Merve Buyukkoruk, Ahmet Furkan Senturk, Hasan Selcuk Ozger
Objective: This study aimed to determine the effect of prophylactic use of carbapenems for acute pancreatitis on clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods: It was conducted according to the preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines by using the keywords “Pancrea* AND carbapenem OR imipenem OR ertapenem OR meropenem OR doripenem.” Primer outcomes were mortality, surgical intervention, and pancreatic and non-pancreatic infection. Subgroup analyses were also performed to reduce the risk of bias. Results: Ten studies with 4038 patients were included in the meta-analyses. While eight of ten were randomized controlled trials, two were observational studies. The prophylactic use of carbapenems had no statistically significant effect on mortality (OR=0.82, 95% CI=0.65-1.04, I²=0%) and surgical intervention. (OR=0.81, 95% CI=0.57-1.17, I²=0%). However, the real impact of prophylaxis on reducing the incidence of mortality and surgical intervention was uncertain due to the insufficient sample size. The prophylactic use of carbapenems was significantly associated with a lower risk of peripancreatic (OR=0.37, 95% CI=0.25-0.55, I²=61%) and non-pancreatic infection risk (OR=0.60, 95% CI=0.46-0.78, I²=65%). The definitions of infection in the articles were not clear, and the diagnostic approach to infection was based on subjective criteria. In addition, there was inadequate collateral damage and safety assessments. In high-quality studies with a low risk of bias, prophylactic carbapenems had no effect on peripancreatic infection (RR=1.54, 95% CI=0.65-3.47, I²=0%) and non-pancreatic infection (RR=0.72, 95% CI=0.48-1.07, I²=0%). Conclusion: Although there is a reduction in the infection risk, routine carbapenem use in acute pancreatitis cases should not be recommended based on current evidence. Cooperation with Infectious Disease specialists and developing diagnostic algorithms are required instead of routine prophylaxis to prevent infection, especially non-pancreatic infection. Keywords: acute pancreatitis, necrotizing pancreatitis, carbapenem, prophylaxis, systematic review, meta-analysis
{"title":"The Effect of Prophylactic Carbapenem Use on Outcomes in Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Merve Buyukkoruk, Ahmet Furkan Senturk, Hasan Selcuk Ozger","doi":"10.36519/idcm.2023.239","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36519/idcm.2023.239","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This study aimed to determine the effect of prophylactic use of carbapenems for acute pancreatitis on clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods: It was conducted according to the preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines by using the keywords “Pancrea* AND carbapenem OR imipenem OR ertapenem OR meropenem OR doripenem.” Primer outcomes were mortality, surgical intervention, and pancreatic and non-pancreatic infection. Subgroup analyses were also performed to reduce the risk of bias. Results: Ten studies with 4038 patients were included in the meta-analyses. While eight of ten were randomized controlled trials, two were observational studies. The prophylactic use of carbapenems had no statistically significant effect on mortality (OR=0.82, 95% CI=0.65-1.04, I²=0%) and surgical intervention. (OR=0.81, 95% CI=0.57-1.17, I²=0%). However, the real impact of prophylaxis on reducing the incidence of mortality and surgical intervention was uncertain due to the insufficient sample size. The prophylactic use of carbapenems was significantly associated with a lower risk of peripancreatic (OR=0.37, 95% CI=0.25-0.55, I²=61%) and non-pancreatic infection risk (OR=0.60, 95% CI=0.46-0.78, I²=65%). The definitions of infection in the articles were not clear, and the diagnostic approach to infection was based on subjective criteria. In addition, there was inadequate collateral damage and safety assessments. In high-quality studies with a low risk of bias, prophylactic carbapenems had no effect on peripancreatic infection (RR=1.54, 95% CI=0.65-3.47, I²=0%) and non-pancreatic infection (RR=0.72, 95% CI=0.48-1.07, I²=0%). Conclusion: Although there is a reduction in the infection risk, routine carbapenem use in acute pancreatitis cases should not be recommended based on current evidence. Cooperation with Infectious Disease specialists and developing diagnostic algorithms are required instead of routine prophylaxis to prevent infection, especially non-pancreatic infection. Keywords: acute pancreatitis, necrotizing pancreatitis, carbapenem, prophylaxis, systematic review, meta-analysis","PeriodicalId":11964,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases","volume":"61 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135082436","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Elif Mukime Saricaoglu, Gule Cinar, Alpay Azap, Mustafa K. Bayar, Canan Tokay-Isıkay, Sehim Kutlayacaksın, Sinan Ibis
