Browsing by Author "Altindis, M"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Comparison of immunogenicity for Sinovac-CoronaVac vaccine vs. natural infection during cancer treatment
    Çakir, E; Saydan, D; Gülbagci, B; Özen, M; Ugurlu, I; Demirci, A; Bilir, F; Hacibekiroglu, I; Yildiz, N; Akcali, S; Altindis, M; Varim, C; Yaylaci, S; Bilir, C
    - OBJECTIVE: Efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines in cancer patients, especially during their active treatment, are lacking. Most of the studies in the literature compared the immuni-ty in cancer patients with a cross-sectional cohort or retrospectively. Our study investigated Sino-vac-CoronaVac COVID-19 vaccine immunogenici-ty and compared it with natural COVID-19 disease in cancer patients during their cancer therapy.PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 111 pa-tients with cancer and who are on active treat-ment were included in the study. This is a sin-gle-center study and was designed prospec-tively. Two group of patients were included in the study, natural disease and vaccinated group.RESULTS: A total of 111 patients were in-cluded in the study, 34 of whom had natural COVID-19 disease. Antibody levels following the first dose vaccine were 0.4 (0-1.9) U/ml while af-ter the second dose of vaccine were 2.6 (1.0-7.25) U/ml. Immunogenicity levels were 82.4% in the natural disease group and 75.8% in the vaccinated group after the second shot of the vaccine. Immunogenicity rate was significantly higher in non-chemotherapy (receiving immu-notehrapy/targeted therapy or biologic agent) group compared to chemotherapy drug (92.9% vs. 63.3%, p=0.004). There was a difference be-tween the antibody levels following the first and second vaccination [median (IQR): 0.3 (0-1.0) and 3.3 (2.0-6.7), p=0.001, respectively].CONCLUSIONS: The present study revealed that the Sinovac-CoronaVac vaccine showed an acceptable immunogenicity following two shots in cancer patients who were receiving ac-tive systemic therapy. On the other hand, nat-ural disease immunogenicity was higher than vaccinated group.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Comparison of Three Different Rotavirus Antigen Tests for Rotavirus Detection in Fecal Samples: A Retrospective Analysis
    Kirdar, S; Erol, N; Kahyaoglu, F; Yazici, V; Örün, H; Altindis, M
    Objective: Direct antigen tests are the most commonly used methods in most laboratories to detect rotavirus rapidly in stool samples. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of three commercially available test methods for detecting rotaviruses in fecal specimens and compare the results with those of the reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), which is considered a gold standard test.Materials and Methods: The presence of rotavirus antigens in stool samples was investigated by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), an immunochromatographic test (ICT), and a latex agglutination test (LAT), which were commercially available. The results of these tests were compared with those of a multiplex RT-PCR as a reference test. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated, and agreement with RT-PCR was evaluated by Cohen's kappa test.Results: A total of 85 patients (51.8% male and 48.2% female, aged 0-32 years) were included in this study. The sensitivities of the ICT, LAT, and ELISA tests were 78.6%, 78.6%, and 96.4%, respectively; the specificities of the tests were 69.0%, 72.4%, and 69.0%, respectively. According to kappa tests, moderate agreement was found between RT-PCR and ICT (Kappa=0.464, p<0.001); moderate agreement was found between RT-PCR and LAT (Kappa=0.493, p<0.001); substantial agreement was found between RT-PCR and ELISA (Kappa=0.694, p<0.001). The ELISA test showed the highest sensitivity and a high level of agreement with RT-PCR.Conclusion: ICT and LAT are quick and practical tests for rotavirus detection. However, in this study, it was seen that they were not superior to the ELISA test in terms of accuracy of diagnosis.