Evaluation of the implementation of WHO infection prevention and control core components in Turkish health care facilities: results from a WHO infection prevention and control assessment framework (IPCAF)-based survey.

BACKGROUND: The core components (CCs) of infection prevention and control (IPC) from World Health Organization (WHO) are crucial for the safety and quality of health care. Our objective was to examine the level of implementation of WHO infection prevention and control core components (IPC CC) in a developing country. We also aimed to evaluate health care-associated infections (HAIs) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in intensive care units (ICUs) in association with implemented IPC CCs. METHODS: Members of the Turkish Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology Specialization Association (EKMUD) were invited to the study via e-mail. Volunteer members of any healt care facilities (HCFs) participated in the study. The investigating doctor of each HCF filled out a questionnaire to collect data on IPC implementations, including the Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF) and HAIs/AMR in ICUs in 2021. RESULTS: A total of 68 HCFs from seven regions in Türkiye and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus participated while 85% of these were tertiary care hospitals. Fifty (73.5%) HCFs had advanced IPC level, whereas 16 (23.5%) of the 68 hospitals had intermediate IPC levels. The hospitals' median (IQR) IPCAF score was 668.8 (125.0) points. Workload, staffing and occupancy (CC7; median 70 points) and multimodal strategies (CC5; median 75 points) had the lowest scores. The limited number of nurses were the most important problems. Hospitals with a bed capacity of > 1000 beds had higher rates of HAIs. Certified IPC specialists, frequent feedback, and enough nurses reduced HAIs. The most common HAIs were central line-associated blood stream infections. Most HAIs were caused by gram negative bacteria, which have a high AMR. CONCLUSIONS: Most HCFs had an advanced level of IPC implementation, for which staffing was an important driver. To further improve care quality and ensure everyone has access to safe care, it is a key element to have enough staff, the availability of certified IPC specialists, and frequent feedback. Although there is a significant decrease in HAI rates compared to previous years, HAI rates are still high and AMR is an important problem. Increasing nurses and reducing workload can prevent HAIs and AMR. Nationwide "Antibiotic Stewardship Programme" should be initiated.

[Humoral Immune Response in Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine: When Should a Booster Dose be Administered?] / Inaktif SARS-CoV-2 Asisi Humoral Immün Yanit: Rapel Doz Ne Zaman Uygulanmalidir?

Vaccination induces the development of long-lasting immunity necessary for a sustained and essential protective antibody response. Understanding how long the humoral immune response induced by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) inactivated vaccine lasts is important to create an effective immunization scheme. This study aimed to detect the first, third, sixth month concentrations and seroconversion rates of the antibodies induced by the inactivated vaccine. The study included 282 healthcare workers who were vaccinated at days 0 and 28 by the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (3 µg/0.5ml). Anti-S-RBD-IgG (receptor binding domain) antibody concentrations and seroconversion rates were examined in vaccinated healthcare workers at the first, third and sixth months after the vaccination. MAGLUMI SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD IgG (CLIA) (Snibe Diagnostics, Chinese) kit was used for the detection of antibodies. The mean age of the healthcare workers was 38.93 ± 10.59 (min= 21-max= 64). After the administration of the second vaccine dose, the participants were found to be reactive for anti-SRBD-IgG antibodies by 98.2% and 97.8% at the first and third months, respectively,. The decrease in the mean plasma concentrations of anti-S-RBD IgG was observed as 56.7% in the cohort with only two doses of the vaccine (first month: 42.4 AU/ml versus third month: 18.2 AU/ml). In the cohort with a history of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prior to the vaccination, the decrease was observed as 25.1% (first month: 58.29 versus third month: 43.64 AU/ml) and at a mean of 57.4 (0-90) days prior to vaccination, the decrease rate was 43.1% (first month: 55.05 AU/ml versus third month: 31.28 AU/ml), keeping more stable in participants infected at a mean of 183.1 (91-330) days prior to vaccination(a decrease of 5.2%; with 62.34 AU/ml at first and 59.08 AU/ml at third months). At the end of the sixth month, antibodies could not be detected in 16.7% of people who (n= 42) received two doses of the inactivated vaccine, and the amount of anti-S-RDB IgG decreased by an average of 52.5% compared to the third month, and by 74.8% compared to the first month. Antibody concentrations at the first, third, and sixth months after the vaccination with two doses of the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine were found to be decreased and at the sixth month, the rate of non-reactive people was 16.7%. As participants who had COVID-19 at a mean of 181 (90-330) days before the vaccination presented with a more stable antibody level, it can be concluded that a booster at months 6-12, resulting in a schedule of 0-1-6 months, is recommended for the inactive SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for effective herd immunity.