Objective: Besides its morbidity and mortality all over the world, SARS-CoV-2 infection maintains its importance with prolonged symptoms after acute disease. The post-infectious period including a heterogeneous group of symptoms is named ‘long COVID’. This study aimed to describe persisting symptoms three months after COVID-19 and risk factors associated with ‘long COVID’. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional retrospective study included COVID-19 patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity in the first 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, between March 2020 and September 2021. We conducted a survey in 2022 to inquire about the participants’ symptoms that lasted three months or more after their own COVID-19 period. All patients were employees of one of the biggest national banks in Turkey. Participants answered a total of 31 questions over the phone. The presence of one or more symptoms persisting ≥3 months was defined as ‘long COVID’. The risk factors associated with ‘long COVID’ were determined. Results: A total of 1301 patients were included in our study. The median age of patients was 40 (22-57), and 558 (42.9%) were women. 257 (19.8%) patients had ‘long COVID’ symptoms. The most prevalent symptoms were myalgia (14.3%), arthralgia (14.1%), and back pain (13.8%). Female gender (p=0.000, OR=2.19 [95% CI=1.655-2.904]) and diabetes mellitus (p=0.016, OR=2.43 [95% CI=1.177-5.017]) were found as independent risk factors for ‘long COVID’ by multivariant logistic regression analysis. Conclusion: Female gender and diabetes mellitus are risk factors for ‘long COVID’. Detecting patients with a high risk for developing ‘long COVID’ is crucial for their management during the COVID and post-COVID periods. Keywords: COVID-19, long COVID, post COVID
{"title":"Dark Side of the COVID-19 Pandemic; ‘Long COVID’","authors":"Elif Mukime Saricaoglu, Gule Cinar, Alpay Azap, Mustafa K. Bayar, Canan Tokay-Isıkay, Sehim Kutlayacaksın, Sinan Ibis","doi":"10.36519/idcm.2023.213","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36519/idcm.2023.213","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Besides its morbidity and mortality all over the world, SARS-CoV-2 infection maintains its importance with prolonged symptoms after acute disease. The post-infectious period including a heterogeneous group of symptoms is named ‘long COVID’. This study aimed to describe persisting symptoms three months after COVID-19 and risk factors associated with ‘long COVID’. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional retrospective study included COVID-19 patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity in the first 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, between March 2020 and September 2021. We conducted a survey in 2022 to inquire about the participants’ symptoms that lasted three months or more after their own COVID-19 period. All patients were employees of one of the biggest national banks in Turkey. Participants answered a total of 31 questions over the phone. The presence of one or more symptoms persisting ≥3 months was defined as ‘long COVID’. The risk factors associated with ‘long COVID’ were determined. Results: A total of 1301 patients were included in our study. The median age of patients was 40 (22-57), and 558 (42.9%) were women. 257 (19.8%) patients had ‘long COVID’ symptoms. The most prevalent symptoms were myalgia (14.3%), arthralgia (14.1%), and back pain (13.8%). Female gender (p=0.000, OR=2.19 [95% CI=1.655-2.904]) and diabetes mellitus (p=0.016, OR=2.43 [95% CI=1.177-5.017]) were found as independent risk factors for ‘long COVID’ by multivariant logistic regression analysis. Conclusion: Female gender and diabetes mellitus are risk factors for ‘long COVID’. Detecting patients with a high risk for developing ‘long COVID’ is crucial for their management during the COVID and post-COVID periods. Keywords: COVID-19, long COVID, post COVID","PeriodicalId":11964,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases","volume":"219 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135082431","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Objective: Many healthcare workers (HCWs) hesitated or refused to receive the COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic. The attitudes of HCWs toward vaccines have an impact on society and patients. In this study, we aimed to investigate the reasons for vaccine hesitancy and refusal among HCWs during the COVID pandemic. Materials and Methods: We planned a two-step descriptive survey study. In the first step, we surveyed the unvaccinated HCWs in our hospital face-to-face after the first vaccination program. After eight months, we conducted another survey with the unvaccinated HCWs over the phone. We investigated the changes in their attitudes between the two surveys and the relationship of vaccine hesitation with their occupation and COVID-19 history. Results: After the first vaccine program, 325 (21.2%) HCWs out of 1532 did not get vaccinated in our hospital. We found that there was a significant relationship between vaccine hesitancy and occupation. In our study, the group of “non-HCWs” had the highest vaccine hesitancy