Tıp Fakültesi / Faculty of Medicine

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

Browse

Filters

2019 - 201912020 - 20211

Settings

search.filters.applied.f.rights: search.filters.rights.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSubject: search.filters.subject.risk assessment

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • 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.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Imaging for screening cardiovascular involvement in patients with systemic rheumatologic diseases: more questions than answers
    (2019) Sade, Leyla Elif; Akdoğan, Ali; 0000-0003-3737-8595; 31230066
    Cardiovascular involvement due to systemic rheumatologic diseases (SRDs) remains largely underdiagnosed despite causing excess mortality and limiting the favourable effect of therapeutic developments on survival. Traditional risk scoring systems are poorly calibrated for SRD patients. There is an unmet need to develop a cardiovascular (CV) risk stratification tool and screening algorithm for CV involvement dedicated to asymptomatic patients with SRDs. Even though accelerated atherosclerosis is the most prominent cause of major CV events, a more comprehensive approach is crucial to detect different pathological processes associated with SRDs that are leading to CV complications. In that regard, incorporation of imaging parameters obtained from echocardiography and carotid ultrasound (CUS) might help to improve risk models, to detect and monitor subclinical CV involvement. These two imaging modalities should be an integral part of screening SRD patients with suspicion of CV involvement on top of electrocardiogram (ECG). Cardiac magnetic resonance and multi-slice computerized tomography angiography and nuclear imaging modalities seem very important to complement echocardiography and CUS for further evaluation. However, to answer the question 'Should asymptomatic patients with SRDs undergo screening with echocardiography and CUS on top of ECG?' necessitates large studies performing cardiac screening with a standard approach by using these imaging methods to obtain longitudinal data with hard CV outcomes.