Effect of Heterologous Vaccination Strategy on Humoral Response against COVID-19 with CoronaVac plus BNT162b2: A Prospective Cohort Study.

This study aimed to evaluate the mixed and homogeneous application of the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine CoronaVac (CV) and the mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 (BNT). This prospective cohort study included 235 health care workers who had received two prime shots with CoronaVac. They were divided into three cohorts after the third month: Cohort-I (CV/CV); Cohort-II (CV/CV/CV); and Cohort-III (CV/CV/BNT). Anti-S-RBD-IgG and total anti-spike/anti-nucleocapsid-IgG antibody concentrations were examined in vaccinated health workers at the 1st, 3rd, and 6th months following the second dose of the vaccination. The mean age of 235 health care workers who participated in the project was 39.51 ± 10.39 (min-max: 22-64). At the end of the 6th month, no antibodies were detected in 16.7% of Cohort-I participants, and anti-S-RDB IgG levels showed a decrease of 60% compared to the levels of the 3rd month. The antibody concentrations of the 6th month were found to have increased by an average of 5.13 times compared to the 3rd-month levels in Cohort-II and 20.4 times in Cohort-III. The heterologous vaccination strategy "CoronaVac and BNT162b2 regimen" is able to induce a stronger humoral immune response and it will help remove inequalities in the developing world where CoronaVac was the initial prime.

SARS-COV-2 vaccine: first-month results of a six-month follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Various COVID-19 vaccines are being developed around the world. Important questions to be answered regarding vaccines are efficacy, safety, and whether antibodies are protective when used in different communities. This study aimed to determine seroconversion rates of the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in healthcare workers in a hospital and short-term adverse events due to the vaccine. METHODS: The study carried out in Çukurova University, Turkey, comprised of 282 healthcare workers who received two doses of the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine administered in two 3 µg doses, 28 days apart. On day 28, after the second dose, antiS-RBD IgG and total anti-spike and anti-nucleocapsid IgM and IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were detected by using in vitro chemiluminescence immunoassay method. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 39.06±10.65 (min=21, max=65) with 43.6% males and 56.4% females. On day 28, after the second dose, the seroconversion rates were found to be 92.9% for total anti-spike and anti-nucleocapsid IgG and 15.2% for IgM and 98.2% for anti-S-RBD IgG antibodies and having natural COVID-19 prior to vaccination, age and comorbidity were found to be significant factors for immunogenicity. The incidence of at least one adverse event was found as 29.8% after the first dose and 24.1% after the second dose, with the most common adverse events of having pain at the injection site, weakness, fatigue, and headache.

How efficient are facial masks against COVID-19? Evaluating the mask use of various communities one year into the pandemic

Face masks are devices worn over the mouth and nose to protect against splashes, infectious respiratory droplets, or aerosols generated during breathing or coughing according to their filtering capacity. Medical masks, respirators, or cloth masks have been used for source control and for the protection of the exposed. After the first case on March 11, 2020, in Turkey, National COVID-19 Scientific Advisory Board published various contents for the correct use of masks. Medical face masks have been used in healthcare settings for both source control and potential personal protection before the COVID-19 pandemic. Adverse events associated with using masks are very sparse and mainly associated with tight-fitting respirators or dermatitis due to prolonged use and should not be a reason for refusal to use. Studies suggest the use of masks mainly in the healthcare facilities but also in the community for source control of people who have respiratory symptoms of communicable diseases other than COVID-19. They are likely to be acceptable if recommended, particularly in more severe epidemics and pandemics. Metaanalysis, case control, cross sectional, cohort, retrospective, retrospective cross sectional, research, randomized controlled, and controlled comparison studies were reviewed on the protective effect of masks on COVID-19 with laboratory evidence. Optimum use of face masks with additional precautions has been found to be useful controlling the spread of the respiratory viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 in most of the studies and metaanalyses. As a conclusion, the recent evidence in COVID-19 pandemic is consistent with the previous studies which have shown association between face mask use and decreased risk of viral infections, and medical face mask use should be encouraged both for the community and healthcare facilities along with other infection control measures such as hand hygiene, during outbreaks when there is widespread community transmission.