rate at the beginning. The most common reasons for vaccine hesitancy were breastfeeding and pregnancy (29.5%) and side effects, especially allergic reactions (18.0%). After eight months, in the second survey, vaccine hesitancy dropped to 5.6%. We found that 80.1% of the HCWs who stated they were planning to get vaccinated in the first survey were vaccinated, and 62.4% of those who were not planning it were vaccinated. In the second survey, 1.8% of HCWs were still planning the vaccination, but 3.8% of HCWs refused the COVID-19 vaccine. Not believing in the efficacy of the vaccine in the first survey was associated with vaccine refusal in the second survey (p=0.001). Conclusion: The overall rate of vaccine refusal was low among HCWs. Nevertheless, vaccine refusal among HCWs having more information about the vaccine and disease than the community may be related to cultural, psychological, and political reasons other than efficacy and safety. Future studies on the cultural, psychological, and political reasons for vaccine refusal will contribute to understanding vaccine refusal and increasing vaccine acceptance. Keywords: COVID-19 pandemic, COVID-19 vaccine, vaccine hesitancy, healthcare workers
{"title":"COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Healthcare Workers and Attitude Changes During the Pandemic","authors":"Semiha Solak-Grassie, Ferhat Bas, Egemen Unal","doi":"10.36519/idcm.2023.240","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36519/idcm.2023.240","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Many healthcare workers (HCWs) hesitated or refused to receive the COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic. The attitudes of HCWs toward vaccines have an impact on society and patients. In this study, we aimed to investigate the reasons for vaccine hesitancy and refusal among HCWs during the COVID pandemic. Materials and Methods: We planned a two-step descriptive survey study. In the first step, we surveyed the unvaccinated HCWs in our hospital face-to-face after the first vaccination program. After eight months, we conducted another survey with the unvaccinated HCWs over the phone. We investigated the changes in their attitudes between the two surveys and the relationship of vaccine hesitation with their occupation and COVID-19 history. Results: After the first vaccine program, 325 (21.2%) HCWs out of 1532 did not get vaccinated in our hospital. We found that there was a significant relationship between vaccine hesitancy and occupation. In our study, the group of “non-HCWs” had the highest vaccine hesitancy rate at the beginning. The most common reasons for vaccine hesitancy were breastfeeding and pregnancy (29.5%) and side effects, especially allergic reactions (18.0%). After eight months, in the second survey, vaccine hesitancy dropped to 5.6%. We found that 80.1% of the HCWs who stated they were planning to get vaccinated in the first survey were vaccinated, and 62.4% of those who were not planning it were vaccinated. In the second survey, 1.8% of HCWs were still planning the vaccination, but 3.8% of HCWs refused the COVID-19 vaccine. Not believing in the efficacy of the vaccine in the first survey was associated with vaccine refusal in the second survey (p=0.001). Conclusion: The overall rate of vaccine refusal was low among HCWs. Nevertheless, vaccine refusal among HCWs having more information about the vaccine and disease than the community may be related to cultural, psychological, and political reasons other than efficacy and safety. Future studies on the cultural, psychological, and political reasons for vaccine refusal will contribute to understanding vaccine refusal and increasing vaccine acceptance. Keywords: COVID-19 pandemic, COVID-19 vaccine, vaccine hesitancy, healthcare workers","PeriodicalId":11964,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135082434","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Objective: This study aimed to conduct a bibliometric analysis of the global scientific output related to the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) between 2012 and 2022. Materials and Methods: The Web of Science database was searched for articles on MERS-CoV published between 2012 and 2022 for bibliometric analysis. The parameters such as publication year, publication type, funding agencies, research institutions, journals, impact factors, language, and citation numbers of articles were analyzed. Results: We included 1475 articles on MERS-CoV from 86 countries. The United States was the most published country on MERS-CoV, with 487 articles. The Saudi Ministry of Health (7.53%), King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (6.92%), and The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (6.64%) were the most published institutions. The researchers who published the most on MERS-CoV were from Saudi Arabia. One thousand two hundred six funding agencies funded publications on MERS-CoV, most of which were funded by agencies from the United States. Conclusion: MERS-CoV remains important because no treatment and no vaccine have been found since it was first detected, and accordingly, it continues to affect the world with new outbreaks and high mortality rates. In addition, experiences with MERS-CoV during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have guided new research on COVID-19, so scientific interest in MERS-CoV is still ongoing. Keywords: bibliometric analysis, MERS-CoV, Middle East respiratory syndrome, publications
