Neglecting the neglected: Tobacco cessation support is essential for the management of asthma and COPD.

INTRODUCTION: Asthma and COPD management have a broad framework, and smoking cessation plays an essential role. We examine the management of asthma and COPD patients not only for inhaler treatment options but also for essential interventions, such as smoking cessation support. METHODS: Data were collected cross-sectionally from pulmonology departments of three government hospitals in Türkiye between May and September 2022. Patients aged ≥18 years who had been diagnosed with asthma or COPD for at least a year, were included in the study. The demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients were investigated. Routine cessation interventions were implemented for current smokers, and they were followed via phone calls after one month regarding their quit status and access to cessation clinics. RESULTS: Data from 145 patients with asthma and 148 patients with COPD were analyzed. The rate of current smoking among patients with asthma and COPD was 18.8% and 34.5%, respectively. Current smoking was negatively associated with age (<65 years) and disease duration (years) for both diseases (p<0.05). In addition, for asthmatics, presence of pulmonary disease in the family (OR:0.28, 95% CI: 0.10-0.79) and for COPD patients presence of hospitalization (OR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.07-0.93) were negatively associated with current smoking. After one month, 85.1% of current asthmatic smokers had not tried to call a quitline, while 14.8% had tried to contact a quitline. Among current smoker COPD patients, only 1.9% had visited a smoking cessation clinic. CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco cessation support seems to be neglected in asthma and COPD management. Instead, pulmonologists and patients focus on pharmaceutical treatments, which constitute the other component of care.

Perceived Need for Mental Health Services Among Healthcare Workers During the Coronavirus Disease-19 Pandemic in Turkey: A Multicenter Cross-sectional Study

Background: The coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic has contributed to work-related psychosocial risks in healthcare workers. Aims: To evaluate the perceived need for mental health services and related factors in Turkish healthcare workers practicing in pandemic hospitals. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Data were collected from face-to-face interviews with healthcare workers at 19 pandemic hospitals in 13 provinces between September and November 2021. The study survey included the evaluation of the perceived need for and utilization of mental health services in the previous year, as well as sociodemographic, health-related, and work-related characteristics, the General Health Questionnaire-12, the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQoL-BREF) questionnaire, and the Fear of coronavirus disease-2019 scale (FCV-19S). Results: Of 1,556 participants, 522 (33.5%) reported a perceived need for mental health services, but only 133 (8.5%) reported receiving these services. Multiple logistic regression analysis of the perceived need for mental health services revealed significant relationships with lower age, female sex, being a current smoker, having a chronic disease, having a mental disorder, coronavirus disease-2019 contact within the last three months in settings other than the home or workplace, a positive coronavirus disease-2019 vaccination history, being a physician, being a non-physician healthcare professional, and coronavirus disease-2019 contact within the last three months at work. After adjustment for these characteristics, higher General Health Questionnaire-12 and FCV-19S scores and lower WHOQoL-BREF domain scores were related to the perceived need for mental health services in logistic regression analyses. Conclusion: The findings indicate a substantial need for mental health services amongst Turkish healthcare workers during the pandemic and outline participants' characteristics regarding high-priority groups for the intervention. Future research may focus on developing actions and evaluating their efficiency.

Association of Serum Krebs von den Lungen-6 (KL-6) Levels and Disease Severity in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19.

Objective: We aimed to evaluate Krebs von den Lungen-6 (KL-6) as a possible biomarker in determining disease severity in patients with moderate and severe COVID-19. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study included moderate or severe COVID-19 patients; critically ill patients who were followed up in the intensive care unit were not included. KL-6 level and routine laboratory test measurements were performed on the first day of admission. The patients were also categorized according to their hyperinflammatory state. Results: The study included 92 patients, 56 (61%) women. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) score was 2 in 52.2% of the patients and 3 in 47.8%. KL-6 levels did not significantly differ in disease severity (NIH score 2 vs. 3; p=0.15). Median KL-6 values were 52.7 (29.1) in patients with <2 COVID-19 hyperinflammatory syndrome score (cHIS) and 61.7 (32.2) in patients with cHIS ≥ 2 (p= 0.077). KL-6 values tended to be higher among the patients with lower lymphocyte counts, but the difference was not statistically significant (<1000 mm³/L p=0.006 and higher cHIS scores ≥2 p=0.07). KL-6 values were also higher in the patients with diabetes mellitus compared to the remaining patients (p =0.036). Conclusion: There was no significant association between the serum KL-6 measured at admission and the severity of COVID-19.

Antibiotic Use among Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 and Treated in Three Different Clinics.

