Mörer, Onnen

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","The Lancet Infectious Diseases"],["dc.contributor.author","Arora, Prerna"],["dc.contributor.author","Nehlmeier, Inga"],["dc.contributor.author","Kempf, Amy"],["dc.contributor.author","Cossmann, Anne"],["dc.contributor.author","Schulz, Sebastian R"],["dc.contributor.author","Dopfer-Jablonka, Alexandra"],["dc.contributor.author","Baier, Eva"],["dc.contributor.author","Tampe, Björn"],["dc.contributor.author","Moerer, Onnen"],["dc.contributor.author","Dickel, Steffen"],["dc.contributor.author","Hoffmann, Markus"],["dc.date.accessioned","2022-10-04T10:21:46Z"],["dc.date.available","2022-10-04T10:21:46Z"],["dc.date.issued","2022"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00591-6"],["dc.identifier.pii","S1473309922005916"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/114495"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI-Import GROB-600"],["dc.relation.issn","1473-3099"],["dc.rights.uri","https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/"],["dc.title","Lung cell entry, cell–cell fusion capacity, and neutralisation sensitivity of omicron sublineage BA.2.75"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Deutsches Ärzteblatt international"],["dc.contributor.author","Struwe, Claudia"],["dc.contributor.author","Golinski, Martin"],["dc.contributor.author","Grimm, Clemens"],["dc.contributor.author","Dickel, Steffen"],["dc.contributor.author","Grummich, Kathrin"],["dc.contributor.author","Nothacker, Monika"],["dc.contributor.author","Voigt-Radloff, Sebastian"],["dc.contributor.author","Meerpohl, Jörg"],["dc.contributor.author","Moerer, Onnen"],["dc.date.accessioned","2022-06-01T09:39:50Z"],["dc.date.available","2022-06-01T09:39:50Z"],["dc.date.issued","2022"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0006"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/108573"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI-Import GROB-572"],["dc.relation.eissn","1866-0452"],["dc.title","A comparison and evaluation of international guidelines on the treatment of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","3363"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","15"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Journal of Clinical Medicine"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","10"],["dc.contributor.author","Dickel, Steffen"],["dc.contributor.author","Grimm, Clemens"],["dc.contributor.author","Popp, Maria"],["dc.contributor.author","Struwe, Claudia"],["dc.contributor.author","Sachkova, Alexandra"],["dc.contributor.author","Golinski, Martin"],["dc.contributor.author","Seeber, Christian"],["dc.contributor.author","Fichtner, Falk"],["dc.contributor.author","Heise, Daniel"],["dc.contributor.author","Kranke, Peter"],["dc.contributor.author","Moerer, Onnen"],["dc.contributor.authorgroup","on behalf of the German CEOsys Study Group"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-09-01T06:43:05Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-09-01T06:43:05Z"],["dc.date.issued","2021"],["dc.description.abstract","Introduction: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has recently dominated scientific literature. Incomplete understanding and a lack of data concerning the pathophysiology, epidemiology, and optimal treatment of the disease has resulted in conflicting recommendations. Adherence to existing guidelines and actual treatment strategies have thus far not been studied systematically. We hypothesized that capturing the variance in care would lead to the discovery of aspects that need further research and—in case of proven benefits of interventions not being performed—better communication to care providers. Methods: This article is based on a quantitative and qualitative cross-sectional mixed-methods online survey among intensive-care physicians in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic by the CEOsys (COVID-19 Evidence Ecosystem) network, endorsed by the German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (DIVI) conducted from December 3 to 31 December 2020. Results: We identified several areas of care with an especially high variance in treatment among hospitals in Germany. Crucially, 51.5% of the participating ICUs (n = 205) reported using intubation as a last resort for respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, while 21.8% used intubation early after admission. Furthermore, 11.5% considered extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in awake patients. Finally, 72.3% of respondents used the ARDS-network-table to titrate positive end-expiratory-pressure (PEEP) levels, with 36.9% choosing the low-PEEP table and 41.8% the high-PEEP table. Conclusions: We found that significant differences exist between reported treatment strategies and that adherence to published guidelines