目的:本研究旨在对2012年至2022年全球与中东呼吸综合征冠状病毒(MERS-CoV)相关的科学产出进行文献计量分析。材料与方法:检索Web of Science数据库中2012 - 2022年间发表的有关MERS-CoV的文章，进行文献计量学分析。分析论文发表年份、发表类型、资助单位、研究机构、期刊、影响因子、语言、被引次数等参数。结果:我们收录了来自86个国家的1475篇MERS-CoV文献。美国是发表MERS-CoV最多的国家，发表了487篇文章。沙特卫生部(7.53%)、沙特国王本阿卜杜勒阿齐兹卫生科学大学(6.92%)和埃及知识库(6.64%)是发表最多的机构。发表关于中东呼吸综合征冠状病毒最多的研究人员来自沙特阿拉伯。2006个资助机构资助了关于中东呼吸综合征冠状病毒的出版物，其中大部分由美国的机构资助。结论:中东呼吸综合征冠状病毒仍然很重要，因为自首次发现以来没有找到治疗方法和疫苗，因此，它继续以新的疫情和高死亡率影响世界。此外，2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行期间的MERS-CoV经验指导了对COVID-19的新研究，因此对MERS-CoV的科学兴趣仍在继续。关键词:文献计量学分析，MERS-CoV，中东呼吸综合征，出版物
{"title":"Bibliometric Analysis of the Publications on Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Published Between 2012-2022","authors":"Sevil Alkan, Esra Gurbuz","doi":"10.36519/idcm.2023.244","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36519/idcm.2023.244","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This study aimed to conduct a bibliometric analysis of the global scientific output related to the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) between 2012 and 2022. Materials and Methods: The Web of Science database was searched for articles on MERS-CoV published between 2012 and 2022 for bibliometric analysis. The parameters such as publication year, publication type, funding agencies, research institutions, journals, impact factors, language, and citation numbers of articles were analyzed. Results: We included 1475 articles on MERS-CoV from 86 countries. The United States was the most published country on MERS-CoV, with 487 articles. The Saudi Ministry of Health (7.53%), King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (6.92%), and The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (6.64%) were the most published institutions. The researchers who published the most on MERS-CoV were from Saudi Arabia. One thousand two hundred six funding agencies funded publications on MERS-CoV, most of which were funded by agencies from the United States. Conclusion: MERS-CoV remains important because no treatment and no vaccine have been found since it was first detected, and accordingly, it continues to affect the world with new outbreaks and high mortality rates. In addition, experiences with MERS-CoV during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have guided new research on COVID-19, so scientific interest in MERS-CoV is still ongoing. Keywords: bibliometric analysis, MERS-CoV, Middle East respiratory syndrome, publications","PeriodicalId":11964,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135082430","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Yusuf Emre Özdemir, Beyza Kaplan-Yazar, Deniz Borcak, Esra Canpolat-Unlu, Osman Faruk Bayramlar, Zeynep Cizmeci, Kadriye Kart-Yasar
Objective: We aimed to define the clinical features and antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of Burkholderia cepacia complex infections and to determine the predictors for mortality. Materials and Methods: Our single-center retrospective study included patients with nosocomial B. cepacia complex infection between 2018 and 2022. We evaluated the predictors of 14-day and 28-day mortality by analyzing clinical and microbiological data. Results: A total of 87 patients were included. Most infections (79.3%) occurred in the intensive care units (ICUs). Among B. cepacia complex isolates, 74.7% were susceptible to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, 70.3% to levofloxacin, 50% to meropenem, and 23.4% to ceftazidime. The rates of 14-day mortality, 28-day mortality, and in-hospital mortality were 41.3% (n=36), 52.8% (n=46), and 64.3% (n=56), respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) (odds ratio [OR]=1.05, p=0.024), platelet count (OR=1.00, p=0.011), creatinine (OR=2.14, p=0.006), and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) (OR=1.02, p=0.028) as predictors for 14-day mortality. In addition to NLR (OR=1.07, p=0.014), platelet count (OR=1.00, p=0.039), creatinine (OR=2.05, p=0.008), and AST (OR=1.02, p=0.035), procalcitonin (OR=1.05, p=0.049) was also found as an independent predictor for 28-day mortality. In receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for predicting 14-day mortality, area under the ROC curve (AUC) values were 0.684 (p=0.003) in NLR, 0.719 (p<0.001) in platelet count, 0.673 (p=0.003) in procalcitonin, 0.743 (p<0.001) in creatinine, and 0.700 (p<0.001) in AST. In ROC curve analysis for predicting 28-day mortality, AUC values were 0.674 (p=0.002) in NLR, 0.651 (p=0.010) in platelet count, 0.638 (p=0.020) in procalcitonin, 0.730 (p<0.001) in creatinine, and 0.692 (p=0.001) in AST. Conclusion: Increasing antibiotic resistance and higher mortality rates justify that B. cepacia complex is a significant threat to hospitalized patients, especially in ICUs. Elevated levels of NLR, AST, creatinine, procalcitonin, and decreased platelet may predict poor clinical outcomes and could help clinicians in the management of this notorious bacterial pathogen. Keywords: antimicrobial susceptibility, antibiotic resistance, Burkholderia cepacia complex, mortality, predictors
