Does Monocyte Chemoattractant Protein-1 Levels Determine the Prognosis of Covid-19 Disease in Kidney Transplant Recipients?

BACKGROUND: In the normal population, a high monocyte chemoattractant protein (MCP-1) level is an important biomarker for the progression of COVID-19. This study investigated whether MCP-1 level can determine the disease prognosis in kidney transplant (KT) patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A total of 89 patients, including 49 KT patients (group 1) diagnosed with COVID-19 who required hospitalization, and 40 KT patients who did not have COVID-19 disease (group 2), were included. Demographic characteristics and laboratory results of the patients were recorded. The serum reserved for MCP-1 was stored at -80°C and studied blindly by a single microbiologist at the end of the study. RESULTS: While the mean age of the patients was 51.0 years (40.0-59.50) in group 1, it was 48.0 years (40.75-54.75) in group 2 (P > .05). In terms of the female sex, it was 36 (73.5%) and 27 (67.5%) in group 1 and group 2, respectively (P > .05). Similarly, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding primary disease and basal graft function (P > .05). There was a statistically significant difference in inflammation indicators in group 1 compared with group 2 (P < .05). A correlation was found between inflammation indicators and COVID-19 (P < .05). However, no significant correlation was detected between COVID-19 disease and MCP-1 levels in both groups (P > .05). Also, according to basal MCP-1 levels, we did not find a significant difference between survival and nonsurvival patients (164.0 pg/mL [146.0-202.0] vs 156.0 pg/mL [143.0-173.0], respectively (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Monocyte chemoattractant protein, an indicator of inflammation, was not found to predict the prognosis of COVID-19 disease in kidney recipients.

Does Monocyte Chemoattractant Protein-1 Levels determine the prognosis of COVID-19 disease in kidney transplant recipients?

Background In the normal population, a high MCP-1 level is an important biomarker for the progression of COVID-19 disease. This study aimed to investigate whether MCP-1 level can determine the disease prognosis in kidney transplant (KT) patients with COVID-19. Methods A total of 89 patients, including 49 KT patients (Group 1) diagnosed with COVID-19 who required hospitalization, and 40 KT patients who did not have COVID-19 disease (Group 2), were included. Demographic characteristics and laboratory results of the patients were recorded. The serum reserved for MCP-1 was stored at -80 degrees and studied blindly by a single microbiologist at the end of the study. Results While the mean age of the patients was 51.0 (40.0-59.50) years in Group 1, it was 48.0 (40.75-54.75) years in Group 2(P>0.05). In terms of the female gender, it was 36 (73.5%) and 27 (67.5%) in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively (P>0.05). Similarly, there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding primary disease and basal graft function (p>0.05). There was a statistically significant difference in inflammation indicators in Group 1 compared to Group 2(P<0.05). A correlation was found between inflammation indicators and COVID-19(P<0.05). However, no significant correlation was detected between COVID-19 disease and MCP-1 levels in both groups (P>0.05). Also, according to basal MCP-1 levels, we did not find a significant difference between survival and non-survival patients (164,0pg/mL (146,0-202,0) vs 156,0 pg/mL (143,0-173,0), respectively (p>0.05). Conclusion MCP-1, an indicator of inflammation, was not found to be a predictor of prognosis of COVID-19 disease in kidney recipients.

Determination of Maternal Anxiety Levels During COVID-19 Pandemic Quarantine Period. A Cross-sectional Study

Objective: The novel coronavirus, named as severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), spreads primarily through humans to human transmission and for this reason governments across the globe have enforced social isolation rules. Isolation and the fear of getting infected affected the entire population, but it is felt more in pregnant women. The aim of this study is to examine the anxiety and behavioral changes in pregnant women caused by COVID-19 pandemic and antenatal care quality during the quarantine period. Methods: A cross-sectional study was initiated at outpatient clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology Department in University of Health Sciences Turkey, Prof. Dr. Cemil Tascioglu City Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey, between 07 May and May 31, 2020 during the COVID-19 outbreak curfew quarantine period. A total of 291 patients (174 pregnant and 102 non-pregnant) were included. The data were obtained from both qualitative and quantitative methods using face-to-face survey, using the state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI) and personal information form with lifestyle change questionnaire. Anxiety levels, behavioral changes were compared and antenatal care quality assessed. Results: Pregnant participants had higher anxiety STAI state (STAI-S) scores than the non-pregnant participants (43.67±10.77 vs. 39.62±9.45, p=0.02). The STAI trait (STAI-T) anxiety scores were similar between the two groups (43.57±8.07 vs. 43.33±9.56, p=0.82. 60 of pregnant participants were in first trimester, 53 were in second and 61 were in third trimester. The education level of the pregnant participants and whether they received psychosocial support or in which trimester they were, did not make any difference between the STAI-S and STAI-T scores. 67.8% of pregnant participants stated about the fear of going to the hospital and 46.6% canceled their appointments of prenatal care. Appointment canceling was highest in third trimester (p=<0.001). Conclusion: During the quarantine period, increased maternal anxiety and decreased antenatal care quality determined, that may lead to increase in perinatal morbidity and mortality. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of European Archives of Medical Research is the property of Galenos Yayinevi Tic. LTD. STI and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Outbreak anxiety scale: Development, validity, and reliability.