is variable. We describe necessary steps for future research based on our results highlighting significant clinical variability in care."],["dc.description.abstract","Introduction: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has recently dominated scientific literature. Incomplete understanding and a lack of data concerning the pathophysiology, epidemiology, and optimal treatment of the disease has resulted in conflicting recommendations. Adherence to existing guidelines and actual treatment strategies have thus far not been studied systematically. We hypothesized that capturing the variance in care would lead to the discovery of aspects that need further research and—in case of proven benefits of interventions not being performed—better communication to care providers. Methods: This article is based on a quantitative and qualitative cross-sectional mixed-methods online survey among intensive-care physicians in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic by the CEOsys (COVID-19 Evidence Ecosystem) network, endorsed by the German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (DIVI) conducted from December 3 to 31 December 2020. Results: We identified several areas of care with an especially high variance in treatment among hospitals in Germany. Crucially, 51.5% of the participating ICUs (n = 205) reported using intubation as a last resort for respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, while 21.8% used intubation early after admission. Furthermore, 11.5% considered extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in awake patients. Finally, 72.3% of respondents used the ARDS-network-table to titrate positive end-expiratory-pressure (PEEP) levels, with 36.9% choosing the low-PEEP table and 41.8% the high-PEEP table. Conclusions: We found that significant differences exist between reported treatment strategies and that adherence to published guidelines is variable. We describe necessary steps for future research based on our results highlighting significant clinical variability in care."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.3390/jcm10153363"],["dc.identifier.pii","jcm10153363"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/89216"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI-Import GROB-455"],["dc.relation.eissn","2077-0383"],["dc.title","A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Online Survey on the Treatment of COVID-19-ARDS: High Variance in Standard of Care in German ICUs"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","14057"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","22"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","International Journal of Molecular Sciences"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","23"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Arora, Prerna; 1Infection Biology Unit, German Primate Center—Leibniz Institute for Primate Research, Kellnerweg 4, 37077 Göttingen, Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Zhang, Lu; 1Infection Biology Unit, German Primate Center—Leibniz Institute for Primate Research, Kellnerweg 4, 37077 Göttingen, Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Rocha, Cheila; 1Infection Biology Unit, German Primate Center—Leibniz Institute for Primate Research, Kellnerweg 4, 37077 Göttingen, Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Graichen, Luise; 1Infection Biology Unit, German Primate Center—Leibniz Institute for Primate Research, Kellnerweg 4, 37077 Göttingen, Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Nehlmeier, Inga; 1Infection Biology Unit, German Primate Center—Leibniz Institute for Primate Research, Kellnerweg 4, 37077 Göttingen, Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Kempf, Amy; 1Infection Biology Unit, German Primate Center—Leibniz Institute for Primate Research, Kellnerweg 4, 37077 Göttingen, Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Cossmann, Anne; 3Department for Rheumatology and Immunology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Ramos, Gema Morillas; 3Department for Rheumatology and Immunology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Baier, Eva; 5Department of Nephrology and Rheumatology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Straße 40, 37075 Göttingen, Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Tampe, Björn; 5Department of Nephrology and Rheumatology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Straße 40, 37075 Göttingen, Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Moerer, Onnen; 6Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Straße 40, 37075 Göttingen, Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Dickel, Steffen; 6Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Straße 40, 37075 Göttingen, Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Winkler, Martin