Background There is growing evidence indicating that children are less affected from COVID-19. Some authors speculate that childhood vaccinations may provide some cross-protection against COVID-19. In this study, our aim was to compare the circulating antibody titers for multiple childhood vaccine antigens, as an indicator of the state of immune memory between patients with COVID-19 and healthy controls, with a specific aim to identify the association between disease severity and antibody titrations which may indicate a protective function related to vaccine or disease induced memory. Methods This study is a case-control study including 53 patients with COVID-19 and 40 healthy volunteers. COVID-19 severity was divided into three groups: asymptomatic, mild and severe. We measured the same set of antibody titers for vaccine antigens, and a set of biochemical and infection markers, in both the case and control groups. Results Rubella (p = 0.003), pneumococcus (p = 0.002), and Bordetella pertussis (p < 0.0001) titers were found to be significantly lower in the case group than the control group. There was a significant decline in pneumococcus titers with severity of disease (p = 0.021) and a significant association with disease severity for Bordetella pertussis titers (p = 0.014) among COVID patients. Levels of AST, procalcitonin, ferritin and D-dimer significantly increased with the disease severity. Discussion Our study supports the hypothesis that pre-existing immune memory, as monitored using circulating antibodies, acquired from childhood vaccinations, or past infections confer some protection against COVID-19. Randomized controlled studies are needed to support a definitive conclusion.

No abstract

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Nausea and vomiting are undesirable outcomes during the postoperative period. Vomiting may cause life-threatening pulmonary aspiration, as the airway reflex may not be fully restored postoperatively due to the residual effects of anesthetic and analgesic medications. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> The aim of this study is to determine the effective dosage of haloperidol against nausea and vomiting, as well as its adverse effects. <b><i>Materials and Methods:</i></b> A total of 250 female patients between the ages of 19 and 70, who were admitted for laparoscopic abdominal hysterectomy, were included in this study. The patients were randomized into five groups: placebo (<i>n</i> = 50) (Group I), haloperidol 2 mg (<i>n</i> = 50) (Group II), haloperidol 1 mg (<i>n</i> = 50) (Group III), haloperidol 0.5 mg (<i>n</i> = 50) (Group IV), and haloperidol 0.25 mg (<i>n</i> = 50) (Group V). The patients’ duration of anesthesia, duration of surgery, and nausea/vomiting scores were recorded, along with the antiemetic agents used. The Aldrete’s recovery scale was used as the postoperative recovery criteria. Data from the following variables were recorded for all patients at postoperative minute 30 and hours 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, and 24: heart rate, systolic arterial pressure, diastolic arterial pressure, level of sedation, visual analog scale values, antiemetic need, patient satisfaction, side effects. <b><i>Results:</i></b> It was determined that 0.5, 1, and 2 mg doses of haloperidol were effective in preventing nausea and vomiting, and there was no difference in effectiveness between the 0.25 mg dose group and placebo. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Haloperidol was found to be an effective agent against nausea and vomiting at a dose of 0.5 mg and can be administered at the doses of 0.5 mg to 2 mg.

BACKGROUND: Tick is among the important ectoparasites of humans and animals. Ticks may transmit disease-causing pathogens to humans. Tick contact may be resulted in several viral and bacterial infections, including Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever. Timely removal of ticks with appropriate methods is important in prevention of disease transmission. There are many methods reported for tick detachment. In this study, we aimed to evaluate two of them, suture lassoing and freezing and to compare both methods and to examine technical mistakes with these techniques. METHODS:This study was designed as a prospective cross-sectional study, and included the ticks detached by healthcare professionals or directly by patients who presented to the emergency department due to tick contact. The ticks were recorded as larvae, nymphs, and adults according to their growth period. Ticks detachment types with surgical sutures and removal mistakes were recorded. RESULTS:The majority (77.4%) of the ticks were removed by healthcare professionals and a lower rate by patients themselves with hand (22.6%). No technical mistake was found in 72 (77.4%) patients, and the tick was detached as a whole, while detached broken in 15 (16.1%) patients, and the tick was detached as a whole, but the sutures were attached wrong in six (6.5%) patients. Tick broken off due to technical mistakes was most commonly seen in the ticks removed by the individuals themselves. CONCLUSION:The results of this study suggest that when appropriately and correctly used, both suture lassoing and tweezers are effective in tick removal. Public awareness-raising and training programs should be increased on this issue.

No abstract