[COVID-19 Information Platform for Primary Care: Emergence and Development of a Web-based Knowledge Platform in the COVID-19 Pandemic]. / Informationsplattform COVID-19 für die Primärversorgung: Entstehung und Entwicklung einer webbasierten Wissensplattform in der COVID-19 Pandemie.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-Cov-2 outbreak in the spring of 2020 challenged the health care system, and thus primary care, on an unprecedented scale. Knowledge about the new disease was low, whereas the dynamics of knowledge generation were high and inhomogeneous. A number of new primary care tasks related to the pandemic situation emerged. Guidance in the management of COVID-19 was therefore needed, although robust evidence was not yet available. The information required concerned not only the virus and the new disease COVID-19, but also regulatory requirements and organizational issues. In this situation, a flexible, web-based information tool, easy to update and usable at the point of care, was developed at Karl Landsteiner Private University Krems and put online under the name of "COVID-19: prevention and management in primary care practices" on March 25, 2020. In a retrospective process description, we describe the needs-triggered process of developing and disseminating a practice-based tool to support practicing primary care physicians in a period of high uncertainty with an urgent need for information. Afterwards, we reflect on the learning process from a purely pragmatic to an increasingly structured approach and try to draw conclusions regarding optimization possibilities in terms of creation and dissemination. CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK: In situations of high uncertainty combined with an acute need for action and decision-making, there is a significant need for information that is as reliable as possible. Science transfer must be done in such a way that information can be implemented quickly. Dissemination, as always, plays an essential role. Gaps must be accepted. A structured process of quality assurance must be established in parallel. Funds and resources for knowledge transfer should be included in future pandemic plans.

"We literally worked in parking lots, cars, garages, and separately set up party tents": qualitative study on the experiences of GPs in the frame of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Austria.

BACKGROUND: Primary care is internationally recognised as one of the cornerstones of health care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, primary care physicians were assigned a variety of tasks and thus made a significant contribution to a country's pandemic response. They were expected to perform a variety of tasks, such as diagnosing and treating people with COVID-19, maintaining health care for all other patients, as well as several public health tasks, such as diagnostic testing and vaccination, protecting patients and staff from infection, and serving as community trusted persons. In Austria, there are no structured levels of care, no definition of the role of the general practitioner during a pandemic is given, and no specific support structures are present. The aim of this study was to assess the views and experiences of primary care physicians regarding supportive and hindering factors for pandemic preparedness in Austria. METHODS: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. A total of 30 general practitioners were interviewed, with particular attention to an equitable distribution in small, medium and large primary care facilities. Qualitative content analysis was performed. RESULTS: Interviewees described a wide range of infection control, organisational and communication measures that they had implemented. They made changes to practise equipment, found makeshift solutions when supplies were scarce, and established communication and information pathways when official communication lines were inadequate. CONCLUSION: General practitioners took on essential tasks and showed a high level of understanding of their role in the pandemic response. This was achieved mainly at an informal level and with high personal commitment. Their functioning in the absence of structural regulations and support shows that they had a clear intrinsic understanding of their responsibilities. To ensure reliability and sustainability and to reduce their burden, it will be necessary to clarify the role and tasks of a general practitioner and to provide the necessary support. This concerns both infrastructural support and communication and information strategies. As part of the reform to strengthen primary care, primary care needs to be seen, valued and involved in decision-making processes.

[S1 guidelines for the management of postviral conditions using the example of post-COVID-19]. / Leitlinie S1 für das Management postviraler Zustände am Beispiel Post-COVID-19.

These S1 guidelines are an updated and expanded version of the S1 guidelines on long COVID differential diagnostic and management strategies. They summarize the state of knowledge on postviral conditions like long/post COVID at the time of writing. Due to the dynamic nature of knowledge development, they are intended to be "living guidelines". The focus is on practical applicability at the level of primary care, which is understood to be the appropriate place for initial access and for primary care and treatment. The guidelines provide recommendations on the course of treatment, differential diagnostics of the most common symptoms that can result from infections like with SARS-CoV-2, treatment options, patient management and care, reintegration and rehabilitation. The guidelines have been developed through an interdisciplinary and interprofessional process and provide recommendations on interfaces and possibilities for collaboration.

