimated as an age-adjusted mortality rate ratio (MRR) by sex and for age groups using a Poisson model. MAIN RESULTS: We found age-adjusted MRRs (95% CI) for diabetes of 1.52 (1.51 to 1.52) for women and 1.56 (1.56 to 1.56) for men. These figures declined with increasing age and were highest for ages 30-34 years with 6.76 (4.99 to 9.15) for women and 6.87 (5.46 to 8.64) for men, and lowest for age 95 years and older with 1.13 (1.10 to 1.15) for women and 1.11 (1.05 to 1.17) for men. CONCLUSIONS: We derived deeply age-stratified figures on excess mortality in diabetes for Germany. Establishing a sustainable analysis of excess mortality is aimed at within the framework of diabetes surveillance.

Gestational diabetes in Germany: Development of screening participation and prevalence.

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is an important risk factor for pregnancy complications. Since 2012, the Federal Joint Committee's maternity directive recommends a two-step screening for GDM with a pre-test and subsequent diagnostic test if the pre-test is positive. This study analyses the implementation and development over time of GDM screening participation and prevalence in Germany. The data basis is the external inpatient obstetrics quality assurance documentation, which covers all births in hospital. Women with diabetes before pregnancy were excluded. The study defined women as GDM cases if the condition was documented in maternity records or if the ICD-10 diagnosis O24.4 was coded for inpatients at discharge and figures were determined for the years 2013 to 2018. As the documentation of screening tests has only been included in the data set since 2016, screening participation for the years 2016 to 2018 were estimated and evaluated based on the pre-test and/or diagnostic tests documented in maternity records. In 2018, the majority of all women who gave birth in hospitals had had a pre-test conducted (65.0%) or a pre-test and diagnostic test (18.2%) in line with the two-step procedure. A further 6.7% received a diagnostic test alone. GDM screening participation increased over time from 83.4% in 2016 to 89.9% in 2018. The prevalence of a documented GDM increased from 4.6% to 6.8% between 2013 and 2018. In 2018, this equates to 51,318 women with GDM. Reliably assessing the extent and causes of this development will require continuous analyses of screening implementation, documentation and changes in maternal risk factors.

Seroepidemiological study on the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in Germany: Study protocol of the CORONA-MONITORING bundesweit' study (RKI-SOEP study).

The SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus has spread rapidly across Germany. Infections are likely to be under-recorded in the notification data from local health authorities on laboratory-confirmed cases since SARS-CoV-2 infections can proceed with few symptoms and then often remain undetected. Seroepidemiological studies allow the estimation of the proportion in the population that has been infected with SARS-CoV-2 (seroprevalence) as well as the extent of undetected infections. The 'CORONA-MONITORING bundesweit' study (RKI-SOEP study) collects biospecimens and interview data in a nationwide population sample drawn from the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP). Participants are sent materials to self-collect a dry blood sample of capillary blood from their finger and a swab sample from their mouth and nose, as well as a questionnaire. The samples returned are tested for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies and SARS-CoV-2 RNA to identify past or present infections. The methods applied enable the identification of SARS-CoV-2 infections, including those that previously went undetected. In addition, by linking the data collected with available SOEP data, the study has the potential to investigate social and health-related differences in infection status. Thus, the study contributes to an improved understanding of the extent of the epidemic in Germany, as well as identification of target groups for infection protection.

SARS-CoV-2 Transmissibility Within Day Care Centers-Study Protocol of a Prospective Analysis of Outbreaks in Germany.

Introduction: Until today, the role of children in the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 and the development of the COVID-19 pandemic seems to be dynamic and is not finally resolved. The primary aim of this study is to investigate the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 in child day care centers and connected households as well as transmission-related indicators and clinical symptoms among children and adults. Methods and Analysis: COALA ("Corona outbreak-related examinations in day care centers") is a day care center- and household-based study with a case-ascertained study design. Based on day care centers with at least one reported case of SARS-CoV-2, we include one- to six-year-old children and staff of the affected group in the day care center as well as their respective households. We visit each child's and adult's household. During the home visit we take from each household member a combined mouth and nose swab as well as a saliva sample for analysis of SARS-CoV-2-RNA by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (real-time RT-PCR) and a capillary blood sample for a retrospective assessment of an earlier SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, information on health status, socio-demographics and COVID-19 protective measures are collected via a short telephone interview in the subsequent days. In the following 12 days, household members (or parents for their children) self-collect the same respiratory samples as described above every 3 days and a stool sample for children once. COVID-19 symptoms are documented daily in a symptom diary. Approximately 35 days after testing the index case, every participant who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the study is re-visited at home for another capillary blood sample and a standardized interview. The analysis includes secondary attack rates, by age of primary case, both in the day care center and in households, as well as viral shedding dynamics, including the beginning of shedding relative to symptom onset and viral clearance. Discussion: The results contribute to a better understanding of the epidemiological and virological transmission-related indicators of SARS-CoV-2 among young children, as compared to adults and the interplay between day care and households.

Serology- and PCR-based cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in adults in a successfully contained early hotspot (CoMoLo study), Germany, May to June 2020.

Three months after a coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak in Kupferzell, Germany, a population-based study (n = 2,203) found no RT-PCR-positives. IgG-ELISA seropositivity with positive virus neutralisation tests was 7.7% (95% confidence interval (CI): 6.5-9.1) and 4.3% with negative neutralisation tests. We estimate 12.0% (95% CI: 10.4-14.0%) infected adults (24.5% asymptomatic), six times more than notified. Full hotspot containment confirms the effectiveness of prompt protection measures. However, 88% naïve adults are still at high COVID-19 risk.

[Estimating prevalent microvascular complications of diabetes mellitus in Germany. Analysis of statutory health insurance data in 2012 and 2013]. / Einschätzungen zur Prävalenz mikrovaskulärer Folgeerkrankungen bei Diabetes mellitus in Deutschland. Analyse von Versichertendaten aller gesetzlichen Krankenkassen für die Jahre 2012 und 2013.

BACKGROUND: Data sources for the systematic and ongoing analysis of prevalence of microvascular complications of diabetes mellitus are limited in Germany. For the first time, we estimated the complications prevalence based on claims data of all statutory health insurance (SHI) providers according to the Data Transparency Act. METHODS: Health claims data of the reporting years 2012 and 2013 were analyzed. The reference population was identified as insured persons with a diabetes diagnosis according to the international classification of disease. Diabetes was defined as documentation of at least two confirmed diabetes diagnoses in an outpatient setting or one diagnosis in an inpatient setting (ICD codes E10-E14). Complications were defined based on the following ICD codes: nephropathy (N08.3), retinopathy (H36.0), polyneuropathy (G63.2), diabetic foot syndrome (DFS; E10-14.74, E10-14.75), chronic kidney disease (N18.-), and treatment with dialysis (Z49.1, Z49.2, Z99.2). Results were compared to prevalence estimates based on routine data and registries in Germany and abroad. RESULTS: In 2013, diabetes was documented for 6.6 million persons with SHI (2012: 6.5 million). In 2013, chronic kidney disease (15.0%) was the most frequent complication, followed by diabetic polyneuropathy (13.5%), nephropathy (7.6%), retinopathy (7.0%), DFS (6.1%), and treatment with dialysis (0.56%). While results for diabetic retinopathy, nephropathy, and polyneuropathy are lower than prevalence estimates from other type 2 diabetes studies, they are comparable for chronic kidney disease, treatment with dialysis, and DFS. CONCLUSION: Continuous analysis of health claims data is highly valuable for the diabetes surveillance. However, detailed analyses are required for verification and harmonization of case definitions and documentation practice.