ABSTRACT
Objective: The reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test (RT-PCR) is the gold standard for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and antibody tests are useful as supplemental tools for diagnosis, for measuring the population's immunity levels, and for checking infection in asymptomatic contacts. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability of five commercial antibody detection test kits. Materials and Methods: The reliability of the Colloidal Gold COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Kit, Antibody Rapid Test Hotgen, Beijing Hotgen Biotech Co., Ltd., China), Abbott Chemiluminescent Microparticle Immunoassay (Illinois, USA), Roche Electrochemiluminescence Immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics, Switzerland), Siemens Chemiluminescence (Munich, Germany), and Euroimmun ELISA (Lubeck, Germany) for COVID-19 diagnosis was studied. The antibody-negative group included 50 sera from 2018, and the antibody-positive group included 98 patients with positive RT-PCR results from whom blood samples had been collected 3-9 weeks after hospital discharge. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 23.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). The antibody tests' validity and intra-assay reproducibility were examined, and the Cohen's kappa coefficients were obtained. The disease prevalence was pegged at 10%. Results: The antibody tests' sensitivity (69.12-72.46%) and positive predictive values (42.44-100.0%) were low, and their specificity (89.58-100%) and negative predictive values (96.31-97.03%) were high. Their accuracy rates varied from 87.54% to 97.25%, and their intra-assay coefficients of variation varied from 1% to 10%. Conclusion: The agreement between the results of the antibody detection test kits was higher when the kits were classified according to the targeted antigens. The time of blood sample collection, targeted antigens, and antibody types affected the results. Serological tests were found to be useful, and the commercial kits were found to be largely reliable, although, some parameters need to be improved.
ABSTRACT
Nosocomial infections occur 48-72 hours after hospitalization, especially caused by bacteria, and pose a high risk for patients in intensive care units (ICUs), including COVID-ICUs. This study aimed to reveal bacteria distribution and antibiotic susceptibility profiles isolated from various clinical samples of non-COVID-ICU and COVID-ICU patients. We included in this study bacterial strains isolated from ICUs patients in Kastamonu Training and Research Hospital between March 2020 and October 2020. We identified the strains using the Vitek 2 compact automated system (BioMerieux, France) and standard microbiological methods. Using the Vitek 2 automated system, we analyzed antibiotic susceptibility tests and interpreted the results based on the European Committee for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests (EUCAST) guideline. There were 302 patients in the non-COVID-ICUs and 440 patients in the COVID-ICUs. We isolated a total of 470 strains, 370 from non-COVID-ICUs and 100 from COVID-ICUs. Acinetobacter spp. was the most frequently isolated strains for both ICUs. Acinetobacter spp. isolated from non-COVID-ICUs had higher resistance rates to meropenem (p= 0.043), ceftazidime (p= 0.014), and levofloxacin (p<0.001) antibiotics than strains from COVID-ICUs. Antibiotic susceptibility profiles of other strains were similar for both ICUs. As a result, the incidence of nosocomial infections in COVID-ICU patients was lower than in non-COVID-ICU patients. Health personnel working in COVID-ICUs may have played an important role in this, as they were more careful about using personal protective equipment and complying with hygiene rules. However, antibiotic resistance continues to be a serious problem in ICUs, including COVID-ICUs. Copyright © 2022 Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi. All rights reserved.