COVID-19 patients' sera induce epithelial mesenchymal transition in cancer cells.

Covid-19 Pneumonia of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic infection, persists to have high disease burden especially in cancer patients. Increased inflammation and thromboembolic processes are blamed to influence cancer patients more than the others but due to lack of knowledge regarding the pathophysiology of the both the virus itself and the response of the host, more basic and translational disease modeling research is needed to understand Cancer-Covid-19 interaction. In this study, serum samples from the patients, who were hospitalized due to Covid-19 pneumonia, applied to different cancer cells and cytotoxicity, motility, proliferation and gene expression analysis were performed. Serum samples derived from healthy volunteers and the fetal bovine serum that is used regularly in cell culture experiments used as controls. Hospitalized Covid-19 patients who had also cancer, were retrospectively screened, and their clinical course were recorded. Overall 12 Patient (PS) and 4 healthy serums (CS) were included in the experiments. PS applied cells showed increased motility in A549 cells as well as lost cell to cell connection in MCF7 and HCT116 cells, and induced expression of VIM, ZEB1 and SNAIL2 mRNA levels. Eight cancer diagnosed patients who were hospitalized due to Covid-19 between April and September 2020 were also reviewed retrospectively, which 5 of them were dead during SARS-CoV-2 infection. Thorax CT images of the 2 patients showed increased metastatic nodules in the lungs as of January 2021. The results of the study indicate that metastasis may be one of the prolonged consequences of COVID-19 pandemic in cancer sufferers.

COVID-19 may enhance risk of thrombosis and hemolysis in the G6PD deficient patients.

COVID-19 has become a major public health problem since December, 2019 and no highly effective drug has been found until now. Numbers of infected people and deaths by COVID-19 are increasing every day worldwide, therefore self-isolation and protection are highly recommended to prevent the spread of the virus and especially to protect major risk groups such as the elderly population and people with comorbidities including diabetes, hypertension, cancer, cardiovascular diseases and metabolic syndrome. On the other hand, young people without any secondary disease have died by COVID-19 as well. In this study we compared two male patients infected by COVID-19 at the same age and one of them was diagnosed with G6PD deficiency. Both COVID-19 and G6PD deficiency enhance the risk of hemolysis and thrombosis. Serum biochemistry, hemogram and immunological parameters showed that risk of hemolysis and thrombosis may increase in the G6PD deficient patient infected by COVID-19.

Physicians' knowledge of potential covid-19 drug-drug interactions: An online survey in turkey.

OBJECTIVES: Given the many medications used to treat novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and its comorbidities and complications, the risk of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) and resulting patient harm is concerning. This study aimed to shed light on physicians' knowledge of potential DDIs related to COVID-19 treatment, to determine the effect of an information brief about these DDIs on their correct response rates, and to identify factors associated with higher levels of knowledge about these DDIs. METHODS: The knowledge of physicians regarding the clinical significance and intervention of 7 common potential DDIs during COVID-19 treatment was evaluated via an online survey. Using a pretest-posttest design, the physicians completed a multiple-choice questionnaire first using their existing knowledge, then received an information brief about the DDIs and completed the same questionnaire again. Pretest and posttest scores were evaluated and factors affecting correct response rates were determined using correlation, regression, and post-hoc analyzes. RESULTS: A total of 244 physicians participated in the survey, 147 (60.2%) of whom were involved in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. After the information brief, there were significant increases in the number of correct responses for both clinical significance and interventions (p < 0.0001). In comparisons of pretest knowledge, physicians involved in the treatment of COVID-19 patients showed significantly higher correct response rate for interventions compared to physicians who had not treated COVID-19 patients (p = 0.003). Post-hoc analysis to compare pretest correct intervention responses among all medical specialties revealed significant differences between infectious diseases and family practice (mean difference: 1.059; p = 0.005) and between internal medicine and family practice (mean difference: 1.771; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Physicians involved in the treatment of COVID-19 patients had more knowledge regarding clinical significance and appropriate management of potential DDIs than those not involved. Therefore, it may be beneficial to organize trainings and issue guidelines about potential DDIs for physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.