Evaluation of the implementation of WHO infection prevention and control core components in Turkish health care facilities: results from a WHO infection prevention and control assessment framework (IPCAF)-based survey.

BACKGROUND: The core components (CCs) of infection prevention and control (IPC) from World Health Organization (WHO) are crucial for the safety and quality of health care. Our objective was to examine the level of implementation of WHO infection prevention and control core components (IPC CC) in a developing country. We also aimed to evaluate health care-associated infections (HAIs) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in intensive care units (ICUs) in association with implemented IPC CCs. METHODS: Members of the Turkish Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology Specialization Association (EKMUD) were invited to the study via e-mail. Volunteer members of any healt care facilities (HCFs) participated in the study. The investigating doctor of each HCF filled out a questionnaire to collect data on IPC implementations, including the Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF) and HAIs/AMR in ICUs in 2021. RESULTS: A total of 68 HCFs from seven regions in Türkiye and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus participated while 85% of these were tertiary care hospitals. Fifty (73.5%) HCFs had advanced IPC level, whereas 16 (23.5%) of the 68 hospitals had intermediate IPC levels. The hospitals' median (IQR) IPCAF score was 668.8 (125.0) points. Workload, staffing and occupancy (CC7; median 70 points) and multimodal strategies (CC5; median 75 points) had the lowest scores. The limited number of nurses were the most important problems. Hospitals with a bed capacity of > 1000 beds had higher rates of HAIs. Certified IPC specialists, frequent feedback, and enough nurses reduced HAIs. The most common HAIs were central line-associated blood stream infections. Most HAIs were caused by gram negative bacteria, which have a high AMR. CONCLUSIONS: Most HCFs had an advanced level of IPC implementation, for which staffing was an important driver. To further improve care quality and ensure everyone has access to safe care, it is a key element to have enough staff, the availability of certified IPC specialists, and frequent feedback. Although there is a significant decrease in HAI rates compared to previous years, HAI rates are still high and AMR is an important problem. Increasing nurses and reducing workload can prevent HAIs and AMR. Nationwide "Antibiotic Stewardship Programme" should be initiated.

Effects of classical olfactory training in patients with COVID-19-related persistent loss of smell.

PURPOSE: The management of post-COVID-19 persistent olfactory dysfunction (OD) is uncertain. Currently, olfactory training is the only evidence-based therapy for post-viral OD. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of classical olfactory training (COT) in the treatment of post-COVID-19 persistent OD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with persistent OD after COVID-19 were assessed using the Sniffin' Sticks test. Fifty-one patients were then divided into two groups based on personal preference: the COT group (n = 31) included subjects who performed COT over 12 weeks, and the control group (n = 20) included subjects who did not receive any treatment. After the exclusion of eight patients, the olfactory performances of 43 patients were re-evaluated and compared to the baseline values. RESULTS: A significantly higher proportion of patients in the COT group improved their olfactory scores above the clinically important difference compared to the control group (40% versus 6%) (p = 0.014). The subjective smell improvement by COT was independent of age, gender, OD duration, presence of parosmia, or the initial olfactory score (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Twelve weeks of COT appears to increase the olfactory sensitivity in patients with persistent OD following COVID-19.

The association of antiviral drugs with COVID-19 morbidity: The retrospective analysis of a nationwide COVID-19 cohort.

Background and objectives: Although several repurposed antiviral drugs have been used for the treatment of COVID-19, only a few such as remdesivir and molnupiravir have shown promising effects. The objectives of our study were to investigate the association of repurposed antiviral drugs with COVID-19 morbidity. Methods: Patients admitted to 26 different hospitals located in 16 different provinces between March 11-July 18, 2020, were enrolled. Case definition was based on WHO criteria. Patients were managed according to the guidelines by Scientific Board of Ministry of Health of Turkey. Primary outcomes were length of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) requirement, and intubation. Results: We retrospectively evaluated 1,472 COVID-19 adult patients; 57.1% were men (mean age = 51.9 ± 17.7years). A total of 210 (14.3%) had severe pneumonia, 115 (7.8%) were admitted to ICUs, and 69 (4.7%) were intubated during hospitalization. The median (interquartile range) of duration of hospitalization, including ICU admission, was 7 (5-12) days. Favipiravir (n = 328), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 55), and oseltamivir (n = 761) were administered as antiviral agents, and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ, n = 1,382) and azithromycin (n = 738) were used for their immunomodulatory activity. Lopinavir/ritonavir (ß [95% CI]: 4.71 [2.31-7.11]; p = 0.001), favipiravir (ß [95% CI]: 3.55 [2.56-4.55]; p = 0.001) and HCQ (ß [95% CI]: 0.84 [0.02-1.67]; p = 0.046) were associated with increased risk of lengthy hospital stays. Furthermore, favipiravir was associated with increased risks of ICU admission (OR [95% CI]: 3.02 [1.70-5.35]; p = 0.001) and invasive mechanical ventilation requirement (OR [95% CI]: 2.94 [1.28-6.75]; p = 0.011). Conclusion: Our findings demonstrated that antiviral drugs including lopinavir, ritonavir, and favipiravir were associated with negative clinical outcomes such as increased risks for lengthy hospital stay, ICU admission, and invasive mechanical ventilation requirement. Therefore, repurposing such agents without proven clinical evidence might not be the best approach for COVID-19 treatment.