S.; 6Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Straße 40, 37075 Göttingen, Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Behrens, Georg M. N.; 3Department for Rheumatology and Immunology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Pöhlmann, Stefan; 1Infection Biology Unit, German Primate Center—Leibniz Institute for Primate Research, Kellnerweg 4, 37077 Göttingen, Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Hoffmann, Markus; 1Infection Biology Unit, German Primate Center—Leibniz Institute for Primate Research, Kellnerweg 4, 37077 Göttingen, Germany"],["dc.contributor.author","Arora, Prerna"],["dc.contributor.author","Zhang, Lu"],["dc.contributor.author","Rocha, Cheila"],["dc.contributor.author","Graichen, Luise"],["dc.contributor.author","Nehlmeier, Inga"],["dc.contributor.author","Kempf, Amy"],["dc.contributor.author","Cossmann, Anne"],["dc.contributor.author","Ramos, Gema Morillas"],["dc.contributor.author","Baier, Eva"],["dc.contributor.author","Tampe, Björn"],["dc.contributor.author","Moerer, Onnen"],["dc.contributor.author","Dickel, Steffen"],["dc.contributor.author","Winkler, Martin S."],["dc.contributor.author","Behrens, Georg M. N."],["dc.contributor.author","Pöhlmann, Stefan"],["dc.contributor.author","Hoffmann, Markus"],["dc.date.accessioned","2022-12-07T15:52:24Z"],["dc.date.available","2022-12-07T15:52:24Z"],["dc.date.issued","2022-11-14"],["dc.date.updated","2022-12-07T13:05:30Z"],["dc.description.abstract","Recently, a recombinant SARS-CoV-2 lineage, XD, emerged that harbors a spike gene that is largely derived from the Omicron variant BA.1 in the genetic background of the Delta variant. This finding raised concerns that the recombinant virus might exhibit altered biological properties as compared to the parental viruses and might pose an elevated threat to human health. Here, using pseudotyped particles, we show that ACE2 binding and cell tropism of XD mimics that of BA.1. Further, XD and BA.1 displayed comparable sensitivity to neutralization by antibodies induced upon vaccination with BNT162b2/Comirnaty (BNT) or BNT vaccination followed by breakthrough infection. Our findings reveal important biological commonalities between XD and Omicron BA.1 host cell entry and its inhibition by antibodies."],["dc.description.sponsorship","German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung)"],["dc.description.sponsorship","Ministry for Science and Culture of Lower Saxony (Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Kultur)"],["dc.description.sponsorship","German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft)"],["dc.description.sponsorship","German Center for Infection Research"],["dc.description.sponsorship","European Commission via the EU UNDINE project"],["dc.description.sponsorship","European Regional Development Fund"],["dc.description.sponsorship","Sartorius AG (unrestricted funding, MSW)"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.3390/ijms232214057"],["dc.identifier.pii","ijms232214057"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/118476"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI-Import GROB-621"],["dc.relation.eissn","1422-0067"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.title","The SARS-CoV-2 Delta-Omicron Recombinant Lineage (XD) Exhibits Immune-Escape Properties Similar to the Omicron (BA.1) Variant"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Frontiers in Immunology"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","12"],["dc.contributor.author","Dickel, Steffen"],["dc.contributor.author","Grimm, Clemens"],["dc.contributor.author","Amschler, Katharina"],["dc.contributor.author","Schnitzler, Sebastian Uwe"],["dc.contributor.author","Schanz, Julie"],["dc.contributor.author","Moerer, Onnen"],["dc.contributor.author","Payen, Didier"],["dc.contributor.author","Tampe, Bjoern"],["dc.contributor.author","Winkler, Martin Sebastian"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-06-01T09:42:24Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-06-01T09:42:24Z"],["dc.date.issued","2021"],["dc.description.abstract","Background The major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II characterized by monocytes CD14+ expression of human leukocyte antigen receptors (HLA-DR), is essential for the synapse between innate and adaptive immune response in infectious disease. Its reduced expression is associated with a high risk of secondary infections in septic patients and can be safely corrected by Interferon-y (IFNy) injection. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) induces an alteration of Interferon (IFN) genes expression potentially responsible for the observed low HLA-DR expression in circulating monocytes (mHLA-DR). Methods We report a case of one-time INFy injection (100 mcg s.c.) in a superinfected 61-year-old man with COVID-19–associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), with monitoring of mHLA-DR expression and clinical tolerance. Observations Low mHLA-DR pretreatment expression (26.7%) was observed. IFNy therapy leading to a rapid increase in mHLA-DR expression (83.1%). Conclusions Severe ARDS in a COVID-19 patient has a deep reduction in mHLA-DR expression concomitantly with secondary infections. The unique IFNy injection was safe and led to a sharp increase in the expression of mHLA-DR. Based on immune and infection monitoring, more cases of severe COVID-19 patients with low mHLA-DR should be treated by IFNy to test the clinical effectiveness."],["dc.description.sponsorship","Open-Access-Publikationsfonds 2021"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.3389/fimmu.2021.645124"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/17848"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/85242"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI-Import GROB-425"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.publisher","Frontiers Media S.A."],["dc.relation.eissn","1664-3224"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.title","Case Report: Interferon-γ Restores Monocytic Human Leukocyte Antigen Receptor (mHLA-DR) in Severe COVID-19 With Acquired Immunosuppression Syndrome"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Der Anaesthesist"],["dc.contributor.author","Seeber, Christian"],["dc.contributor.author","Popp, Maria"],["dc.contributor.author","Meerpohl, Joerg J."],["dc.contributor.author","Fichtner, Falk"],["dc.contributor.author","Werner, Anne"],["dc.contributor.author","Schmaderer, Christoph"],["dc.contributor.author","Holzmann-Littig, Christopher"],["dc.contributor.author","Dickel, Steffen"],["dc.contributor.author","Grimm, Clemens"],["dc.contributor.author","Moerer, Onnen"],["dc.contributor.author","Wijnen-Meijer, Marjo"],["dc.contributor.authorgroup","AP6 CEOsys"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-10-01T09:58:50Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-10-01T09:58:50Z"],["dc.date.issued","2021"],["dc.description.abstract","Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Das COVID-19-Evidenz-Ökosystem (CEOsys) identifiziert, bewertet und fasst Ergebnisse wissenschaftlicher Studien in Evidenzsynthesen im Kontext von COVID-19 zusammen. Diese Evidenzsynthesen werden genutzt, um konkrete Handlungsempfehlungen abzuleiten und Leitlinien zu erstellen. Zielsetzung Vorbereitung der am besten geeigneten Verteilung von Evidenzsynthesen im Rahmen der Aufgaben des CEOsys-Projekts. Methode Für Deutschland wurde eine Befragung hinsichtlich des intensivmedizinischen Personals priorisierter Themenbereiche, Wünschen zu Layout, Plattform der Bekanntmachung von Evidenzsynthesen und Vertrauenswürdigkeit von Institutionen mit kategorialen Antwortmöglichkeiten durchgeführt. Die Umfrage erfolgte online und wurde per E‑Mail lokal und über die DIVI verteilt. Ergebnisse Von 317 Befragten, die die Umfrage starteten, vervollständigten 200 den Fragebogen. Knappe Zeit und fehlender Zugriff, unzureichende Erfahrung bzw. Unsicherheit im Umgang mit Evidenzsynthesen wurden als Barriere für Wissenserwerb benannt. Das aktive Herantragen von Informationen wird bevorzugt („Push-Strategie“). Als Format werden Kurzversion, Übersichten mit Algorithmen und Webinare prioritär gewünscht. Webseiten öffentlicher Einrichtungen, Fachjournalartikel und E‑Mail-Newsletter sollen auf neue Evidenz aufmerksam machen. Fachgesellschaften und dem Robert Koch Institut werden in der Pandemie mehrheitlich Vertrauen geschenkt. Priorisierte Themen der Befragten sind Langzeitfolgen der Erkrankung, Schutz des medizinischen Personals und Invasivität der Beatmungstherapie. Schlussfolgerung Evidenzsynthesen sollten aktiv an Zielgruppen herangetragen werden. Inhalte sollten übersichtlich, kurz (Algorithmen, Kurzversion, Webinare) und frei verfügbar sein. Webseiten, E‑Mail-Newsletter und medizinische Journale, aber auch Fachgesellschaften und das Robert Koch-Institut sollten auf Evidenzsynthesen hinweisen."],["dc.description.abstract","Abstract Background In the context of COVID-19, the German CEOsys project (COVID-19 Evidenz Ökosystem, www.covid-evidenz.de ) identifies, evaluates and summarizes the results of scientific studies to obtain evidence on this disease. The evidence syntheses are used to derive specific recommendations for clinical practice and to contribute to national guidelines. Besides the necessity of conducting good quality evidence syntheses during a pandemic, just as important is that the dissemination of evidence needs to be quick and efficient, especially in a health crisis. The CEOsys project has set itself this challenge. Objective Preparing the most suitable distribution of evidence syntheses as part of the CEOsys project tasks. Methods Intensive