Objectives The gold standard for diagnosing an infection with SARS-CoV-2 is detection of viral RNA by nucleic acid amplification techniques. Test capacities, however, are limited. Therefore, numerous easy-to-use rapid antigen tests based on lateral flow technology have been developed. Manufacturer-reported performance data seem convincing, but real-world data are missing. Methods We retrospectively analysed all prospectively collected antigen tests results performed between 23.06.2020 and 26.11.2020, generated by non-laboratory personnel at the point-of-care from oro- or nasopharyngeal swab samples at the University Hospital Augsburg and compared them to concomitantly (within 24 h.) generated results from molecular tests. Results For a total of 3630 antigen tests, 3110 NAAT results were available. Overall, sensitivity, specificity, NPV and PPV of antigen testing were 59.4%, 99.0%, 98.7% and 64.8%, respectively. Sensitivity and PPV were lower in asymptomatic patients (47.6% and 44.4%, respectively) and only slightly higher in patients with clinical symptoms (66.7% and 85.0%, respectively). Some samples with very low Ct-values (minimum Ct 13) were not detected by antigen testing. 31 false positive results occurred. ROC curve analysis showed that reducing the COI cut-off from 1, as suggested by the manufacturer, to 0.9 is optimal, albeit with an AUC of only 0.66. Conclusion In real life, performance of lateral-flow-based antigen tests are well below the manufacturer's specifications, irrespective of patient’s symptoms. Their use for detection of individual patients infected with SARS-CoV2 should be discouraged. This does not preclude their usefulness in large-scale screening programs to reduce transmission events on a population-wide scale.

Background Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) patients are at increased risk for thromboembolic events. It is unclear whether the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is also increased. Methods We considered 4128 COVID‐19 patients enrolled in the Lean European Open Survey on SARS‐CoV‐2 (LEOSS) registry. The association between occurrence of GI bleeding and comorbidities as well as medication were examined. In addition, 1216 patients from COKA registry were analyzed focusing on endoscopy diagnostic findings. Results A cumulative number of 97 patients (1.8%) with GI bleeding were identified in the LEOSS registry and COKA registry. Of 4128 patients from the LEOSS registry, 66 patients (1.6%) had a GI bleeding. The rate of GI bleeding in patients with intensive care unit (ICU) admission was 4.5%. The use of therapeutic dose of anticoagulants showed a significant association with the increased incidence of bleeding in the critical phase of disease. The Charlson comorbidity index and the COVID‐19 severity index were significantly higher in the group of patients with GI bleeding than in the group of patients without GI bleeding (5.83 (SD = 2.93) vs. 3.66 (SD = 3.06), p < 0.01 and 3.26 (SD = 1.69) vs. 2.33 (SD = 1.53), p < 0.01, respectively). In the COKA registry 31 patients (2.5%) developed a GI bleeding. Of these, the source of bleeding was identified in upper GI tract in 21 patients (67.7%) with ulcer as the most frequent bleeding source (25.8%, n = 8) followed by gastroesophageal reflux (16.1%, n = 5). In three patients (9.7%) GI bleeding source was located in lower GI tract caused mainly by diverticular bleeding (6.5%, n = 2). In seven patients (22.6%) the bleeding localization remained unknown. Conclusion Consistent with previous research, comorbidities and disease severity correlate with the incidence of GI bleeding. Also, therapeutic anticoagulation seems to be associated with a higher risk of GI bleeding. Overall, the risk of GI bleeding seems not to be increased in COVID‐19 patients.

Healthcare workers (HCW) who perform aerosol-generating procedures (AGP) are at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data on infection rates and vaccination are limited. A nationwide, cross-sectional study focusing on AGP-related specialties was conducted between 3 May 2021 and 14 June 2021. Vaccination rates among HCW, perception of infection risk, and infection rates were analyzed, focusing on the comparison of gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) and other AGP-related specialties (NON-GIE), from the beginning of the pandemic until the time point of the study. Infections rates among HCW developed similarly to the general population during the course of the pandemic, however, with significantly higher infections rates among the GIE specialty. The perceived risk of infection was distributed similarly among HCW in GIE and NON-GIE (91.7%, CI: 88.6–94.4 vs. 85.8%, CI: 82.4–89.0; p < 0.01) with strongest perceived threats posed by AGPs (90.8%) and close patient contact (70.1%). The very high vaccination rate (100–80%) among physicians was reported at 83.5%, being significantly more frequently reported than among nurses (56.4%, p < 0.01). GIE had more often stated very high vaccination rate compared with NON-GIE (76.1% vs. 65.3%, p < 0.01). A significantly higher rate of GIE was reported to have fewer concerns regarding infection risk after vaccination than NON-GIE (92.0% vs. 80.3%, p < 0.01).