The association of antiviral drugs with COVID-19 morbidity: The retrospective analysis of a nationwide COVID-19 cohort

Background and objectives Although several repurposed antiviral drugs have been used for the treatment of COVID-19, only a few such as remdesivir and molnupiravir have shown promising effects. The objectives of our study were to investigate the association of repurposed antiviral drugs with COVID-19 morbidity. Methods Patients admitted to 26 different hospitals located in 16 different provinces between March 11–July 18, 2020, were enrolled. Case definition was based on WHO criteria. Patients were managed according to the guidelines by Scientific Board of Ministry of Health of Turkey. Primary outcomes were length of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) requirement, and intubation. Results We retrospectively evaluated 1,472 COVID-19 adult patients;57.1% were men (mean age = 51.9 ± 17.7years). A total of 210 (14.3%) had severe pneumonia, 115 (7.8%) were admitted to ICUs, and 69 (4.7%) were intubated during hospitalization. The median (interquartile range) of duration of hospitalization, including ICU admission, was 7 (5–12) days. Favipiravir (n = 328), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 55), and oseltamivir (n = 761) were administered as antiviral agents, and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ, n = 1,382) and azithromycin (n = 738) were used for their immunomodulatory activity. Lopinavir/ritonavir (β [95% CI]: 4.71 [2.31–7.11];p = 0.001), favipiravir (β [95% CI]: 3.55 [2.56–4.55];p = 0.001) and HCQ (β [95% CI]: 0.84 [0.02–1.67];p = 0.046) were associated with increased risk of lengthy hospital stays. Furthermore, favipiravir was associated with increased risks of ICU admission (OR [95% CI]: 3.02 [1.70–5.35];p = 0.001) and invasive mechanical ventilation requirement (OR [95% CI]: 2.94 [1.28–6.75];p = 0.011). Conclusion Our findings demonstrated that antiviral drugs including lopinavir, ritonavir, and favipiravir were associated with negative clinical outcomes such as increased risks for lengthy hospital stay, ICU admission, and invasive mechanical ventilation requirement. Therefore, repurposing such agents without proven clinical evidence might not be the best approach for COVID-19 treatment.

Comparison of an inactivated Covid19 vaccine-induced antibody response with concurrent natural Covid19 infection.

OBJECTIVES: The risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 is high among the health care workers (HCW). The comparison between the antibody response to an inactivated Covid19 vaccine and the antibodies that developed during Covid-19 infection has not been elucidated. In this study, vaccine-induced antibody levels were compared with the antibodies developed in naturally infected HCWs. METHODS: Eighty vaccinated individuals and 80 Covid-19 patients enrolled to the study. Both groups were matched on age, gender and antibody testing time. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 total Ig (Roche) and Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA (IgG) (Euroimmun, Germany) were used to detect antibodies. RESULTS: The anti-S positivity were determined to be 96.2% and 92.5% in vaccinated and patient groups (p=0.303) while the anti-N positivity was 51.2% and 98.8%, respectively (p=<0,0001). The median values for anti-S and anti-N antibodies were statistically significant between both groups. When the vaccinated group was compared with the severe and non-severe patient groups, statistically significant differences were found for both regarding anti-S1 and anti-N antibody titers (p=0,012, p=<0,0001, respectively). For the patient group, there was a positive correlation between the age and anti-S1 antibody titers (r=0.333; p=0.003) and there was also a statistically significant increase in anti-N antibody titers in time (r=0.505; p=0.0001). CONCLUSION: The anti-S seroconversion ratio in vaccinated individuals were higher than what was reported by the vaccine manufacturer. The antibody titers in the vaccinated group were lower than the patients group. The decrease in anti-S1 antibody titers in time were considered to be a disadvantage and an undesired phenomenon.

The predictors of COVID-19 mortality in a nationwide cohort of Turkish patients.

The COVID-19-related death rate varies between countries and is affected by various risk factors. This multicenter registry study was designed to evaluate the mortality rate and the related risk factors in Turkey. We retrospectively evaluated 1500 adults with COVID-19 from 26 centers who were hospitalized between March 11 and July 31, 2020. In the study group, 1041 and 459 cases were diagnosed as definite and highly probable cases, respectively. There were 993 PCR-positive cases (66.2%). Among all cases, 1144 (76.3%) were diagnosed with non-severe pneumonia, whereas 212 (14.1%) had severe pneumonia. Death occurred in 67 patients, corresponding to a mortality rate of 4.5% (95% CI:3.5-5.6). The univariate analysis demonstrated that various factors, including male sex, age ≥65 years and the presence of dyspnea or confusion, malignity, chronic obstructive lung disease, interstitial lung disease, immunosuppressive conditions, severe pneumonia, multiorgan dysfunction, and sepsis, were positively associated with mortality. Favipiravir, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin were not associated with survival. Following multivariate analysis, male sex, severe pneumonia, multiorgan dysfunction, malignancy, sepsis and interstitial lung diseases were found to be independent risk factors for mortality. Among the biomarkers, procalcitonin levels on the 3rd-5th days of admission showed the strongest associations with mortality (OR: 6.18; 1.6-23.93). This study demonstrated that the mortality rate in hospitalized patients in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic was a serious threat and that those patients with male sex, severe pneumonia, multiorgan dysfunction, malignancy, sepsis and interstitial lung diseases were at increased risk of mortality; therefore, such patients should be closely monitored.