care unit (ICU) personnel in Germany were surveyed via categorical and free text questions. The survey focused on the following topics: evidence syntheses, channels and strategies of distribution, possibility of feedback, structure and barriers of dissemination and trustworthiness of various organizations. Profession, qualification, setting and size of the facility were recorded. Questionnaires were pretested throughout the queried professions (physician, nurse, others). The survey was anonymously carried out online through SosciSurvey® and an e‑mail was sent directly to 940 addresses. The survey was launched on 3 December, a reminder was sent after 14 days and it ended on 31 December. The survey was also announced via e‑mail through DIVI. Results Of 317 respondents 200 completed the questionnaire. All information was analyzed including the responses from incomplete questionnaires. The most stated barriers were lack of time and access. Especially residents and nurses without specialization in intensive care mentioned uncertainty or insufficient experience in dealing with evidence syntheses as a barrier. Active distribution of evidence syntheses was clearly preferred. More than half of the participants chose websites of public institutions, medical journals, professional societies and e‑mail newsletters for drawing attention to new evidence syntheses. Short versions, algorithms and webinars were the most preferred strategies for dissemination. Trust in organizations supplying information on the COVID-19 pandemic was given to professional societies and the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) as the German governmental institute for infections and public health. The respondents\\‘ prioritized topics are long-term consequences of the disease, protection of medical personnel against infection and possibilities of ventilation treatment. Conclusion Even though universally valid, evidence syntheses should be actively brought to the target audience, especially during a health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic with its exceptional challenges including lack of time and uncertainties in patient care. The contents should be clear, short (short versions, algorithms) and with free access. E‑mail newsletters, websites or medical journals should continuously report on new evidence syntheses. Professional societies and the governmental institute for infections and public health should be involved in dissemination due to their obvious trustworthiness."],["dc.description.abstract","Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Das COVID-19-Evidenz-Ökosystem (CEOsys) identifiziert, bewertet und fasst Ergebnisse wissenschaftlicher Studien in Evidenzsynthesen im Kontext von COVID-19 zusammen. Diese Evidenzsynthesen werden genutzt, um konkrete Handlungsempfehlungen abzuleiten und Leitlinien zu erstellen. Zielsetzung Vorbereitung der am besten geeigneten Verteilung von Evidenzsynthesen im Rahmen der Aufgaben des CEOsys-Projekts. Methode Für Deutschland wurde eine Befragung hinsichtlich des intensivmedizinischen Personals priorisierter Themenbereiche, Wünschen zu Layout, Plattform der Bekanntmachung von Evidenzsynthesen und Vertrauenswürdigkeit von Institutionen mit kategorialen Antwortmöglichkeiten durchgeführt. Die Umfrage erfolgte online und wurde per E‑Mail lokal und über die DIVI verteilt. Ergebnisse Von 317 Befragten, die die Umfrage starteten, vervollständigten 200 den Fragebogen. Knappe Zeit und fehlender Zugriff, unzureichende Erfahrung bzw. Unsicherheit im Umgang mit Evidenzsynthesen wurden als Barriere für Wissenserwerb benannt. Das aktive Herantragen von Informationen wird bevorzugt („Push-Strategie“). Als Format werden Kurzversion, Übersichten mit Algorithmen und Webinare prioritär gewünscht. Webseiten öffentlicher Einrichtungen, Fachjournalartikel und E‑Mail-Newsletter sollen auf neue Evidenz aufmerksam machen. Fachgesellschaften und dem Robert Koch Institut werden in der Pandemie mehrheitlich Vertrauen geschenkt. Priorisierte Themen der Befragten sind Langzeitfolgen der Erkrankung, Schutz des medizinischen Personals und Invasivität der Beatmungstherapie. Schlussfolgerung Evidenzsynthesen sollten aktiv an Zielgruppen herangetragen werden. Inhalte sollten übersichtlich, kurz (Algorithmen, Kurzversion, Webinare) und frei verfügbar sein. Webseiten, E‑Mail-Newsletter und medizinische Journale, aber auch Fachgesellschaften und das Robert Koch-Institut sollten auf Evidenzsynthesen hinweisen."],["dc.description.abstract","Abstract Background In the context of COVID-19, the German CEOsys project (COVID-19 Evidenz Ökosystem, www.covid-evidenz.de ) identifies, evaluates and summarizes the results of scientific studies to obtain evidence on this disease. The evidence syntheses are used to derive specific recommendations for clinical practice and to contribute