{"title":"Antimicrobial Susceptibility Profiles and Key Determinants for Mortality in Burkholderia cepacia Complex Infections","authors":"Yusuf Emre Özdemir, Beyza Kaplan-Yazar, Deniz Borcak, Esra Canpolat-Unlu, Osman Faruk Bayramlar, Zeynep Cizmeci, Kadriye Kart-Yasar","doi":"10.36519/idcm.2023.259","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36519/idcm.2023.259","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: We aimed to define the clinical features and antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of Burkholderia cepacia complex infections and to determine the predictors for mortality. Materials and Methods: Our single-center retrospective study included patients with nosocomial B. cepacia complex infection between 2018 and 2022. We evaluated the predictors of 14-day and 28-day mortality by analyzing clinical and microbiological data. Results: A total of 87 patients were included. Most infections (79.3%) occurred in the intensive care units (ICUs). Among B. cepacia complex isolates, 74.7% were susceptible to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, 70.3% to levofloxacin, 50% to meropenem, and 23.4% to ceftazidime. The rates of 14-day mortality, 28-day mortality, and in-hospital mortality were 41.3% (n=36), 52.8% (n=46), and 64.3% (n=56), respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) (odds ratio [OR]=1.05, p=0.024), platelet count (OR=1.00, p=0.011), creatinine (OR=2.14, p=0.006), and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) (OR=1.02, p=0.028) as predictors for 14-day mortality. In addition to NLR (OR=1.07, p=0.014), platelet count (OR=1.00, p=0.039), creatinine (OR=2.05, p=0.008), and AST (OR=1.02, p=0.035), procalcitonin (OR=1.05, p=0.049) was also found as an independent predictor for 28-day mortality. In receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for predicting 14-day mortality, area under the ROC curve (AUC) values were 0.684 (p=0.003) in NLR, 0.719 (p<0.001) in platelet count, 0.673 (p=0.003) in procalcitonin, 0.743 (p<0.001) in creatinine, and 0.700 (p<0.001) in AST. In ROC curve analysis for predicting 28-day mortality, AUC values were 0.674 (p=0.002) in NLR, 0.651 (p=0.010) in platelet count, 0.638 (p=0.020) in procalcitonin, 0.730 (p<0.001) in creatinine, and 0.692 (p=0.001) in AST. Conclusion: Increasing antibiotic resistance and higher mortality rates justify that B. cepacia complex is a significant threat to hospitalized patients, especially in ICUs. Elevated levels of NLR, AST, creatinine, procalcitonin, and decreased platelet may predict poor clinical outcomes and could help clinicians in the management of this notorious bacterial pathogen. Keywords: antimicrobial susceptibility, antibiotic resistance, Burkholderia cepacia complex, mortality, predictors","PeriodicalId":11964,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases","volume":"95 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135082437","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Objective: This study aimed to compare 28-day mortality between patients have hospital-acquired influenza (HAI) and those have community-acquired influenza (CAI) during the 2017-2019 influenza seasons in a tertiary care center in İstanbul, Türkiye. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort included all hospitalized patients who had confirmed influenza infection and were over 17 years old. HAI was defined as a case of influenza that tested negative in a PCR test or had no signs of influenza on admission but with a positive test result at any point after 72 hours of admission. CAI was defined as a case of influenza diagnosed within 72 hours of admission or before admission. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality after diagnosis. Biological sex, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cardiovascular and immunosuppressive comorbidities, influenza subtype, and other variables identified with univariate analyses (p<0.25) were entered into logistic regression analysis. Results: During the study period, 92 (46%) of 201 hospitalized patients who tested positive for influenza were identified as HAI, and the rest (109) were identified as CAI. Univariate analysis showed no differences between survivors and non-survivors in patient characteristics, except non-survivors were more likely to have an ICU admission. The multivariable logistic regression analysis results showed that HAI was associated with 5.6-fold increased odds of mortality (95% confidence interval [CI]=1.6-19.3; p=0.006, Figure 2), after adjustment for age, gender, comorbidity, and ICU admission. Conclusion: The results of this study revealed that patients who had HAI were more likely to die within 28 days compared to those who had CAI after controlling for key confounders. The high rate of HAI underscores the critical importance of robust infection control measures for hospital-acquired viral infections. Additional research and targeted interventions are necessary to improve the HAI prognosis. Keywords: influenza, human, Influenza vaccines, cross infection, hospital-acquired viral illness, mortality
