Evaluation of chronic hepatitis B patients who voluntarily discontinued oral antiviral therapy: is there an answer to the controversial topic?

OBJECTIVE: The uncertain treatment duration for nucleos(t)ide analogues (NA) used in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) is an important problem for both patients and physicians. The aim of this study was to evaluate the determinants of virologic relapse (VR) and the optimum time of treatment discontinuation in the follow-up of CHB patients who voluntarily discontinued treatment after virological suppression was achieved under NA use. METHODS: Data from 138 patients from 11 centers were included in this registry-based study. Factors associated with VR were investigated using multivariate Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Ninety-nine (71.7%) of the patients were HBeAg (Hepatitis B e antigen) negative. During the 24-month follow-up period after treatment discontinuation, VR occurred in 58.7% (n = 81) of all patients and 57.6% (n = 57) of HBeAg-negative patients. The duration of NA treatment was significantly shorter (cutoff 60 months) in HBeAg-negative patients who later developed VR. In addition, the duration of virologic remission achieved under NA treatment was significantly shorter (cutoff 52 months) in those who later developed VR. In the Cox multivariate regression model of HBeAg-negative patients, having less than 60 months of NA treatment (HR = 2.568; CI:1.280-5.148; P  = 0.008) and the levels of alanine aminotransferase being equal to or higher than twice the upper level of normal at the beginning of treatment (HR = 3.753; CI:1.551-9.081; P  = 0.003) were found to be statistically significant and independently associated with VR. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study may provide clinical guidance in terms of determining the most appropriate discontinuation time for NA.

Clinical evaluation of DIAGNOVIR SARS-CoV-2 ultra-rapid antigen test performance compared to PCR-based testing.

Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) is a highly contagious infectious disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The development of rapid antigen tests has contributed to easing the burden on healthcare and lifting restrictions by detecting infected individuals to help prevent further transmission of the virus. We developed a state-of-art rapid antigen testing system, named DIAGNOVIR, based on immune-fluorescence analysis, which can process and give the results in a minute. In our study, we assessed the performance of the DIAGNOVIR and compared the results with those of the qRT-PCR test. Our results demonstrated that the sensitivity and specificity of the DIAGNOVIR were 94% and 99.2%, respectively, with a 100% sensitivity and 96.97% specificity, among asymptomatic patients. In addition, DIAGNOVIR can detect SARS­CoV­2 with 100% sensitivity up to 5 days after symptom onset. We observed that the DIAGNOVIR Rapid Antigen Test's limit of detection (LoD) was not significantly affected by the SARS­CoV­2 variants including Wuhan, alpha (B1.1.7), beta (B.1.351), delta (B.1.617.2) and omicron (B.1.1.529) variants, and LoD was calculated as 8 × 102, 6.81 × 101.5, 3.2 × 101.5, 1 × 103, and 1 × 103.5 TCID50/mL, respectively. Our results indicated that DIAGNOVIR can detect all SARS-CoV-2 variants in just seconds with higher sensitivity and specificity lower testing costs and decreased turnover time.

Comparison of a novel antigen detection test with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay for laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Molecular diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in respiratory specimens is considered the gold standard method. This method is highly sensitive and specific but it has some limitations such as being expensive and requiring special laboratory equipment and skilled personnel. RapidFor™ Antigen Rapid Test Kit is a commercially available Ag-RDT which is produced in Turkey and designed to detect the nucleocapsid antigen of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab samples. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of this novel SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection considering the RT-PCR method as the gold standard. Four hundred forty-four nasopharyngeal swab samples which were collected from the patients who met clinical criteria of COVID-19 from ten centers in Turkey between September 2020 and February 2021 were included in the study. All the nasopharyngeal swab samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA using commercial RT-PCR kits (Bioeksen and A1 Lifesciences, Istanbul, Turkey) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Viral loads were assessed according to the cycle threshold (Ct) values. RapidFor™ SARS-CoV-2 antigen test (Vitrosens Biotechnology, Istanbul, Turkey) was used to investigate the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antigen in all samples following the manufacturer's instructions. Out of 444 nasopharyngeal swab samples tested, 346 (77.9%) were positive and 98 (22.1%) were negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by RTPCR. Overall sensitivity of the RapidFor™. Antigen Rapid Test Kit was 80.3% whereas specificity was found to be 87.8%. Positivity rate of rapid antigen test in samples with Ct values over 25 and below 30 was 82.7%, while it increased to 95.7% in samples 20 ≤ Ct < 25 and reached 100% in samples with Ct values below 20. RapidFor™ SARS-CoV-2 Ag test might be a good choice in the screening of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients and their contacts for taking isolation measures early, with advantages over RT-PCR as being rapid, easy and being applicable in every laboratory and even at point of care.

Anaphylaxis is rare due to CoronaVac in a population of healthcare workers.

Background: CoronaVac, the first coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine administered in our country, was found safe in clinical trials. Objective: We aimed to reveal the rate and features of CoronaVac vaccine-associated allergic reactions among vaccinated healthcare workers (HCWs) in real-life. Methods: This study was planned as a questionnaire-based study. Participants who reported a postvaccination allergic reaction were interviewed on phone and their medical records were also checked for confirmation. Results: A total of 2,488 HCWs took part in the study and 4,054 postvaccination complete questionnaire-responses were obtained. Twenty-one HCWs (female: male, 17:4) with a mean age of 40.95 ± 10.09 stated that they had an allergic reaction after a total of 23 vaccine injections. Accordingly, the reaction rate was 0.56% among all vaccine doses. The most common reactions were systemic skin reactions (2.7%) consisting of generalized pruritus, diffuse pruritic erythema, urticaria, and maculopapular rash. That was followed by local injection site reaction (0.12%). Anaphylaxis was reported in 4 cases (0.09%) with a mean onset time of 12 ± 6 minutes. One of them had a history of anaphylaxis with 2 drugs, another had venom and food allergy. Three of the subjects had level 2 diagnostic certainty according to the Brighton Collaboration criteria and one had level 3. All anaphylaxis cases were discharged within 24 hours and none of them required intensive care. Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that allergic reactions to CoronaVac were rare and mostly mild. Although anaphylaxis was also rare, the importance of early intervention with close follow-up was once again emphasized.