Our first COVID-19 case in Turkey was a 44-year-old male who referred to the hospital on March 9, 2020. The first related death occurred on March 17, 2020. Preparedness for the pandemic has been ongoing before the first case was detected. The National Pandemic Plan was published in 2006. The Pandemic Influenza National Preparedness Plan was available after being updated in light of experiences gained during the 2009 Influenza A pandemic. Accordingly, Pandemic Coordination Boards and Operation Centers have been established on the national and provincial levels. This was an adaptable plan to the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). We formed teams to work on a 24/7 basis and established a Scientific Committee at the Public Health Emergency Operation Center within the General Directorate of Public Health. “COVID-19 Risk Assessment”, “COVID-19 Guideline” and “Case Report Form”, regulations of personal protective equipment along with need-based guidelines, treatment algorithms, brochures and related documents have been released. For the case-based follow-up, Public Health Management System (HSYS) is being used. PCR and rapid diagnostic kits are being used to analyze the samples at the central Microbiology Reference Laboratory and the authorized laboratories in several provinces. Various preventive measures were implemented including flight restrictions to certain countries, gradually expanded to suspending all flights and prohibiting the entry of foreign nationals, 14-day isolation and symptom monitoring for those that came from countries under risk. Persons with chronic diseases have been granted an administrative leave, on campus education at schools and activities of public rest and entertainment areas were temporarily suspended. The measures have been implemented for penitentiary institutions, dormitories, nursing homes, public transport and intercity buses, and also weekend curfews are implemented. In accordance with the pandemic plan, actions have been carried out with a multi-sectoral approach, and preventive measures have been implemented to cover the society as a whole.

High resistance rates to antimicrobials continue to be a global health threat. The incidence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) microorganisms in intensive care units (ICUs) is quite high compared to in the community and other units in the hospital because ICU patients are generally older, have higher numbers of co-morbidities and immune-suppressed; moreover, the typically high rates of invasive procedures performed in the ICU increase the risk of infection by MDR microorganisms. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) refers to the implementation of coordinated interventions to improve and track the appropriate use of antibiotics while offering the best possible antibiotic prescription (according to dose, duration, and route of administration). Broad-spectrum antibiotics are frequently preferred in ICUs because of greater infection severity and colonization and infection by MDR microorganisms. For this reason, a number of studies on AMS in ICUs have increased in recent years. Reducing the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics forms the basis of AMS. For this purpose, parameters such as establishing an AMS team, limiting the use of broad-spectrum antimicrobials, terminating treatments early, using early warning systems, pursuing infection control, and providing education and feedback are used. In this review, current AMS practices in ICUs are discussed.

The increasing incidence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) worldwide represents a serious threat in the management of sepsis. Due to resistance to the most common antimicrobials prescribed, multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens have been associated with delays in adequate antimicrobial therapy leading to significant increases in mortality, along with prolonged hospital length of stay (LOS) and increases in healthcare costs. In response to MDR infections and the delay of microbiological results, broad-spectrum antibiotics are frequently used in empirical antimicrobial therapy. This can contribute to the overuse and misuse of antibiotics, further promoting the development of resistance. Multiple measures have been suggested to combat AMR. This review will focus on describing the epidemiology and trends concerning MDR pathogens. Additionally, it will explore the crucial aspects of identifying patients susceptible to MDR infections and optimizing antimicrobial drug dosing, which are both pivotal considerations in the fight against AMR. Expert commentary: The increasing AMR in ICUs worldwide makes the empirical antibiotic therapy challenging in septic patients. An AMR surveillance program together with improvements in MDR identification based on patient risk stratification and molecular rapid diagnostic tools may further help tailoring antimicrobial therapies and avoid unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotics. Continuous infusions of antibiotics, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)-based dosing regimens and combination therapy may contribute to optimizing antimicrobial therapy and limiting the emergence of resistance.