Objective: Healthcare workers (HCW) are at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to exposure to potentially infectious material, especially during aerosol-generating procedures (AGP). We aimed to investigate the prevalence of infection among HCW in medical disciplines with AGP. Design: A nationwide questionnaire-based study in in- and outpatient settings was conducted between 12/16/2020 and 01/24/2021. Data on SARS-CoV-2 infections among HCW and potential risk factors were investigated. Results: 2,070 healthcare facilities with 25,113 employees were included in the study. Despite a higher rate of pre-interventional testing, clinics treated three times more confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases than private practices (28.8% vs. 88.4%, p<0.001). Overall infection rate among HCW accounted for 4.7%. Multivariate analysis revealed that ZIP-regions having comparably higher incidences were significantly associated with increased risk of infection. Furthermore, clinical setting and the GIE specialty have more than double the risk of infection (OR 2.63; 95% CI 2.501-2.817, p<0.01 and OR 2.35; 95% CI 2.245-2.498, p<0.01). The number of procedures performed per day was also significantly associated with an increased risk of infection (OR 1.01; 95% CI 1.007-1.014), p<0.01). No treatment of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases was tending to lower the risk of infection (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.507-1.025, p=0.068). Conclusion: HCW in GIE seem to be at higher risk of infection than those in other AGP, especially in the clinical setting. Regions having comparably higher incidences as well as the number of procedures performed per day were also significantly associated with increased risk of infection.

No abstract

Background and study aims The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has defined COVID-19 infection prevention and control strategies within the endoscopy unit. These include pre-endoscopic questionnaire-based risk-stratification as well as pre-procedure viral testing. Real-life data on the effectiveness of these measures are presented here. Patients and methods Data from the outpatient endoscopic unit of the University Hospital Augsburg between July 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020 including the second pandemic wave were reviewed retrospectively. All patients were assessed with a pre-endoscopic risk-stratification questionnaire as well as viral testing using an antigen point-of-care test (Ag-POCT) in conjunction with a standard polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. Highly elective procedures were postponed. The theoretically expected number of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients was simulated and compared with the actual number. In addition, endoscopy staff was evaluated with a rapid antibody test to determine the number of infections among the personnel. Results In total, 1029 procedures, 591 questionnaires, 591 Ag-POCTs, and 529 standard PCR tests were performed in 591 patients. 247 procedures in 142 patients were postponed. One Ag-POCT was positive but with a negative PCR test, while one PCR test was positive but with a negative Ag-POCT. This was lower than the theoretically expected number of COVID-19-positive patients (n = 15). One of 43 employees (2.3 %) in the outpatient endoscopy unit was seropositive. Conclusions Pre-endoscopic risk management including questionnaire-based risk stratification and viral testing seems to be an effective tool in combination with personal protective equipment for SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention and control within the endoscopy unit even in a high-prevalence setting.

(1) Background: The COVID-19 pandemic forced healthcare workers to adapt to challenges in both patient care and self-protection. Dental practitioners were confronted with a potentially high possibility of infection transmission due to aerosol-generating procedures. This study aims to present data on healthcare worker (HCW) screening, infection status of HCWs, pre-interventional testing, the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the economic impact of the pandemic in dental facilities. (2) Methods: Dental facilities were surveyed nationwide using an online questionnaire. The acquisition of participants took place in cooperation with the German Society for Dentistry, Oral and Maxillofacial Medicine. (3) Results: A total of 1094 private practices participated. Of these, 39.1% treated fewer than 600 patients per quarter and 59.9% treated over 600 patients per quarter. Pre-interventional testing was rarely performed in either small (6.6%) or large practices (6.0%). Large practices had a significantly higher incidence of at least one SARS-CoV-2-positive HCW than small practices (26.2% vs.14.4%, p < 0.01). The main source of infection in small practices was the private environment, and this was even more significant in large practices (81.8% vs. 89.7%, p < 0.01). The procedure count either remained stable (34.0% of small practices vs. 46.2% of large practices) or decreased by up to 50% (52.6% of small practices vs. 44.4% of large practices). Revenue remained stable (24.8% of small practices vs. 34.2% of large practices) or decreased by up to 50% (64.5% of small practices vs. 55.3% of large practices, p = 0.03). Overall, employee numbers remained stable (75.5% of small practices vs. 76.8% of large practices). A vaccination readiness of 60–100% was shown in 60.5% (n = 405) of large practices and 59.9% (n = 251) of small practices. (4) Conclusion: Pre-interventional testing in dental practices should be increased further. Economic challenges affected small practices as well as large practices. Overall, a steady employee count could be maintained. Vaccination readiness is high in dental practices, although with some room for improvement.

Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic has affected healthcare systems worldwide. Data on the impact on otolaryngological clinics and private practices is sparse. This study aimed to present data on healthcare worker (HCW) screening, status of HCW, pre-interventional testing, the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the economic impact of the pandemic. Methods Otolaryngological private practices and hospital-based departments were surveyed nationwide using an online questionnaire. Participating facilities were recruited via the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology and the German Association for Otolaryngologists in Bavaria. Results 365 private practices (2776 employees) and 65 hospitals (2333 employees) were included. Significantly more hospitals (68.7%) than practices (40.5%) performed pre-interventional testing in their outpatients (p < 0.00). Most inpatients were tested in practices and hospitals (100.0% and 95.0%; p = 0.08). HCW screening was performed in 73.7% of practices and in 77.3% of hospitals (p = 0.54). Significantly more HCW infections were reported in private practices (4.7%) than in hospital (3.6%; p = 0.03). The private or home environment was the most frequent source of infection among HCW in hospitals (44%) and practices (63%). The use of PPE increased over the course of the pandemic. The number of procedures and the revenue decreased in 2020. ConclusionThe rate of pre-interventional testing among outpatients in otolaryngological practices is low and HCW infections were found to be more frequent in practices than in hospitals. In addition, a high rate of infections in otolaryngological HCW seems to stem from the private or home environment.