{"title":"Comparison of 28-Day Mortality Between Hospital- and Community-Acquired Influenza Patients","authors":"Huseyin Bilgin, Tugce Basari, Nazli Pazar, Isil Kucuker, Rabia Can-Sarinoglu","doi":"10.36519/idcm.2023.243","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36519/idcm.2023.243","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This study aimed to compare 28-day mortality between patients have hospital-acquired influenza (HAI) and those have community-acquired influenza (CAI) during the 2017-2019 influenza seasons in a tertiary care center in İstanbul, Türkiye. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort included all hospitalized patients who had confirmed influenza infection and were over 17 years old. HAI was defined as a case of influenza that tested negative in a PCR test or had no signs of influenza on admission but with a positive test result at any point after 72 hours of admission. CAI was defined as a case of influenza diagnosed within 72 hours of admission or before admission. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality after diagnosis. Biological sex, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cardiovascular and immunosuppressive comorbidities, influenza subtype, and other variables identified with univariate analyses (p<0.25) were entered into logistic regression analysis. Results: During the study period, 92 (46%) of 201 hospitalized patients who tested positive for influenza were identified as HAI, and the rest (109) were identified as CAI. Univariate analysis showed no differences between survivors and non-survivors in patient characteristics, except non-survivors were more likely to have an ICU admission. The multivariable logistic regression analysis results showed that HAI was associated with 5.6-fold increased odds of mortality (95% confidence interval [CI]=1.6-19.3; p=0.006, Figure 2), after adjustment for age, gender, comorbidity, and ICU admission. Conclusion: The results of this study revealed that patients who had HAI were more likely to die within 28 days compared to those who had CAI after controlling for key confounders. The high rate of HAI underscores the critical importance of robust infection control measures for hospital-acquired viral infections. Additional research and targeted interventions are necessary to improve the HAI prognosis. Keywords: influenza, human, Influenza vaccines, cross infection, hospital-acquired viral illness, mortality","PeriodicalId":11964,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135081442","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
After a downward trend for more than 12 months, the incidence of COVID-19 has increased in the last months. Although COVID-19 is not as frequent as in the first years of the pandemic, case numbers are still very high, and it causes a significant number of deaths. COVID-19 is not seen with a predictable frequency, at least two times more deadly than the flu, continues as an epidemic, and has not reached the endemic level yet. Currently, the Omicron strains EG.5 and XBB.1.16 are dominant worldwide. Although BA.2.86 and FLip variants, including FL.1.5.1 are not widespread at the moment, both were shown to be highly immune-evasive and require close monitoring. Prevention of COVID-19 relies on vaccinations, surveillance, proper ventilation of enclosed spaces, isolation of patients, and mask usage. Currently, monovalent COVID-19 vaccines, including XBB.1.5 Omicron SARS-CoV-2, are recommended for both primary and booster vaccinations against COVID-19. Monovalent vaccines, including only original SARS-CoV-2 strain, and bivalent vaccines, including original virus plus BA4/5 variant, are no longer recommended against COVID-19. Booster vaccination with XBB.1.5 containing vaccine should be prioritized for patients at high risk for severe COVID-19. Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) vaccination does not seem to be effective in preventing COVID-19. At the current phase of the pandemic, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, remdesivir, molnupiravir, sotrovimab (for patients from XBB.1.5 variant dominant settings), and convalescent plasma can be considered for the treatment of high-risk early-stage outpatients with COVID-19, while hospitalized patients with more severe disease can be treated with dexamethasone, anti cytokines including tocilizumab, sarilumab, baricitinib, and tofacitinib and antithrombotic agents including enoxaparin. Remdesivir oral analogues and ensitrelvir fumarate are promising agents for treating acute COVID-19, which are in phase trials now; however, ivermectin, fluvoxamine, and metformin were shown to be ineffective.