to national guidelines. Besides the necessity of conducting good quality evidence syntheses during a pandemic, just as important is that the dissemination of evidence needs to be quick and efficient, especially in a health crisis. The CEOsys project has set itself this challenge. Objective Preparing the most suitable distribution of evidence syntheses as part of the CEOsys project tasks. Methods Intensive care unit (ICU) personnel in Germany were surveyed via categorical and free text questions. The survey focused on the following topics: evidence syntheses, channels and strategies of distribution, possibility of feedback, structure and barriers of dissemination and trustworthiness of various organizations. Profession, qualification, setting and size of the facility were recorded. Questionnaires were pretested throughout the queried professions (physician, nurse, others). The survey was anonymously carried out online through SosciSurvey® and an e‑mail was sent directly to 940 addresses. The survey was launched on 3 December, a reminder was sent after 14 days and it ended on 31 December. The survey was also announced via e‑mail through DIVI. Results Of 317 respondents 200 completed the questionnaire. All information was analyzed including the responses from incomplete questionnaires. The most stated barriers were lack of time and access. Especially residents and nurses without specialization in intensive care mentioned uncertainty or insufficient experience in dealing with evidence syntheses as a barrier. Active distribution of evidence syntheses was clearly preferred. More than half of the participants chose websites of public institutions, medical journals, professional societies and e‑mail newsletters for drawing attention to new evidence syntheses. Short versions, algorithms and webinars were the most preferred strategies for dissemination. Trust in organizations supplying information on the COVID-19 pandemic was given to professional societies and the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) as the German governmental institute for infections and public health. The respondents\\‘ prioritized topics are long-term consequences of the disease, protection of medical personnel against infection and possibilities of ventilation treatment. Conclusion Even though universally valid, evidence syntheses should be actively brought to the target audience, especially during a health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic with its exceptional challenges including lack of time and uncertainties in patient care. The contents should be clear, short (short versions, algorithms) and with free access. E‑mail newsletters, websites or medical journals should continuously report on new evidence syntheses. Professional societies and the governmental institute for infections and public health should be involved in dissemination due to their obvious trustworthiness."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1007/s00101-021-01037-z"],["dc.identifier.pii","1037"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/90154"],["dc.language.iso","de"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-469"],["dc.relation.eissn","1432-055X"],["dc.relation.issn","0003-2417"],["dc.title","COVID-19-Pandemie: Präferenzen und Barrieren für die Disseminierung von Evidenzsynthesen"],["dc.title.alternative","Befragung des intensivmedizinischen Personals in Deutschland"],["dc.title.translated","COVID-19 pandemic: preferences and barriers for dissemination of evidence syntheses"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","753849"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Frontiers in Immunology"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","12"],["dc.contributor.author","Grimm, Clemens"],["dc.contributor.author","Dickel, Steffen"],["dc.contributor.author","Grundmann, Julian"],["dc.contributor.author","Payen, Didier"],["dc.contributor.author","Schanz, Julie"],["dc.contributor.author","Zautner, Andreas Erich"],["dc.contributor.author","Tampe, Björn"],["dc.contributor.author","Moerer, Onnen"],["dc.contributor.author","Winkler, Martin Sebastian"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-12-01T09:22:40Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-12-01T09:22:40Z"],["dc.date.issued","2021"],["dc.description.abstract","Background CD14+ monocytes present antigens to adaptive immune cells via monocytic human leukocyte antigen receptor (mHLA-DR), which is described as an immunological synapse. Reduced levels of mHLA-DR can display an acquired immune defect, which is often found in sepsis and predisposes for secondary infections and fatal outcomes. Monocytic HLA-DR expression is reliably induced by interferon- γ (IFNγ) therapy. Case Report We report a case of multidrug-resistant superinfected COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support. The