OBJECTIVE: Epidemic and pandemic outbreak periods are as stressful for psychiatric symptoms as well as the physical symptoms of the epidemic disease and can trigger and aggravate psychiatric symptoms, especially anxiety. There is no scale specific to the outbreak period and which can be used in other outbreaks. In this study, it was planned to develop a scale to evaluate the anxiety associated with epidemic disease, especially during the epidemic period. METHODS: In this study, a Likert type scale with 15 items was developed by our research team to evaluate outbreak disease anxiety, and the scale form created was transferred to online use and the reliability of validity was evaluated by obtaining the results of 311 participants in the online environment. The internal consistency of the scale was assessed with Cronbach's Alpha coefficients. Split-half reliability was estimated using Spearman-Brown coefficients unequel length. Explanatory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis in AMOS, correlation analysis, and construct validity analysis (convergent validity and discriminant validity) were conducted. Beck Anxiety Inventory and Health Anxiety Inventory was used to evaluate concurrent and discriminant validity. RESULTS: The Cronbach Alpha coefficient calculated for the evaluation of the internal consistency (homogeneity) of the outbreak anxiety scale was determined as 0.94 and this value shows that the scale has high reliability. With the results of this study, the scale's content validity and construct validity, discrimination, and criterion validity were evaluated and it was shown to have acceptable valid features in all. CONCLUSION: Outbreak anxiety scale is a valid and reliable tool to evaluate anxiety related with outbreak of epidemic and pandemic disease.

Anxiety and Loneliness Levels of Quarantined Citizens Who Brought from Abroad: An Example from Turkey

Objective: The quarantine process implemented to prevent the spread of infection during the coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 pandemic may negatively affect individuals. We aimed to evaluate the anxiety and loneliness levels of the quarantined individuals and determine the related factors. Materials and Methods: Two hundred ninety individuals who were brought to Turkey from abroad in May 2020, quarantined in Sakarya province, participated in our descriptive cross-sectional study. The loneliness and anxiety levels, along with the effects of the quarantine process, were evaluated. The sociodemographic information form prepared, Loneliness Scale (UCLA), State Anxiety Scale (STAI-1), and Trait Anxiety Scale (STAI-2), were used to collect data. Results: The mean age of the participants was 35.32±9.86 years and 79.7% were male. Participants who stated that they had a mental illness before the pandemic and those who reported that they needed a mental health professional during the pandemic scored significantly higher in the UCLA, STAI-1, and STAI-2 scales compared to others. The UCLA and STAI-2 scores of participants with a high concern about contracting COVID-19 were higher than those with moderate and low levels of anxiety. The quarantine process did not significantly affect the UCLA, STAI-1, and STAI-2 scales of participants. Conclusion: Although quarantine was not found to affect anxiety and loneliness levels, it was observed that the basis of anxiety in highly anxious individuals was constituted by worry about themselves or loved ones contracting the disease and economic effects of the process.

Comparison of saliva and oro-nasopharyngeal swab sample in the molecular diagnosis of COVID-19

