Purpose: Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) offers several key advantages, including enhanced patient quality of life, reduced healthcare costs, and a potential reduction of nosocomial infections. It is acknowledged for its safety and effectiveness. This study provides the first systematic clinical data for Germany, where OPAT has not yet been widely adopted. The aim is to establish a foundational reference point for further research and integration of OPAT into the German healthcare system. Methods: This prospective observational study descriptively analyses data obtained from a cohort of patients receiving OPAT. Both in- and outpatients from all medical specialties could be recruited. Patients administered the anti-infective medications themselves at home using elastomeric pumps. Results: 77 patients received OPAT, with a median duration of 15 days and saving 1782 inpatient days. The most frequently treated entities were orthopaedic infections (n = 20, 26%), S. aureus bloodstream infection (n = 16, 21%) and infectious endocarditis (n = 11, 14%). The most frequently applied drugs were flucloxacillin (n = 18, 23%), penicillin G (n = 13, 17%) and ceftriaxone (n = 10; 13%). Only 5% of patients (n = 4) reported to have missed more than one outpatient dose (max. 3 per patient). Only one catheter-related adverse event required medical intervention, and there were no catheter-related infections. Conclusion: The study demonstrates that OPAT can be safely conducted in Germany. In preparation for its broader implementation, crucial next steps include creating medical guidelines, fostering interdisciplinary and inter-sectoral communication, as well as creating financial and structural regulations that facilitate and encourage the adoption of OPAT. Trial registration number: NCT04002453.

Background: The objective of this study was to identify clinical risk factors for COVID-19 in a German outpatient fever clinic that allow distinction of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients from other patients with flu-like symptoms. Methods: This is a retrospective, single-centre cohort study. Patients were included visiting the fever clinic from 4^th of April 2020 to 15^th of May 2020. Symptoms, comorbidities, and socio-demographic factors were recorded in a standardized fashion. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify risk factors of COVID-19, on the bases of those a model discrimination was assessed using area under the receiver operation curves (AUROC). Results: The final analysis included 930 patients, of which 74 (8%) had COVID-19. Anosmia (OR 10.71; CI 6.07–18.9) and ageusia (OR 9.3; CI 5.36–16.12) were strongly associated with COVID-19. High-risk exposure (OR 12.20; CI 6.80–21.90), especially in the same household (OR 4.14; CI 1.28–13.33), was also correlated; the more household members, especially with flu-like symptoms, the higher the risk of COVID-19. Working in an essential workplace was also associated with COVID-19 (OR 2.35; CI 1.40–3.96), whereas smoking was inversely correlated (OR 0.19; CI 0.08–0.44). A model that considered risk factors like anosmia, ageusia, concomitant of symptomatic household members and smoking well discriminated COVID-19 patients from other patients with flu-like symptoms (AUROC 0.84). Conclusions: We report a set of four readily available clinical parameters that allow the identification of high-risk individuals of COVID-19. Our study will not replace molecular testing but will help guide containment efforts while waiting for test results.

Purpose: The incidence of bone and joint infections is increasing while their treatment remains a challenge. Although guidelines and recommendations exist, evidence is often lacking and treatment complicated by complex clinical presentations and therapeutic options. Interdisciplinary boards shown to improve management of other diseases, seem potentially helpful. We describe the establishment of an osteomyelitis board to show the existing demand for such a platform. Methods: All patients discussed in the board for bone and joint infections between October 2014 and September 2020 were included in this retrospective study. Data were extracted from patient records and analyzed descriptively. Results: A total of 851 requests related to 563 patients were discussed in the board during the study period. After a run-in period of 3 years, a stable number of cases (> 170/year) were discussed, submitted by nearly all hospital departments (22 of 25). Recommendations were mainly related to antibiotic treatment (43%) and to diagnostics (24%). Periprosthetic joint infections were the most frequent entity (33%), followed by native vertebral osteomyelitis and other osteomyelitis. In 3% of requests, suspected infection could be excluded, in 7% further diagnostics were recommended to confirm or rule out infection. Conclusions: A multidisciplinary board for bone and joint infections was successfully established, potentially serving as a template for further boards. Recommendations were mainly related to antibiotic treatment and further diagnostics, highlighting the need for interdisciplinary discussion to individualize and optimize treatment plans based on guidelines. Further research in needed to evaluate impact on morbidity, mortality and costs.

Introduction Caring for an Ebola patient is a known risk factor for disease transmission. In Sierra Leone during the outbreak in 2014/2015, isolation of patients in specialised facilities was not always immediately available and caring for a relative at home was sometimes the only alternative. This study sought to assess population-level protective caregiving intentions, to understand how families cared for their sick and to explore perceived barriers and facilitators influencing caregiving behaviours. Methods Data from a nationwide household survey conducted in December 2014 were used to assess intended protective behaviours if caring for a family member with suspected Ebola. Their association with socio-demographic variables, Ebola-specific knowledge and risk perception was analysed using multilevel logistic regression. To put the results into context, semi-structured interviews with caregivers were conducted in Freetown. Results Ebola-specific knowledge was positively associated with the intention to avoid touching a sick person and their bodily fluids (adjusted OR (AOR) 1.29; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.54) and the intention to take multiple protective measures (AOR 1.38; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.63). Compared with residing in the mostly urban Western Area, respondents from the initial epicentre of the outbreak (Eastern Province) had increased odds to avoid touching a sick person or their body fluids (AOR 4.74; 95% CI 2.55 to 8.81) and to take more than one protective measure (AOR 2.94; 95% CI 1.37 to 6.34). However, interviews revealed that caregivers, who were mostly aware of the risk of transmission and general protective measures, felt constrained by different contextual factors. Withholding care was not seen as an option and there was a perceived lack of practical advice. Conclusions Ebola outbreak responses need to take the sociocultural reality of caregiving and the availability of resources into account, offering adapted and acceptable practical advice. The necessity to care for a loved one when no alternatives exist should not be underestimated.

Echinococcus multilocularis is endemic in Germany. However, alveolar echinococcosis is a rare disease. Most commonly the parasite affects the liver, behaving like a malignant tumour. Bones are affected in less than 2% of cases. We report a case of vertebral osteomyelitis accompanied by recurrent cutaneous fistula formation.