resistance profiles of the detected Klebsiella pneumoniae , Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii and Citrobacter freundii isolates were equipped with resistance to all four antibiotic classes including carbapenems (4MRGN) and Cefiderocol in the case of K. pneumoniae . A causal therapeutic antibiotic strategy was not available. Therefore, we measured the immune status of the patient aiming to identify a potential acquired immune deficiency. Monocyte HLA-DR expression identified by FACS analysis revealed an expression level of 34% positive monocytes and suggested severe immunosuppression. We indicated IFNγ therapy, which resulted in a rapid increase in mHLA-DR expression (96%), rapid resolution of invasive bloodstream infection, and discharge from the hospital on day 70. Discussion Superinfection is a dangerous complication of COVID-19 pneumonia, and sepsis-induced immunosuppression is a risk factor for it. Immunosuppression is expressed by a disturbed antigen presentation of monocytes to cells of the adaptive immune system. The case presented here is remarkable as no validated antibiotic regimen existed against the detected bacterial pathogens causing bloodstream infection and severe pneumonia in a patient suffering from COVID-19 ARDS. Possible restoration of the patient’s own immunity by IFNγ was a plausible option to boost the patient’s immune system, eliminate the identified 4MRGNs, and allow for lung recovery. This led to the conclusion that immune status monitoring is useful in complicated COVID-19-ARDS and that concomitant IFNγ therapy may support antibiotic strategies. Conclusion After a compromised immune system has been detected by suppressed mHLA-DR levels, the immune system can be safely reactivated by IFNγ."],["dc.description.sponsorship","Open-Access-Publikationsfonds 2021"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.3389/fimmu.2021.753849"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/94458"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI-Import GROB-478"],["dc.relation.eissn","1664-3224"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.title","Case Report: Interferon- γ Rescues Monocytic Human Leukocyte Antigen Receptor (mHLA-DR) Function in a COVID-19 Patient With ARDS and Superinfection With Multiple MDR 4MRGN Bacterial Strains"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","7"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Healthcare"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","10"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Werner, Anne; 1Department of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Leipzig, 04103 Leipzig, Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Popp, Maria; 3Faculty of Medicine, Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, University of Wuerzburg, 97080 Wuerzburg, Germany; popp_m4@ukw.de (M.P.); kranke_p@ukw.de (P.K.)"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Fichtner, Falk; 4Clinic and Polyclinic for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine, University of Leipzig, 04103 Leipzig, Germany; falk.fichtner@medizin.uni-leipzig.de"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Holzmann-Littig, Christopher; 5TUM Medical Education Center, Faculty of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, 81675 Munich, Germany; christopher.holzmann-littig2@mri.tum.de"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Kranke, Peter; 3Faculty of Medicine, Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, University of Wuerzburg, 97080 Wuerzburg, Germany; popp_m4@ukw.de (M.P.); kranke_p@ukw.de (P.K.)"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Steckelberg, Anke; 2Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Institute of Health and Nursing Science, Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, 06112 Halle, Germany; anke.steckelberg@medizin.uni-halle.de (A.S.); julia.luehnen@uk-halle.de (J.L.); lisa.redlich@student.uni-halle.de (L.M.R.)"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Lühnen, Julia; 2Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Institute of Health and Nursing Science, Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, 06112 Halle, Germany; anke.steckelberg@medizin.uni-halle.de (A.S.); julia.luehnen@uk-halle.de (J.L.); lisa.redlich@student.uni-halle.de (L.M.R.)"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Redlich, Lisa Marie; 2Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Institute of Health and Nursing Science, Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, 06112 Halle, Germany; anke.steckelberg@medizin.uni-halle.de (A.S.); julia.luehnen@uk-halle.de (J.L.); lisa.redlich@student.uni-halle.de (L.M.R.)"