Surgical Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Compliance in Turkey: Data from the Prospective, Observational, Multicenter Survey Including 7,978 Surgical Patients.

Background: Surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis (SAP) is the peri-operative administration of antimicrobial agents. Compliance rates vary worldwide from 15% to 84.3%, with studies in Turkey not exceeding 35%. The aim of this multicenter study was to determine the rate of appropriate antibiotic class, timing, and duration as well as discharge prescriptions in Turkey. Thus, we aimed to determine the rate of full compliance with SAP procedures in our country Patients and Methods: This multicenter, prospective, observational, descriptive study was conducted in 47 hospitals from 28 provinces in seven different regions of Turkey. Patients over 18 years of age in all surgical units between June 6, 2022, and June 10, 2022, were included in the study. Results: Of the 7,978 patients included in the study, 332 were excluded from further analyses because of pre-existing infection, and SAP compliance analyses were performed on the remaining 7,646 cases. The antibiotic most commonly used for SAP was cefazolin (n = 4,701; 61.5%), followed by third-generation cephalosporins (n = 596; 7.8%). The most common time to start SAP was within 30 minutes before surgery (n = 2,252; 32.5%), followed by 30 to 60 minutes before surgery (n = 1,638; 23.6%). Surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis duration was <24 hours in 3,516 (50.7%) patients and prolonged until discharge in 1,505 (21.7%) patients. Finally, the actual proportion of patients compliant with SAP was 19% (n = 1,452) after omitting 4,458 (58.3%) patients who were prescribed oral antibiotic agents at discharge as part of a prolonged SAP. Conclusions: Surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis compliance rates are still very low in Turkey. Prolonged duration of SAP and especially high rate of antibiotic prescription at discharge are the main reasons for non-compliance with SAP.

[Efficacy of Homologous and Heterologous Vaccine Applications on SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant: Cohort of Manisa Celal Bayar University Healthcare Workers]. / Homolog ve Heterolog Asi Uygulamalarinin SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Varyanti Üzerindeki Etkililigi: Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Saglik Çalisanlari Kohordu.

This study was aimed to determine the efficacy of homologous (only CoronaVac or only Pfizer-BioNTech) and heterologous (CoronaVac and Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccines during the period when the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant was dominant in Türkiye. Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-2019) infection was confirmed by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction and data on vaccination status against COVID-19 were evaluated during the period of 15 January 2022-1 May 2022 when the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant was dominant among 1854 employees followed in the SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Cohort of Manisa Celal Bayar University (MCBU) Hospital Health Workers. Two separate reference groups were used in the evaluation of vaccine efficacy: those who were never vaccinated and those who received only two doses of CoronaVac. The efficacy of homologous and heterologous vaccine models was evaluated with relative risks and attributable risk percentages. MS Excel, SPSS 23.0 and STATA 14.1 package programs were used for statistical analysis. The mean age of the participants was 36.6 ± 10.0. During the period from January 15th to May 1st 2022, 372 hospital workers were infected with COVID-19. Taking the never vaccinated as the reference group, the most effective model was found to be only the three or more doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech primary vaccination model (85.8%, 95% CI= 40.7-96.6). Models consisting of a single dose of CoronaVac (6.5%, 95% CI= -56.3-44.2) or a single dose of Pfizer-BioNTech (17.7%, 95% CI= -30.2-48.0) booster dose administered after two doses of primary CoronaVac vaccination was not found to be effective against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. When only two doses of primary CoronaVac vaccination model was taken as the reference group, the model consisting of two doses CoronaVac followed by two Pfizer-BioNTech booster doses was effective as 38.4% (95% CI= 15.4-55.3), whereas three doses of Pfizer-BioNTech booster model was effective as 56.4% (95% CI= 33.9-71.3). To conclude, none of the models other than the homologous or heterologous vaccine models containing at least three doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine were effective compared to those unvaccinated. Compared with those who received only two doses of primary Coronavac, models with at least three doses of Pfizer-BioNTech reminder doses were more effective against the Omicron variant than other models.

[Factors Affecting Side Effects, Seroconversion Rates and Antibody Response After Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Healthcare Workers]. / Saglik Çalisanlarinda Inaktif SARS-CoV-2 Asilamasi Sonrasi Yan Etkiler, Serokonversiyon Oranlari ve Antikor Yanitini Etkileyen Faktörler.

In this study, it was aimed to prospectively evaluate the efficacy, side effects and seroconversion data of inactive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), CoronaVac® (Sinovac, China) vaccine in healthcare workers. A total of 1053 healthcare workers who were initially seronegative (COV2T® SARS-CoV-2 Total Siemens, USA) and vaccinated with inactivated SARS-CoV-2 were included in the study. Quantitative IgG antibodies (ADVIA Centaur® SARS-CoV-2 IgG, Siemens, USA) were investigated 28 days after the first vaccine (n= 939) and the second vaccine (n= 771). In addition, neutralizing antibodies were evaluated via "enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)" test (ACE2-RBD Neutralization Assay, Dia-Pro, Italy) 28 days after the first vaccine. Antibody response of the vaccine was evaluated statistically by univariate (Chi-square, Fisher's exact test, Student's t test, Mann-Whitney U, one-way ANOVA and Kruskall Wallis ANOVA tests) analysis and linear regression models. The consistency between quantitative IgG test and neutralizing antibody test was also evaluated in blood samples taken 28 days after second vaccination. Statistical analysis was determined in logarithmically transformed data with statistical analysis with SPSS 23.0 and Stata, and type 1 error level was accepted as 0.05. At least one side effect was reported by 31.3% and 26.8% of the participants after the first and second vaccine, respectively. The most frequent side effect was pain at the injection site with a frequency of 20.4% vs 21.7%. The frequency of applying to a health center due to side effects was 1.0% after the first vaccine and 0.8% after the second vaccine. The percentage of those who produced sufficient quantitative IgG was found as 25.3% (95% CI= 22.5-28.1) 28 days after the first vaccine and 97.9% (95% CI= 96.91- 98.93) after the second vaccine. Neutralizing test antibody positivity was found as 97.7% 28 days after the second vaccine. In univariate analysis, the characteristics that significantly increased the quantitative IgG response against inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine were young age (p<0.01), female gender (p<0.01), being a non smoker (p<0.001), not having a chronic disease (p= 0.019), having had the flu vaccine this year (p= 0.012), not being overweight or obese (p= 0.020), and having a SARS-CoV2 infection prior to vaccination (p<0.001). In addition, allied health personnel showed significantly lower antibody responses than the other workers (p<0.001). Multiple linear regression models revealed that, female gender, younger age, smoking and previous COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction test positivity significantly affected the quantitative IgG response after vaccination. A 99% agreement was found between the ELISA-based neutralizing antibody test and the quantitative IgG test (Kappa p= 0.783) performed on the 28th day after the second vaccination. CoronaVac® provides adequate antibody response in 25% of healthcare workers aged 18-64, after 28 days from a single vaccine, and 97% after 28 days from the second vaccine. Antibody response was significantly higher in younger ages, women, non-smokers, and those who had previously encountered SARS-CoV-2. Phase 3 and phase 4 results are needed to Show effectiveness of this vaccine in real life.