Objective: In this study, we aimed to determine and compare the rates of empirical antibiotic use and duration between the chest diseases clinic (CDC), infectious disease clinic (IDC), and internal medicine clinic (IMC) among patients hospitalized because of COVID-19. Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed in a single university hospital. The study included all patients aged 18 years and older hospitalized with a PCR-confirmed COVID-19 between May 30, 2021, and August 30, 2021. Clinical and laboratory findings were recorded from the electronic medical records database. Results: The study included a total of 581 inpatients, of whom 310 (53.4%) were women. Of the 581 patients, 475 (81.8%) were prescribed antibiotics. The rate of antibiotic prescription was 71.6% for IDC, 88.5% for CDC, and 87.4% for IMC. The most commonly used antibiotic was moxifloxacin in all groups. The mean treatment duration was 8.9±6.16 days. The mean duration of antibiotic treatment was 11.1±5.90 days for CDC, 11.3±6.74 days for IMC, and 5.3 days±3.76 for IDC. Conclusion: Patients with COVID-19 who were treated in IDC had a lower rate and shorter duration of antibiotic use compared to the other clinics. However, the rate of antibiotic prescription in all three groups was very high. Therefore, antimicrobial management programs should be meticulously conducted to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use.

COVID-19 Treatment at a Glance.

As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spreads across the world, the ongoing clinical trials are leading to a big race worldwide to develop a treatment that will help control the pandemic. Unfortunately, COVID-19 does not have any known effective treatment with reliable study results yet. In this pandemic, there is not a lot of time to develop a new specific agent because of the rapid spread of the disease. The process of developing a vaccine is long and requires hard work. Although the pathophysiology of the disease is not fully understood, some of the proposed treatment alternatives are based on old evidence and some have been used with the idea that they might work owing to their mechanism of action. The efficacy, reliability, and safety of the currently available treatment alternatives are therefore a matter of debate. Currently, the main therapies used in the treatment of COVID-19 are antiviral drugs and chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine. Other proposed options include tocilizumab, convalescent plasma, and steroids, but the mainstay of the treatment in intensive care units remains supportive therapies.

What We Learned about COVID-19 So Far? Notes from Underground.

The novel coronavirus pandemic poses a major global threat to public health. Our knowledge concerning every aspect of COVID-19 is evolving rapidly, given the increasing data from all over the world. In this narrative review, the Turkish Thoracic Society Early Career Taskforce members aimed to provide a summary on recent literature regarding epidemiology, clinical findings, diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and control of COVID-19. Studies revealed that the genetic sequence of the novel coronavirus showed significant identity to SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor is an important target of the SARS-CoV-2 while entering an organism. Smokers were more likely to develop the disease and have a higher risk for ICU admission. The mean incubation period was 6.4 days, whereas asymptomatic transmission was reported up to 25 days after infection. Fever and cough were the most common symptoms, and cardiovascular diseases and hypertension were reported to be the most common comorbidities among patients. Clinical manifestations range from asymptomatic and mild disease to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Several patients showed typical symptoms and radiological changes with negative RT-PCR but positive IgG and IgM antibodies. Although radiological findings may vary, bilateral, peripherally distributed, ground-glass opacities were typical of COVID-19. Poor prognosis was associated with older age, higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and high D-dimer level. Chloroquine was found to be effective in reducing viral replication in vitro. Likewise, protease inhibitors, including lopinavir/ritonavir, favipiravir, and nucleoside analogue remdesivir were proposed to be the potential drug candidates in COVID-19 management. Despite these efforts, we still have much to learn regarding the transmission, treatment, and prevention of COVID-19.

A Turkish study on menarche and menstrual experiences and their effects on attitudes towards menopause.

The purpose of this study was to investigate women's menarche and menstrual experiences and their effects on attitudes towards menopause. This research was planned as cross-sectional. A total of 300 women who had applied for a physical examination at the Maternity and Gynecology and Children's Hospital of Ordu province of Turkey were recruited for the study using the convenience sampling method. The study was conducted between 16 April and 28 May 2008. The research data were gathered using the Menopause Attitude Scale and a questionnaire. The average score for women on the Menopause Attitude Scale was 37.85 ± 10.34. Significant differences were found between attitudes of women towards menopause and the information they had received before menarche about menstruation (P = 0.024), the meaning of menstruation (P = 0.014), the interval time between menstrual periods (P = 0.017), problems experienced before menstruation (P = 0.035) and the desire of some women to continue menstruating and delay menopause (P = 0.005). Results of this study showed that more than half of the women had negative attitudes towards menopause. In order to help girls and women develop positive attitudes about menarche, menstruation and menopause, they need to have access to information during all phases of these important physical changes.