Vaccination Status and Outcome of Hospitalized Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 Before and After the Spread of Omicron Variant: An Observational Study from Izmir, Turkey.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the efforts in vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), breakthrough infections occur and the need for hospitalization continues. We aimed to determine the relationship between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination and the severity of COVID-19 and mortality among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted between September 2021 and February 2022 in a university hos- pital in Turkey. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (both in clinics and in intensive care units), ≥18 years old, and who had no previous COVID-19 were included in the study. The demographic characteristics, clinical data, vaccination status, and outcome of the patients were analyzed retrospectively and the relationship between vaccination status and mortality was determined statistically. RESULTS: Of the 674 patients, 180 (26.7%) had no vaccination, 282 (41.8%) had incomplete vaccination, and 212 (31.5%) were fully vaccinated according to the updated vaccination recommendations. While 44.0% of the patients were fully vaccinated before the occur- rence of omicron variant, 15.9% of the patients were fully vaccinated during the wave of the omicron variant. The patients with no vaccination were younger and had fewer comorbidities. The overall mortality was 31.8%. Under 50 years old, all the patients with fully vaccination survived and the patients with no vaccination or incomplete vaccination had higher (10.1%) mortality. During the omicron period, mortality was lower in fully vaccinated pateints. CONCLUSION: Immunization with and booster doses of BNT162b2 should be encouraged to protect both healthy and vulnerable populations.

Prevalence of Gastrointestinal Symptoms and Clinical Outcomes in Hospitalized Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients: A Single-Center Study from Turkey.

BACKGROUND: In patients with coronavirus disease 2019, the gastrointestinal symptoms have been reported increasingly in addition to the respiratory system symptoms. The studies show that the prevalence of gastrointestinal system symptoms and how the gastrointestinal system contributes to the severity and prognosis of the disease is still not clear. This study aims to find the prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms and the correlation between the gastrointestinal symptoms and the clinical results in hospitalized patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019. METHODS: This study retrospectively analyzes patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 and hospitalized in the pandemic unit between March 2020 and August 2020 and compares their demographic and clinical characteristics, laboratory and radiologic findings, coronavirus disease 2019 treatments received, the clinical course of the disease, and the gastrointestinal symptoms. RESULTS: In our study, we included 322 patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 and hospitalized; 39 patients (12.1%) were admitted to the hospital with at least one gastrointestinal symptom (nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and the loss of taste). Nausea and vomiting are the most common gastrointestinal symptoms with a prevalence of 7.1%, followed by diarrhea with 2.8%, the loss of taste with 2.2%, and abdominal pain with 1.5%. The mean age and D-dimer levels of the patients showing gastrointestinal symptoms were lower than those who did not have any gastrointestinal symptoms. We did not find a significant correlation between the presence of the gastrointestinal symptoms and the severity of the disease, treatment received, risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome and septic shock, admission to the intensive care unit, the need for mechanical ventilation, the mortality rate or the length of hospitalization in the medical floor or the intensive care unit. CONCLUSION: In this study, we observed that 12.1% of coronavirus disease 2019 patients apply to the hospital due to gastrointestinal symptoms. Furthermore, the gastrointestinal symptoms do not seem to affect the severity and the course of the disease, it is important to identify coronavirus disease 2019 patients showing unusual symptoms such as the gastrointestinal symptoms at an early stage to protect healthcare professionals from infection risk.

COVID-19 S: A new proposal for diagnosis and structured reporting of COVID-19 on computed tomography imaging.

PURPOSE: Because of the widespread use of CT in the diagnosis of COVID 19, indeterminate presentations such as single, few or unilateral lesions amount to a considerable number. We aimed to develop a new classification and structured reporting system on CT imaging (COVID-19 S) that would facilitate the diagnosis of COVID-19 in the most accurate way. METHODS: Our retrospective cohort included 803 patients with a chest CT scan upon suspicion of COVID 19. The patients' history, physical examination, CT findings, RT PCR, and other laboratory test results were reviewed, and a final diagnosis was made as COVID 19 or non-COVID 19. Chest CT scans were classified according to the COVID 19 S CT diagnosis criteria. Cohen's kappa analysis was used. RESULTS: Final clinical diagnosis was COVID-19 in 98 patients (12%). According to the COVID-19 S CT diagnosis criteria, the number of patients in the normal, compatible with COVID 19, indeterminate and alternative diagnosis groups were 581 (72.3%), 97 (12.1%), 16 (2.0%) and 109 (13.6%). When the indeterminate group was combined with the group compatible with COVID 19, the sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 S were 99.0% and 87.1%, with 85.8% positive predictive value (PPV) and 99.1% negative predictive value (NPV). When the indeterminate group was combined with the alternative diagnosis group, the sensitivity and specificity of COVID-19 S were 93.9% and 96.0%, with 94.8% PPV and 95.2% NPV. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 S CT classification system may meet the needs of radiologists in distinguishing COVID-19 from pneumonia of other etiologies and help optimize patient management and disease control in this pandemic by the use of structured reporting.

[The rate of inducible clindamycin resistance and susceptibilities to other antimicrobial agents in staphylococci]. / Stafilokokoklarda indüklenebilir klindamisin direnci ve diger antibiyotiklere duyarlilik oranlari.

Staphylococci are one of the most common pathogens isolated from nosocomial and community acquired infections. Antibiotics used by oral route such as erythromycin, clindamycin, trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) and quinolones are of value especially in the treatment of community acquired infections and resistance to those antibiotics may lead to therapeutic failure. Therefore in this study, susceptibility of staphylococci to TMP-SMX, rifampin, tetracycline, gentamicin, ciprofloxacin and vancomycin and the presence of inducible clindamycin resistance were investigated in two distinct university hospitals in Turkey. A total of 286 staphylococcus strains [184 Staphylococcus aureus, 102 coagulase negative staphylococci (CoNS)] were studied. Of the 90 hospital-acquired S. aureus, 44.6% were methicillin-resistant while all of the community acquired strains were methicillin-susceptible. All of the CoNS strains were isolated from nosocomial infections and 71.6% of them were resistant to methicillin. Inducible clindamycin resistance rate of CoNS strains (34.3%) was higher than that of S. aureus strains (7.1%) and the difference was statistically significant (p= 0.00001). Positive D-test among CoNS were significantly higher in S. hominis strains (p= 0.00001). Susceptibilities of S. aureus strains to tetracycline, rifampin, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin and TMP-SMX were 56%, 59%, 56%, 56% and 99%, respectively. Susceptibilities of CoNS strains to tetracycline, rifampin, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin and TMP-SMX were 73%, 72%, 39%, 40% and 46%, respectively. None of these strains were vancomycin resistant. Differences between tetracycline, rifampin, ciprofloxacin and gentamicin resistance rates among D-test positive and negative S. aureus strains were found statistically significant. Although among CoNS isolates, no statistically significant difference was found between the resistance rates, D-test positive strains were determined to be more resistant. Differences between tetracycline, rifampin, ciprofloxacin and gentamicin resistance rates among D-test positive S. aureus and CoNS strains were found statistically significant. It can be concluded that inducible clindamycin resistance should be tested for staphylococci during routine antibiotic susceptibility testing. According to the presented data, clindamycin still can be used empirically in methicillin-susceptible S. aureus infections in our region, however, the routine use of rapid, easy, reproducible and economic D-test for the determination of inducible clindamycin resistance in erythromycin resistant strains should be considered in clinical microbiology laboratories. Inducible clindamycin resistance must be anticipated carefully while considering therapeutic options especially for CoNS infections.