{"title":"COVID-19: An Update on Epidemiology, Prevention and Treatment, September-2023","authors":"Serap Simsek-Yavuz","doi":"10.36519/idcm.2023.251","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36519/idcm.2023.251","url":null,"abstract":"After a downward trend for more than 12 months, the incidence of COVID-19 has increased in the last months. Although COVID-19 is not as frequent as in the first years of the pandemic, case numbers are still very high, and it causes a significant number of deaths. COVID-19 is not seen with a predictable frequency, at least two times more deadly than the flu, continues as an epidemic, and has not reached the endemic level yet. Currently, the Omicron strains EG.5 and XBB.1.16 are dominant worldwide. Although BA.2.86 and FLip variants, including FL.1.5.1 are not widespread at the moment, both were shown to be highly immune-evasive and require close monitoring. Prevention of COVID-19 relies on vaccinations, surveillance, proper ventilation of enclosed spaces, isolation of patients, and mask usage. Currently, monovalent COVID-19 vaccines, including XBB.1.5 Omicron SARS-CoV-2, are recommended for both primary and booster vaccinations against COVID-19. Monovalent vaccines, including only original SARS-CoV-2 strain, and bivalent vaccines, including original virus plus BA4/5 variant, are no longer recommended against COVID-19. Booster vaccination with XBB.1.5 containing vaccine should be prioritized for patients at high risk for severe COVID-19. Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) vaccination does not seem to be effective in preventing COVID-19. At the current phase of the pandemic, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, remdesivir, molnupiravir, sotrovimab (for patients from XBB.1.5 variant dominant settings), and convalescent plasma can be considered for the treatment of high-risk early-stage outpatients with COVID-19, while hospitalized patients with more severe disease can be treated with dexamethasone, anti cytokines including tocilizumab, sarilumab, baricitinib, and tofacitinib and antithrombotic agents including enoxaparin. Remdesivir oral analogues and ensitrelvir fumarate are promising agents for treating acute COVID-19, which are in phase trials now; however, ivermectin, fluvoxamine, and metformin were shown to be ineffective.","PeriodicalId":11964,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases","volume":"863 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135082265","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Objective: After three years since the first cases of COVID-19, many people suffer from post-COVID symptoms, reducing their quality of life. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the symptoms and prevalence of long COVID and its effect on the quality of life and also the effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine on the quality of life. Materials and Methods: Patients with COVID-19 between April 01, 2020, and December 31, 2021, were evaluated with a survey at least three and at most 12 months (mean 7.43±3.3 months) after diagnosis. Patients answered the questions face-to-face or via telephone interview. The survey included questionnaires on demographic features, current complaints, and complaints that persisted or developed after recovery, Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), and European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level Version (EQ-5D-3L) Scale. Results: The study was conducted with 521 participants, 81% complaining of post-COVID symptoms. The most common symptoms were fatigue and shortness of breath. Long COVID was found to significantly reduce the quality of life in both sub-dimensions of the scale. Compared to SF-36 Turkish population norms, all participants showed a significant decrease in quality of life subscales. Vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) was found to improve quality of life and reduce long-term COVID-19 symptoms. Conclusion: COVID-19 has significantly affected quality of life. Post-illness follow-up of people with COVID-19 is important to provide patients with medical, physical, and psychosocial rehabilitation support. SARS-COV-2 vaccine reduces the negative effects of COVID-19 on quality of life. For this reason, the community should be made aware of vaccination, and COVID-19 vaccination rates should be increased in the community. Keywords: SARS-CoV-2, long COVID, quality of life
