Background Post-COVID-Fatigue (PCF) is one of the most reported symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Currently, research on persistent symptoms focuses mainly on severe infections, while outpatients are rarely included in observations. Objective To investigate whether the severity of PCF is related to the number of acute and persistent symptoms due to mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and to compare the most common symptoms during acute infection with the persistent symptoms in PCF patients. Methods A total of 425 participants were examined after COVID-19 treated as an outpatient (median 249 days [IQR: 135; 322] after acute disease) at the site of University Hospital Augsburg, Germany. The Fatigue Assessment Scale (FAS) was used to quantify the severity of PCF. The number of symptoms (maximum 41) during acute infection and persistent symptoms (during the last 14 days before examination) were added up to sum scores. Multivariable linear regression models were used to show the association between the number of symptoms and PCF. Results Of the 425 participants, 37% (n = 157) developed PCF; most were women (70%). The median number of symptoms was significantly higher in the PCF group than in the non-PCF group at both time points. In multivariable linear regression models, both sum scores were associated with PCF (acute symptoms: β-estimate per additional symptom [95%-CI]: 0.48 [0.39; 0.57], p < 0.0001); persistent symptoms: β-estimate per additional symptom [95%-CI]: 1.18 [1.02; 1.34], p < 0.0001). The acute symptoms strongest associated with PCF severity were difficulty concentrating, memory problems, dyspnea or shortness of breath on exertion, palpitations, and problems with movement coordination. Conclusion Each additional symptom that occurs in COVID-19 increases the likelihood of suffering a higher severity of PCF. Further research is needed to identify the aetiology of PCF. Trial registration: Nr. NCT04615026. Date of registration: November 4, 2020.

Despite the need to generate valid and reliable estimates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe course of COVID-19 for the German population in summer 2022, there was a lack of systematically collected population-based data allowing for the assessment of the protection level in real-time. In the IMMUNEBRIDGE project, we harmonised data and biosamples for nine population-/hospital-based studies (total number of participants n=33,637) to provide estimates for protection levels against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 between June and November 2022. Based on evidence synthesis, we formed a combined endpoint of protection levels based on the number of self-reported infections/vaccinations in combination with nucleocapsid/spike antibody responses ("confirmed exposures"). Four confirmed exposures represented the highest protection level, and no exposure represented the lowest. Most participants were seropositive against the spike antigen; 37% of the participants ≥79 years had less than four confirmed exposures (highest level of protection) and 5% less than three. In the subgroup of participants with comorbidities, 46-56% had less than four confirmed exposures. We found major heterogeneity across federal states, with 4%-28% of participants having less than three confirmed exposures. Using serological analyses, literature synthesis and infection dynamics during the survey period, we observed moderate to high levels of protection against severe COVID-19, whereas the protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection was low across all age groups. We found relevant protection gaps in the oldest age group and amongst individuals with comorbidities, indicating a need for additional protective measures in these groups.

Background Early mobilization can help reduce severe side effects such as muscle atrophy that occur during hospitalization. However, due to time and staff shortages in intensive and critical care as well as safety risks for patients, it is often difficult to adhere to the recommended therapy time of twenty minutes twice a day. New robotic technologies might be one approach to achieve early mobilization effectively for patients and also relieve users from physical effort. Nevertheless, currently there is a lack of knowledge regarding the factors that are important for integrating of these technologies into complex treatment settings like intensive care units or rehabilitation units. Methods European experts from science, technical development and end-users of robotic systems (n = 13) were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guideline to identify barriers and facilitating factors for the integration of robotic systems into daily clinical practice. They were asked about structural, personnel and environmental factors that had an impact on integration and how they had solved challenges. A latent content analysis was performed regarding the COREQ criteria. Results We found relevant factors regarding the development, introduction, and routine of the robotic system. In this context, costs, process adjustments, a lack of exemptions, and a lack of support from the manufacturers/developers were identified as challenges. Easy handling, joint decision making between the end-users and the decision makers in the hospital, an accurate process design and the joint development of the robotic system of end-users and technical experts were found to be facilitating factors. Conclusion The integration and preparation for the integration of robotic assistance systems into the inpatient setting is a complex intervention that involves many parties. This study provides evidence for hospitals or manufacturers to simplify the planning of integrations for permanent use. Trial registration DRKS-ID: DRKS00023848; registered 10/12/2020.

Zusammenfassung. Hintergrund: Intensivpatient_innen sind oft einer langen Immobilität ausgesetzt. Wenn sie aber frühzeitig mobilisiert werden, lassen sich positive Effekte auf ihr Outcome, wie z.B. eine Verbesserung der körperlichen Funktion, nachweisen. Einer der Gründe für die späte Mobilisation ist, dass zu wenig Hilfsmittel zur Verfügung stehen. Fragestellungen/Ziel: Dieser Beitrag gibt einen Überblick über den Einsatz von robotischen oder technischen Systemen als Hilfsmittel für die Frühmobilisation. Welche robotischen und technischen Hilfsmittel werden in Studien zur Frühmobilisation von erwachsenen Intensivpatient_innen durch Pflegefachpersonen oder Physiotherapeut_innen untersucht? Über welche Effekte von Frühmobilisation mittels robotischem und technischem System auf die Patientenoutcomes wird in den Studien berichtet? Methoden: Die Datenbanken Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, IEEE Xplore, Scopus und WTI wurden zwischen Mai und Juli 2020 und im Januar 2022 systematisch durchsucht. Zusätzlich wurde im ersten Suchlauf eine Randsuche über GoogleScolar und ResearchGate durchgeführt. Ergebnisse: Es wurden 27 Veröffentlichungen eingeschlossen (9 RCTs, 7 Expertenmeinungen, 3 quantitative Querschnittstudien, 2 Fall-Kontroll-Studien, 2 Literaturreviews, 2 klinische Einzelfallstudien, 2 Interventionsstudien im Prä-Post-Design). Hier zeigte sich, dass als Hilfsmittel vor allem elektronische Bettfahrräder und Kipptische eingesetzt werden. Es war eine uneinheitliche Datenlage in Bezug auf verschiedene Patientenoutcomes nachweisbar. Schlussfolgerungen: Weitere Forschung zum Einsatz von technischen und robotischen Systemen zur Frühmobilisation ist vor allem in Bezug auf unterschiedliche Studienpopulationen notwendig. Frühmobilisationsrobotik ist noch nicht Teil der Regelversorgung.