Tıp Fakültesi / Faculty of Medicine

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/11727/1403

Browse

Filters

2021 - 20232

Settings

search.filters.applied.f.language: search.filters.language.turSubject: search.filters.subject.SARS-CoV-2

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Evaluation of the COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test
    (2023) Sanli, Ozlem Oguc; Kuscu, Ozlem Ozkan; Incekas, Caner; 0000-0001-7899-0233; 0000-0001-9019-423X
    Introduction: Coronavirus disease, is an infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2. The gold standard method to diagnose is the reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction test. Rapid antigen tests can also be used for diagnosis. This study aims to compare the results of these two methods.Materials and Methods: Between November 2021 and July 2022, the study included 1811 patients who visited the emergency depart-ment with coronavirus-related symptoms and signs. Respiratory samples from these patients were simultaneously evaluated using both reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction and rapid antigen tests. The reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction tests were conducted using the BioSpeedy SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction kit (Bioeksen-Turkiye), while the rapid antigen tests were performed using the RapidForTM SARS-CoV-2 Ag (Vitrosens-Germany).Results: The comparison of the reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction test and rapid antigen test results showed a 90.67% sensitivity, 98.28% specificity, 91.27% positive predictive value, 98.15% negative predictive value, and 97.02% (1757/1811) accuracy. Qualitative results of both tests exhibited a very good agreement (Kappa= 0.892, p< 0.001). According to the reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction test, the sensitivity of the rapid antigen test was found to be 100% in 28 samples with a cycle threshold <17, 100% in 78 samples with a cycle threshold <20, 98.33% in 120 samples with a cycle threshold <22, and 96.28% in 215 samples with a cycle threshold <25.Conclusion: When the results of the study are evaluated, it is seen that the use of the rapid antigen test for screening purposes and confirmation of patients with negative test results by Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction will provide advantages in terms of both time and cost. Due to the low sensitivity and high positive predictive value of the vitrosens rapid antigen test, we think that this test can be used in the first stage to accelerate the diagnosis of patients with high viral load, who are more likely to be infectious, to prevent transmission and to start their treatment quickly.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Antibody Screening and Risk Assessment of Healthcare Professionals in the COVID-19 Pandemic
    (2021) Gumus, Hatice Hale; Demiroglu, Yusuf Ziya; Aliskan, Hikmet Eda; Odemis, İlker; Ceylan, Ozgur; Pocan, Ahmet Gurhan; Karagum, Ozlem; 0000-0001-9060-3195; 0000-0003-2638-0163; 0000-0002-9866-2197; 0000-0003-2638-0163; 0000-0001-6910-7250; 0000-0003-0681-8375; 0000-0003-3128-1602; 0000-0001-9071-9606; 34416802; AAE-2282-2021; AFK-3690-2022; AAX-9250-2021; AAZ-9711-2021; AAG-2486-2022; AAK-8276-2021; U-4084-2017; AAE-6310-2021; AAJ-2108-2021
    Globally 364102 healthcare professionals have been infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and 1253 of them died until 15 January 2021. Healthcare professionals serving at the forefront of combating the pandemic are in the high risk group. In our country, the data about coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) among healthcare professionals are limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG seroprevalence in healthcare professionals, to evaluate the risks they encountered during work, and to examine their relationships with antibody positivity. A total of 572 healthcare professionals serving in various units of our hospital participated in our study and the presence of anti-nucleocapsid IgG was investigated by chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (SARS-CoV-2 IgG test, Abbott Laboratories Diagnostics, USA) method in serum samples collected between May 18, 2020 and June 30, 2020. The demographic characteristics, medical history, work conditions, medical procedures performed and possible risk factors were questioned with a questionnaire form. The average age of the participants was 33.5 +/- 9.2 (19-61) years, and 62.9% (360/572) of them were women. In our study, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG seroprevalence was 3.7% (21/572). The association of the antibody positivity with age, gender and occupational status was not statistically significant (p> 0.05). Comorbid diseases which were significantly higher in seropositive healthcare professionals were hypertension (19%) and diabetes mellitus (14.3%) (p< 0.05). It was observed that antibody positivity was significantly higher in healthcare professionals working in high (52.4%) and medium risk (33.3%) areas, those who treat and/or examine patients with suspicious or positive COVID-19 (66.7%) and those who spend more than 30 minutes in COVID-19 patient rooms (76%) (p< 0.05). The symptoms associated with seropositivity in healthcare workers with a history of symptoms (46%) were loss of smell (23.5%), loss of taste (20.0%) and respiratory distress (16.7%) (p< 0.05). It was observed that the probability of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 increased 12 times if there was a colleague with COVID-19 in the hospital, four times if there was a patient in the house/lodging and six times if there was an infected person in the social environment (p< 0.05). The rate of those who had the flu vaccine among the participants was 10.8% (62/572) and 9.7% of them were found to be anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG positive (p< 0.05, 95% CI= 1.31-9.48). The seropositivity was significantly higher in non-smokers (4.8 %) compared to smokers (0.0%) (p< 0.05). In our study, it was determined that the rate of seropositivity was 12 times higher in healthcare professionals who stated that they received hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis due to risky contact compared to those who did not receive prophylaxis (p< 0.05, 95% CI= 4.11-40.64). The ratio of the personnel who answered "always" to the frequency of wearing gloves, masks, goggles/face shields and overalls was 85.7%, 96.9%, 62.1% and 65.4%, respectively. In conclusion, regular and large-scale sero-epidemiological screening of healthcare professionals in the COVID-19 pandemic can contribute to the control of the pandemic by providing a better understanding of transmission dynamics and risk factors.