{"title":"Long-Term Symptoms and Quality of Life in Persons with COVID-19","authors":"Nuriye Yalcin-Colak, Cigdem Kader, Sebnem Eren-Gok, Ayse Erbay","doi":"10.36519/idcm.2023.248","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36519/idcm.2023.248","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: After three years since the first cases of COVID-19, many people suffer from post-COVID symptoms, reducing their quality of life. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the symptoms and prevalence of long COVID and its effect on the quality of life and also the effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine on the quality of life. Materials and Methods: Patients with COVID-19 between April 01, 2020, and December 31, 2021, were evaluated with a survey at least three and at most 12 months (mean 7.43±3.3 months) after diagnosis. Patients answered the questions face-to-face or via telephone interview. The survey included questionnaires on demographic features, current complaints, and complaints that persisted or developed after recovery, Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), and European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level Version (EQ-5D-3L) Scale. Results: The study was conducted with 521 participants, 81% complaining of post-COVID symptoms. The most common symptoms were fatigue and shortness of breath. Long COVID was found to significantly reduce the quality of life in both sub-dimensions of the scale. Compared to SF-36 Turkish population norms, all participants showed a significant decrease in quality of life subscales. Vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) was found to improve quality of life and reduce long-term COVID-19 symptoms. Conclusion: COVID-19 has significantly affected quality of life. Post-illness follow-up of people with COVID-19 is important to provide patients with medical, physical, and psychosocial rehabilitation support. SARS-COV-2 vaccine reduces the negative effects of COVID-19 on quality of life. For this reason, the community should be made aware of vaccination, and COVID-19 vaccination rates should be increased in the community. Keywords: SARS-CoV-2, long COVID, quality of life","PeriodicalId":11964,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135082249","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Zeynep Ece Kuloglu, Zeynep Gulce Talay, Ozgur Albayrak, Onder Ergonul, Fusun Can
In this study, we aimed to investigate the changes in the B cell subpopulations after homologous or heterologous COVID-19 boosters. Blood samples were collected after baseline (3-5 months after two doses of CoronaVac), 1 and 3 months after BNT162b2 (n=28 and n=6), and CoronaVac (n=7 and n=4) boosters. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were isolated and stained with B cell markers, the ratios of naïve (CD19+CD20+CD27-), memory (CD19+CD20+CD27+), memory B cells expressing IgG (CD19+CD20+CD27+IgG+), and effector memory B cells (CD19+CD20+CD27+CD38+) were identified with flow cytometry. Significantly higher expression of memory B cells was observed in one month with BNT162b2 (12.16% one month, 5.98% three months) and CoronaVac (14.18% one month, 9.00% three months) boosters. IgG expressing memory B cell expression was significantly higher with BNT162b2 than with CoronaVac booster in one month (22.70% and 13.95%, respectively). The ratio of effector B cells in the first month after CoronaVac booster (25.44%) was significantly higher than the BNT162b2 booster (9.90%, p=0.0263). Keywords: COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, B cell subtypes, mRNA vaccine, inactivated vaccine
{"title":"B Cell Subtypes in Individuals Received mRNA or Inactivated Vaccine Boosters After Fully Vaccinated with CoronaVac: A Longitudinal Study","authors":"Zeynep Ece Kuloglu, Zeynep Gulce Talay, Ozgur Albayrak, Onder Ergonul, Fusun Can","doi":"10.36519/idcm.2023.246","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36519/idcm.2023.246","url":null,"abstract":"In this study, we aimed to investigate the changes in the B cell subpopulations after homologous or heterologous COVID-19 boosters. Blood samples were collected after baseline (3-5 months after two doses of CoronaVac), 1 and 3 months after BNT162b2 (n=28 and n=6), and CoronaVac (n=7 and n=4) boosters. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were isolated and stained with B cell markers, the ratios of naïve (CD19+CD20+CD27-), memory (CD19+CD20+CD27+), memory B cells expressing IgG (CD19+CD20+CD27+IgG+), and effector memory B cells (CD19+CD20+CD27+CD38+) were identified with flow cytometry. Significantly higher expression of memory B cells was observed in one month with BNT162b2 (12.16% one month, 5.98% three months) and CoronaVac (14.18% one month, 9.00% three months) boosters. IgG expressing memory B cell expression was significantly higher with BNT162b2 than with CoronaVac booster in one month (22.70% and 13.95%, respectively). The ratio of effector B cells in the first month after CoronaVac booster (25.44%) was significantly higher than the BNT162b2 booster (9.90%, p=0.0263). Keywords: COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, B cell subtypes, mRNA vaccine, inactivated vaccine","PeriodicalId":11964,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases","volume":"130 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135082252","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Centenary of the Republic and 90th Anniversary of the University Reform in Türkiye","authors":"Onder Ergonul","doi":"10.36519/idcm.2023.274","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36519/idcm.2023.274","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":11964,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135082253","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：