Comprehensive Comparison of Seven SARS-CoV-2-Specific Surrogate Virus Neutralization and Anti-Spike IgG Antibody Assays Using a Live-Virus Neutralization Assay as a Reference.

Neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) are considered a valuable marker for measuring humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2. However, live-virus neutralization tests (NTs) require high-biosafety-level laboratories and are time-consuming. Therefore, surrogate virus neutralization tests (sVNTs) have been widely applied, but unlike most anti-spike (S) antibody assays, NTs and sVNTs are not harmonized, requiring further evaluation and comparative analyses. This study compared seven commercial sVNTs and anti-S-antibody assays with a live-virus NT as a reference, using a panel of 720 single and longitudinal serum samples from 666 convalescent patients after SARS-CoV-2 infection. The sensitivity of these assays for detecting antibodies ranged from 48 to 94% after PCR-confirmed infection and from 56% to 100% relative to positivity in the in-house live-virus NT. Furthermore, we performed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses to determine which immunoassays were most suitable for assessing nAb titers exceeding a specific cutoff (NT titer, ≥80) and found that the NeutraLISA and the cPass assays reached the highest area under the curve (AUC), exceeding 0.91. In addition, when the assays were compared for their correlation with nAb kinetics over time in a set of longitudinal samples, the extent of the measured decrease of nAbs after infection varied widely among the evaluated immunoassays. Finally, in vaccinated convalescent patients, high titers of nAbs exceeded the upper limit of the evaluated assays' quantification ranges. Based on data from this study, we conclude that commercial immunoassays are acceptable substitutes for live-virus NTs, particularly when additional adapted cutoffs are employed to detect nAbs beyond a specific threshold titer. IMPORTANCE While the measurement of neutralizing antibodies is considered a valuable tool in assessing protection against SARS-CoV-2, neutralization tests employ live-virus isolates and cell culture, requiring advanced laboratory biosafety levels. Including a large sample panel (over 700 samples), this study provides adapted cutoff values calculated for seven commercial immunoassays (including four surrogate neutralization assays and a protein-based microarray) that robustly correlate with specific titers of neutralizing antibodies.

Symptoms and risk factors for hospitalization of COVID-19 presented in primary care : An exploratory retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To increase knowledge of discrete symptoms shall help to avoid misinterpretation of test results and to gain better understanding of associations between early symptoms and severe disease to provide additional criteria for targeted early interventions. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Austrian GP practices in the year 2020, patients above 18 years were included. PARTICIPANTS: We recruited 25 practices which included 295 participants with a positive SARS-CoV­2 test. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data collection comprised basic demographic data, risk factors and the recording of symptoms at several points in time in the course of the illness. Descriptive analyses for possible associations between demographics and symptoms were conducted by means of cross tabulation. Group differences (hospitalized yes/no) were assessed using Fisher's exact test. The significance level was set to 0.05; due to the observational character of the study, no adjustment for multiplicity was performed. RESULTS: Only one third of patients report symptoms generally understood to be typical for COVID­19. Most patients presented with unspecific complaints. We found symptoms indicating complicated disease, depending on when they appear. The number of symptoms may be a predictor for the need of hospital care. More than 50% of patients still experience symptoms 14 days after onset. CONCLUSION: Unspecific symptoms are valuable indicators in the detection of early COVID­19 disease that practitioners and the general public should be aware of also in the interpretation of low sensitivity tests. Monitoring patients using the indicators we identified may help to identify patients who are likely to profit from early intervention.

[Guideline S1: Long COVID: Diagnostics and treatment strategies]. / Leitlinie S1: Long COVID: Differenzialdiagnostik und Behandlungsstrategien.

This guideline comprises the state of science at the time of the editorial deadline. In view of the high turnover of knowledge the guideline is designed as a living guideline. The main objective was to provide a tool for the use in primary care, being considered well suited as a first point of entry and for the provision of care. The guideline gives recommendations on the differential diagnosis of symptoms following SARS-CoV­2 infection, on their therapeutic options, as well as for guidance and care of the patients concerned. It also offers advice concerning return to daily life and rehabilitation. Long COVID being a very variable condition, we chose an interdisciplinary approach.

