Objective To evaluate the course and effect of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) on pregnant women followed up in a Turkish institution. Methods A prospective, single tertiary pandemic center cohort study was conducted on pregnant women with confirmed or suspected severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection. Positive diagnosis was made on a real‐time polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) assay of a nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal specimen. Demographic features, clinical characteristics, and maternal and perinatal outcomes were evaluated. Results SARS‐CoV‐2 was suspected in 100 pregnant women. Of them, 29 had the diagnosis confirmed by RT‐PCR. Eight of the remaining 71 cases had clinical findings highly suspicious for COVID‐19. Ten (34.5%) of the confirmed cases had co‐morbidities. Cough (58.6%) and myalgia (51.7%) were the leading symptoms. COVID‐19 therapy was given to 10 (34.5%) patients. There were no admissions to the intensive care unit. Pregnancy complications were present in 7 (24.1%) patients. Half of the births (5/10) were cesarean deliveries. None of the neonates were positive for SARS‐CoV‐2. Samples of breastmilk were also negative for the virus. Three neonates were admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit. Conclusion The clinical course of COVID 19 during pregnancy appears to be mild in the present study.
Objective To investigate the rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positivity in asymptomatic pregnant women admitted to hospital for delivery in a Turkish pandemic center. Study Design This prospective cohort study was conducted in Ankara City Hospital between April, 15, 2020 and June, 5, 2020. A total of 206 asymptomatic pregnant women (103 low-risk pregnant women without any defined risk factor and 103 high-risk pregnant women) were screened for SARS-CoV-2 positivity upon admission to hospital for delivery. Detection of SARS-CoV2 in nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal samples was performed by Real Time Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) method targeting RdRp (RNA dependent RNA polymerase) gene. Two groups were compared in terms of demographic features, clinical characteristics and SARS-CoV-2 positivity. Results Three of the 206 pregnant women participating in the study had positive RT-PCR tests (1.4 %) and all positive cases were in the high-risk pregnancy group. Although, one case in the high-risk pregnancy group had developed symptoms highly suspicious for COVID-19, two repeated RT-PCR tests were negative. SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positivity rate was significantly higher in the high-risk pregnancy group (2.9 % vs 0%, p = 0.04). Conclusion Healthcare professionals should be cautious in the labor and delivery of high-risk pregnant women during the pandemic period and universal testing for COVID-19 may be considered in selected populations.
This study aimed to determine the presence of vancomycin resistance (vanA and vanB) and virulence genes (esp, asa1, gelE, ace, hyl, cylA, cpd and ebpA) in vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VREfm) strains and to analyse the clonal relationships among the strains. E. faecium strains were identified from rectal and clinical specimens by biochemical tests and the API-20 Strep kit. Susceptibility testing was performed using disc-diffusion and broth-dilution methods. PFGE was used for molecular typing of the VREfm strains. The vancomycin resistance and virulence genes were amplified by two-step multiplex PCR. All 55 VREfm isolates were resistant to penicillin G, ampicillin and high-level gentamicin but were susceptible to quinupristin/dalfopristin and linezolid. Multiplex PCR analysis indicated that all isolates harboured vanA and that 41 (75 %) were positive for virulence genes. The esp gene was the most common virulence factor and was detected in nine (41 %) invasive and 32 (96.7 %) non-invasive isolates. Multiple virulence genes were observed only in two non-invasive isolates; one harboured esp and ebpA and the other harboured esp, ebpA, asa1, gelE and cpd. PFGE typing yielded 16 different types, seven of which were clusters with two to 14 strains each. The clustering rates of the rectal swab, blood and urine isolates were 72.7 %, 61.5 % and 87.5 %, respectively. The genetic similarity observed among the VREfm isolates indicated crosstransmission in the hospital. Further studies on the virulence factors present in the strains might provide insight into the acquisition of these traits and their contribution to increased prevalence of VREfm.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the effect of mutations by comparing wild-type SARS-CoV-2 and Omicron regarding clinical features in patients with COVID-19. It also aimed to assess whether SARS-CoV-2 cycle threshold value could predict COVID-19 severity. METHODS: A total of 960 wild-type and 411 Omicron variant patients with positive results in SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction test from oropharyngeal and/or nasopharyngeal samples during their hospital admissions were included in this retrospective study. The reference symptoms of the patients were obtained from the hospital database. The correlation between chest computed tomography findings and the "cycle threshold" of patients with wild-type SARS-CoV-2 was assessed. RESULTS: Cough, fever, shortness of breath, loss of taste and smell, and diarrhea were found to be statistically significantly higher (p=0.001; 0.001; 0.001; 0.001; and 0.006; respectively) in the wild-type cohort, while in the Omicron cohort, sore throat and headache were found to be statistically significantly higher (p=0.001 and 0.003, respectively). An inverse relationship was found between chest computed tomography findings and viral load. CONCLUSION: This study revealed that the Omicron variant tended to infect predominantly the upper respiratory tract and showed decreased lung infectivity, and the disease progressed with a milder clinical course. Therefore, the study showed that the tropism of the virus was changed and the viral phenotype was affected. It was also found that SARS-CoV-2 viral load did not predict COVID-19 severity in patients with wild-type SARS-CoV-2.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.