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Dickel, Steffen; 7Clinic for Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center of Göttingen, Georg-August-University Göttingen, 37085 Göttingen, Germany; steffen.dickel@med.uni-goettingen.de (S.D.); clemens.grimm@med.uni-goettingen.de (C.G.); omoerer@med.uni-goettingen.de (O.M.)"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Grimm, Clemens; 7Clinic for Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center of Göttingen, Georg-August-University Göttingen, 37085 Göttingen, Germany; steffen.dickel@med.uni-goettingen.de (S.D.); clemens.grimm@med.uni-goettingen.de (C.G.); omoerer@med.uni-goettingen.de (O.M.)"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Moerer, Onnen; 7Clinic for Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center of Göttingen, Georg-August-University Göttingen, 37085 Göttingen, Germany; steffen.dickel@med.uni-goettingen.de (S.D.); clemens.grimm@med.uni-goettingen.de (C.G.); omoerer@med.uni-goettingen.de (O.M.)"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Nothacker, Monika; 8Institute for Medical Knowledge Management c/o Philipps University Marburg, Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany, 35043 Marburg, Germany; nothacker@awmf.org"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Seeber, Christian; 4Clinic and Polyclinic for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine, University of Leipzig, 04103 Leipzig, Germany; falk.fichtner@medizin.uni-leipzig.de"],["dc.contributor.author","Werner, Anne"],["dc.contributor.author","Popp, Maria"],["dc.contributor.author","Fichtner, Falk"],["dc.contributor.author","Holzmann-Littig, Christopher"],["dc.contributor.author","Kranke, Peter"],["dc.contributor.author","Steckelberg, Anke"],["dc.contributor.author","Lühnen, Julia"],["dc.contributor.author","Redlich, Lisa Marie"],["dc.contributor.author","Dickel, Steffen"],["dc.contributor.author","Grimm, Clemens"],["dc.contributor.author","Moerer, Onnen"],["dc.contributor.author","Nothacker, Monika"],["dc.contributor.author","Seeber, Christian"],["dc.date.accessioned","2022-08-03T14:31:20Z"],["dc.date.available","2022-08-03T14:31:20Z"],["dc.date.issued","2022-07-15"],["dc.date.updated","2022-08-03T14:16:33Z"],["dc.description.abstract","Backround: In February 2021, the first formal evidence and consensus-based (S3) guidelines for the inpatient treatment of patients with COVID-19 were published in Germany and have been updated twice during 2021. The aim of the present study is to re-evaluate the dissemination pathways and strategies for ICU staff (first evaluation in December 2020 when previous versions of consensus-based guidelines (S2k) were published) and question selected aspects of guideline adherence of standard care for patients with COVID-19 in the ICU. Methods: We conducted an anonymous online survey among German intensive care staff from 11 October 2021 to 11 November 2021. We distributed the survey via e-mail in intensive care facilities and requested redirection to additional intensive care staff (snowball sampling). Results: There was a difference between the professional groups in the number, selection and qualitative assessment of information sources about COVID-19. Standard operating procedures were most frequently used by all occupational groups and received a high quality rating. Physicians preferred sources for active information search (e.g., medical journals), while nurses predominantly used passive consumable sources (e.g., every-day media). Despite differences in usage behaviour, the sources were rated similarly in terms of the quality of the information on COVID-19. The trusted organizations have not changed over time. The use of guidelines was frequently stated and highly recommended. The majority of the participants reported guideline-compliant treatment. Nevertheless, there were certain variations in the use of medication as well as the criteria chosen for discontinuing non-invasive ventilation (NIV) compared to guideline recommendations. Conclusions: An adequate external source of information for nursing staff is lacking, the usual sources of physicians are only appropriate for the minority of nursing staff. The self-reported use of guidelines is high."],["dc.description.sponsorship","Network of University Medicine (Nationales Forschungsnetzwerk der Universitätsmedizin (NUM)) by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF))"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.3390/healthcare10071315"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/112603"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.relation.eissn","2227-9032"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.title","COVID-19 Intensive Care—Evaluation of Public Information Sources and Current Standards of Care in German Intensive Care Units: A Cross Sectional Online Survey on Intensive Care Staff in Germany"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]