A Choosing Wisely top-5 list to support general practitioners in Austria.

From a pool of 147 reliable recommendations, ten experts from the Austrian Society of General Practice and Family Medicine selected 21 relevant recommendations as the basis for the Delphi process. In two Delphi rounds, eleven experts established a top­5 list of recommendations designed for Austrian family practice to reduce medical overuse. Three of the chosen recommendations address the issue of antibiotic usage in patients with viral upper respiratory tract infections, in children with mild otitis media, and in patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria. The other two "do not do" recommendations concern imaging studies for nonspecific low back pain and routine screening to detect prostate cancer. A subsequent survey identified the reasons for selecting these top­5 recommendations: the frequency of the issue, potential harms, costs, and patients' expectations. Experts hope the campaign will save time in educating patients and provide legal protection for omitting measures.

Potentially inappropriate medication in geriatric patients: the Austrian consensus panel list.

BACKGROUND: The practice of inappropriate medication and drug prescription is a major risk factor for adverse drug reactions in geriatric patients and increases the individual, as well as overall, rates of hospital admissions, resulting in increased health care expenditures. A consensus-based list of drugs, generally to be avoided in geriatric patients, is a practical tool to possibly improve the quality of prescribing. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to develop a consensus-based list of potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) for geriatric patients in Austria. Local market characteristics and documented prescribing regimens were considered in detail. METHODS: A two-round Delphi process involving eight experts in the field of geriatric medicine was undertaken to create a list of potentially inappropriate medications. Using a 5-point Likert scale (from strong agreement to strong disagreement), mean ratings from the experts were evaluated for each drug selected in the first round. The participants were first asked to comment on the potential inappropriateness of a preliminary list of drugs, and to propose alternate substances missing in the previous questionnaire for a second rating process. All drugs whose upper limit of the 95% CI was less than 3.0 were classified as potentially inappropriate. Drugs with a 95% CI enclosing 3.0 entered a second rating by the experts, in addition to other substances suggested during the first questionnaire. Drugs in the second rating were evaluated in comparable fashion to the first one. The final list was synthesized from the results in both rounds. RESULTS: Out of a preliminary list of 102 drugs, 61 drugs (59.2%) were classified as potentially inappropriate for geriatric persons in the first Delphi- round. In the second rating, six drugs that were reevaluated, and six drugs proposed additionally, were rated as potentially inappropriate. The final list contains 73 drugs to be avoided in older patients because of an unfavorable benefit/risk profile and/or unproven effectiveness. The list also contains suggestions for therapeutic alternatives and information about pharmacological and pharmacokinetic characteristics of all drugs judged as potentially inappropriate. CONCLUSION: The current Austrian list of potentially inappropriate medications may be a helpful tool for clinicians to increase the quality of prescribing in older patients. Like all explicit lists previously published, its validity needs to be proven in validation studies.

["EbM guidelines for primary care": first experience with implementation and acceptance]. / Praxisempfehlungen "EbM-guidelines für Allgemeinmedizin": Erste Erfahrungen mit Implementierung und Akzeptanz.

A German-Austrian version of the practice recommendations "Evidence-based Medicine Guidelines for Primary Care"--an international practice guidelines project originating in Finland--was first published in print in December 2005, and has been available in electronic form since January 2007 under the title "EbM--Guidelines für Allgemeinmedizin". The collection comprises more than 1000 short evidence- and experience-based practice guidelines for general medicine, thus generating an easily and very rapidly accessible, reliable and practice-oriented knowledge base for daily use and use in consultation. Links to databases and clinical guidelines provide further effortless access to evidence-based medicine tools and should help to reduce barriers between science and practice, thus changing the culture of medical decision-making. It is conceived of as a "work in progress": international co-operation and exchange as well as an integrated user feed back tool imply continuous learning on the part of the editors' from all the countries involved. With due caution, first data can be interpreted as an indication of this concept's effectiveness. Thorough evaluation and further implementation strategies are in planning stage.