How efficient are facial masks against COVID-19? Evaluating the mask use of various communities one year into the pandemic

Face masks are devices worn over the mouth and nose to protect against splashes, infectious respiratory droplets, or aerosols generated during breathing or coughing according to their filtering capacity. Medical masks, respirators, or cloth masks have been used for source control and for the protection of the exposed. After the first case on March 11, 2020, in Turkey, National COVID-19 Scientific Advisory Board published various contents for the correct use of masks. Medical face masks have been used in healthcare settings for both source control and potential personal protection before the COVID-19 pandemic. Adverse events associated with using masks are very sparse and mainly associated with tight-fitting respirators or dermatitis due to prolonged use and should not be a reason for refusal to use. Studies suggest the use of masks mainly in the healthcare facilities but also in the community for source control of people who have respiratory symptoms of communicable diseases other than COVID-19. They are likely to be acceptable if recommended, particularly in more severe epidemics and pandemics. Metaanalysis, case control, cross sectional, cohort, retrospective, retrospective cross sectional, research, randomized controlled, and controlled comparison studies were reviewed on the protective effect of masks on COVID-19 with laboratory evidence. Optimum use of face masks with additional precautions has been found to be useful controlling the spread of the respiratory viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 in most of the studies and metaanalyses. As a conclusion, the recent evidence in COVID-19 pandemic is consistent with the previous studies which have shown association between face mask use and decreased risk of viral infections, and medical face mask use should be encouraged both for the community and healthcare facilities along with other infection control measures such as hand hygiene, during outbreaks when there is widespread community transmission.

Efficacy and safety of an inactivated whole-virion SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac): interim results of a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial in Turkey.

BACKGROUND: CoronaVac, an inactivated whole-virion SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, has been shown to be well tolerated with a good safety profile in individuals aged 18 years and older in phase 1/2 trials, and provided a good humoral response against SARS-CoV-2. We present the interim efficacy and safety results of a phase 3 clinical trial of CoronaVac in Turkey. METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Volunteers aged 18-59 years with no history of COVID-19 and with negative PCR and antibody test results for SARS-CoV-2 were enrolled at 24 centres in Turkey. Exclusion criteria included (but were not limited to) immunosuppressive therapy (including steroids) within the past 6 months, bleeding disorders, asplenia, and receipt of any blood products or immunoglobulins within the past 3 months. The K1 cohort consisted of health-care workers (randomised in a 1:1 ratio), and individuals other than health-care workers were also recruited into the K2 cohort (randomised in a 2:1 ratio) using an interactive web response system. The study vaccine was 3 µg inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virion adsorbed to aluminium hydroxide in a 0·5 mL aqueous suspension. Participants received either vaccine or placebo (consisting of all vaccine components except inactivated virus) intramuscularly on days 0 and 14. The primary efficacy outcome was the prevention of PCR-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 at least 14 days after the second dose in the per protocol population. Safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04582344) and is active but no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Among 11 303 volunteers screened between Sept 14, 2020, and Jan 5, 2021, 10 218 were randomly allocated. After exclusion of four participants from the vaccine group because of protocol deviations, the intention-to-treat group consisted of 10 214 participants (6646 [65·1%] in the vaccine group and 3568 [34·9%] in the placebo group) and the per protocol group consisted of 10 029 participants (6559 [65·4%] and 3470 [34·6%]) who received two doses of vaccine or placebo. During a median follow-up period of 43 days (IQR 36-48), nine cases of PCR-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 were reported in the vaccine group (31·7 cases [14·6-59·3] per 1000 person-years) and 32 cases were reported in the placebo group (192·3 cases [135·7-261·1] per 1000 person-years) 14 days or more after the second dose, yielding a vaccine efficacy of 83·5% (95% CI 65·4-92·1; p<0·0001). The frequencies of any adverse events were 1259 (18·9%) in the vaccine group and 603 (16·9%) in the placebo group (p=0·0108) with no fatalities or grade 4 adverse events. The most common systemic adverse event was fatigue (546 [8·2%] participants in the vaccine group and 248 [7·0%] the placebo group, p=0·0228). Injection-site pain was the most frequent local adverse event (157 [2·4%] in the vaccine group and 40 [1·1%] in the placebo group, p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: CoronaVac has high efficacy against PCR-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 with a good safety and tolerability profile. FUNDING: Turkish Health Institutes Association.

COVID-19 patients' sera induce epithelial mesenchymal transition in cancer cells.