SUMMARY BACKGROUND Healthcare personnel are at risk of becoming infected while taking upper and/or lower respiratory tract specimens. Therefore, there is a need for sampling methods that do not risk infecting them. In this study, we aimed to compare the saliva and Oro-Nasopharyngeal Swab (ONS) sampling methods. METHODS Patients were divided into three groups. Group 1 included patients whose diagnosis of COVID-19 was confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Group 2 included patients with COVID-19 compatible findings in lung computed tomography (CT), but with a negative PCR. Group 3 included patients who presented to the emergency department with COVID-19 compatible complaints but had normal CT. Saliva and ONS samples were taken on the third day of hospitalization in groups 1 and 2, whereas in group 3, they were taken at the time of admission to the hospital. RESULTS A total of 64 patients were included in the study. The average age was 51.04 ± 17.9 years, and 37 (57.8%) were male. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 27 (42.2%) patients'saliva samples. While the sensitivity and positive predictive value of saliva samples were 85.2%, specificity and negative predictive value were 89.2%. The value of kappa was in substantial agreement (0.744), and it was found statistically significant (&lt;0.001). CONCLUSIONS Saliva samples can be used instead of ONS samples in detecting SARS-CoV-2. Investigating SARS-CoV-2 with saliva is cheaper, easier for the patient and overall, and, most importantly, it poses much less risk of SARS-CoV-2 contamination to healthcare personnel. RESUMO OBJETIVO Funcionários da saúde correm risco de infecção ao coletar amostras do trato superior e/ou inferior. Portanto, existe a necessidade de métodos de coleta de amostras que não representem um risco de infecção. Neste estudo, nosso objetivo foi comparar as métodos de coleta de saliva e swab de naso e orofaringe (ONS). MÉTODOS Os pacientes foram divididos em três grupos. O Grupo 1 incluiu pacientes cujo diagnóstico de COVID-19 foi confirmado por reação em cadeia da polimerase (PCR). O Grupo 2 incluiu pacientes com achados compatíveis com COVID-19 em exames de tomografia computadorizada (TC), mas com PCR negativo. O Grupo 3 incluiu pacientes que compareceram ao departamento de emergência com queixas compatíveis com COVID-19, mas TC normal. Amostras de saliva e ONS foram coletadas no terceiro dia de internação, nos Grupos 1 e 2, já no Grupo 3, foram coletadas no momento da internação. RESULTADOS Um total de 64 pacientes foram incluídos no estudo. A média de idade foi de 51,04 ± 17,9 anos, e 37 (57,8%) eram do sexo masculino. SARS-CoV-2 foi detectado em 27 (42,2%) amostras de saliva dos pacientes. A sensibilidade e valor preditivo positivo foi de 85,2% nas amostras de saliva, já a especificidade e o valor preditivo negativo foi 89,2%. O valor de Kappa estava substancialmente de acordo (0,744) e era estatisticamente significante (&lt;0,001). CONCLUSÃO Amostras de saliva podem ser usada em vez de ONS na detecção de SARS-CoV-2. O uso de amostras de saliva para detecção de SARS-CoV-2 é mais barato, mais fácil para o paciente e em geral e, mais importante, representa um risco muito menor de contaminação de SARS-CoV-2 para os profissionais da saúde.

Development, validity and reliability study of a compliance scale for the COVID-19 outbreak prevention recommendations

Background/aim: During the intense periods of the COVID-19 pandemic, legal measures were taken for its containment. However, since legal precautions cannot be implemented continuously, hand washing, mask usage and obeying social distance rules are important in combating the pandemic. Complying with these rules is mostly individual decisions. The behavior of individuals has a prominent place in the course of the pandemic. In this study, we aimed to develop a scale which could measure compliance with outbreak measures. Materials and methods: This study was conducted in two stages after evaluation of the content validity of the item pool formed by the research group by experts. For construct validity, the scale subdimensions were determined in 250 people between the ages of 18-70 years at the first stage and the definitive version of the 20-item scale was constructed. In the second stage, exploratory factor analysis was repeated in a group of 484 people, and confirmatory factor analysis was performed. Cronbach's alpha coefficients, Spearman-Brown coefficients, test-retest methods were used to determine reliability. Results: The variance explanation of the scale consisting of 20 items and two subdimensions in the explanatory factor analysis is 63.434% (n = 484). Confirmatory factor analysis resulted in CMIN/DF = 3.540, RMR = 0.043, NFI Delta 1 = 0.928, TLI rho 2 = 0.939, CFI = 0.947, RMSEA = 0.072, SRMR = 0.0368. Cronbach's alpha value of the scale is 0.95; and the Spearman Brown coefficient equal length analysis resulted in 0.928. The temporal consistency of the scale was evaluated with the test-retest method (P = 0.893). The structure, content validity, temporal consistency, item discrimination, and internal consistency were evaluated and found to have acceptable valid, reliable properties. Conclusion: The outbreak prevention recommendation compliance scale is a valid and reliable tool with which compliance with the prevention plans can be evaluated.

Comparison of saliva and oro-nasopharyngeal swab sample in the molecular diagnosis of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare personnel are at risk of becoming infected while taking upper and/or lower respiratory tract specimens. Therefore, there is a need for sampling methods that do not risk infecting them. In this study, we aimed to compare the saliva and Oro-Nasopharyngeal Swab (ONS) sampling methods. METHODS: Patients were divided into three groups. Group 1 included patients whose diagnosis of COVID-19 was confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Group 2 included patients with COVID-19 compatible findings in lung computed tomography (CT), but with a negative PCR. Group 3 included patients who presented to the emergency department with COVID-19 compatible complaints but had normal CT. Saliva and ONS samples were taken on the third day of hospitalization in groups 1 and 2, whereas in group 3, they were taken at the time of admission to the hospital. RESULTS: A total of 64 patients were included in the study. The average age was 51.04 ± 17.9 years, and 37 (57.8%) were male. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 27 (42.2%) patients' saliva samples. While the sensitivity and positive predictive value of saliva samples were 85.2%, specificity and negative predictive value were 89.2%. The value of kappa was in substantial agreement (0.744), and it was found statistically significant (<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Saliva samples can be used instead of ONS samples in detecting SARS-CoV-2. Investigating SARS-CoV-2 with saliva is cheaper, easier for the patient and overall, and, most importantly, it poses much less risk of SARS-CoV-2 contamination to healthcare personnel.