Covid-19 Pneumonia of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic infection, persists to have high disease burden especially in cancer patients. Increased inflammation and thromboembolic processes are blamed to influence cancer patients more than the others but due to lack of knowledge regarding the pathophysiology of the both the virus itself and the response of the host, more basic and translational disease modeling research is needed to understand Cancer-Covid-19 interaction. In this study, serum samples from the patients, who were hospitalized due to Covid-19 pneumonia, applied to different cancer cells and cytotoxicity, motility, proliferation and gene expression analysis were performed. Serum samples derived from healthy volunteers and the fetal bovine serum that is used regularly in cell culture experiments used as controls. Hospitalized Covid-19 patients who had also cancer, were retrospectively screened, and their clinical course were recorded. Overall 12 Patient (PS) and 4 healthy serums (CS) were included in the experiments. PS applied cells showed increased motility in A549 cells as well as lost cell to cell connection in MCF7 and HCT116 cells, and induced expression of VIM, ZEB1 and SNAIL2 mRNA levels. Eight cancer diagnosed patients who were hospitalized due to Covid-19 between April and September 2020 were also reviewed retrospectively, which 5 of them were dead during SARS-CoV-2 infection. Thorax CT images of the 2 patients showed increased metastatic nodules in the lungs as of January 2021. The results of the study indicate that metastasis may be one of the prolonged consequences of COVID-19 pandemic in cancer sufferers.

COVID-19: pathogenesis, genetic polymorphism, clinical features and laboratory findings

COVID-19 caused by a novel agent SARS-CoV-2 progressed to a pandemic condition and resulted in a major public health concern worldwide, leading to social and economic issues at the same time. The pathogenesis of COVID-19 starts with the bonding of the virus to ACE2 receptors expressed in many tissues, and the triggered excessive immune response plays a critical role in the course of the disease. The cytokine storm that occurs upon excessive production of pro-inflammatory cytokines is considered responsible for the severe progression of the disease and the organ damage. However, the accurate pathophysiological mechanism of the disease, which progresses with various clinical presentations, is still substantially unknown. While various studies have been conducted on the effect of genetic polymorphism on the course and severity of the disease, the presence of a significant effect has not been proven yet. The clinical course of the disease is variable, with clinical representation ranging from 81% mild course to 14% severe course along with 5% critical course in patients. Asymptomatic course is considered to be higher than expected, although its frequency is not known exactly. Older adults and those with comorbidities are exposed to a more severe disease course. The disease progress with various symptoms, such as fever, cough, dyspnea, malaise, myalgia, taste and smell dysfunctions, diarrhea, and headache. A range of complications (acute respiratory distress syndrome, thromboembolic conditions, arrhythmia and cardiac events, secondary infections) could be seen during the course of the disease. Varied laboratory tests are vital to determine these verity and prognosis of the disease, along with the condition and exposure of the affected systems during thecourse of COVID-19.

Physicians' knowledge of potential covid-19 drug-drug interactions: An online survey in turkey.

OBJECTIVES: Given the many medications used to treat novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and its comorbidities and complications, the risk of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) and resulting patient harm is concerning. This study aimed to shed light on physicians' knowledge of potential DDIs related to COVID-19 treatment, to determine the effect of an information brief about these DDIs on their correct response rates, and to identify factors associated with higher levels of knowledge about these DDIs. METHODS: The knowledge of physicians regarding the clinical significance and intervention of 7 common potential DDIs during COVID-19 treatment was evaluated via an online survey. Using a pretest-posttest design, the physicians completed a multiple-choice questionnaire first using their existing knowledge, then received an information brief about the DDIs and completed the same questionnaire again. Pretest and posttest scores were evaluated and factors affecting correct response rates were determined using correlation, regression, and post-hoc analyzes. RESULTS: A total of 244 physicians participated in the survey, 147 (60.2%) of whom were involved in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. After the information brief, there were significant increases in the number of correct responses for both clinical significance and interventions (p < 0.0001). In comparisons of pretest knowledge, physicians involved in the treatment of COVID-19 patients showed significantly higher correct response rate for interventions compared to physicians who had not treated COVID-19 patients (p = 0.003). Post-hoc analysis to compare pretest correct intervention responses among all medical specialties revealed significant differences between infectious diseases and family practice (mean difference: 1.059; p = 0.005) and between internal medicine and family practice (mean difference: 1.771; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Physicians involved in the treatment of COVID-19 patients had more knowledge regarding clinical significance and appropriate management of potential DDIs than those not involved. Therefore, it may be beneficial to organize trainings and issue guidelines about potential DDIs for physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.