Background: The core components (CCs) of infection prevention and control (IPC) from World Health Organization (WHO) are crucial for the safety and quality of health care. Our objective was to examine the level of implementation of WHO infection prevention and control core components (IPC CC) in a developing country. We also aimed to evaluate health care-associated infections (HAIs) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in intensive care units (ICUs) in association with implemented IPC CCs. Methods: Members of the Turkish Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology Specialization Association (EKMUD) were invited to the study via e-mail. Volunteer members of any healt care facilities (HCFs) participated in the study. The investigating doctor of each HCF filled out a questionnaire to collect data on IPC implementations, including the Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF) and HAIs/AMR in ICUs in 2021. Results: A total of 68 HCFs from seven regions in Türkiye and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus participated while 85% of these were tertiary care hospitals. Fifty (73.5%) HCFs had advanced IPC level, whereas 16 (23.5%) of the 68 hospitals had intermediate IPC levels. The hospitals’ median (IQR) IPCAF score was 668.8 (125.0) points. Workload, staffing and occupancy (CC7; median 70 points) and multimodal strategies (CC5; median 75 points) had the lowest scores. The limited number of nurses were the most important problems. Hospitals with a bed capacity of > 1000 beds had higher rates of HAIs. Certified IPC specialists, frequent feedback, and enough nurses reduced HAIs. The most common HAIs were central line-associated blood stream infections. Most HAIs were caused by gram negative bacteria, which have a high AMR. Conclusions: Most HCFs had an advanced level of IPC implementation, for which staffing was an important driver. To further improve care quality and ensure everyone has access to safe care, it is a key element to have enough staff, the availability of certified IPC specialists, and frequent feedback. Although there is a significant decrease in HAI rates compared to previous years, HAI rates are still high and AMR is an important problem. Increasing nurses and reducing workload can prevent HAIs and AMR. Nationwide “Antibiotic Stewardship Programme” should be initiated.

Antibiotic resistance is one of the most important public health problem and one of the most critical steps in preventing resistance is the monitorization of the resistance. Local, regional and global monitoring enables the spread of antibiotic resistance to be understood more clearly. In this study, it was aimed to evaluate the results of the pilot study for the establishment of molecular-based carbapenem surveillance system in Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates and to investigate the carbapenemase epidemiology in Turkey. Hospitals (n= 28) from 26 different statistical level II regions from Turkey were included in the study. The hospitals participated in the study submitted ten carbapenem susceptible and ten carbapenem resistant E.coli and K.pneumoniae isolates to our laboratory that were isolated in two different periiods of six-month either between 1 March-31 August or 1 April-30 September 2019. A total of 509 isolates were collected from 26 of the 28 participating hospitals in the study. Isolates were identified by matrix assisted laser desorptionization-time of flight mass spectrophotometry (MALDI TOF MS) (Bruker Daltonics, Germany) method and antibiotic susceptibility tests for imipenem, meropenem and colistin were studied by broth microdilution. Moreover, susceptibilities to amikacin, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, ampicillin, aztreonam, cefepime, cefotaxime, ceftazidime, ciprofloxacin, ertapenem, gentamicin, piperacillin-tazobactam, tobramycin and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole were determined by disc diffusion method. The resistance genes were investigated in isolates which were found to be phenotypically resistant to carbapenem and colistin, in house method was used to investigate carbapenemase genes and a commercial colistin resistant real-time PCR kit (Biospeedy, Turkey) was used for colistin resistance genes. In total, 493 of the 509 isolates collected from hospitals were identified as E.coli (25.7%, n= 127) and K.pneumoniae (74.3%, n= 366) and included in the study. It was determined that 31% of the isolates evaluated were from community-acquired infections and 69% were either from healthcare-associated infections or from colonization sites. Among the tested isolates, 248 (50.3%) were susceptible to carbapenems and 245 (49.7%) were resistant. The types of carbapenemases in carbapenemase-producing isolates were OXA-48 (52.2%), KPC (16.1%), NDM-1 (15%), OXA-48 + NDM-1 (12.6%), KPC + NDM-1 (2.8%) and VIM (0.5%) and OXA-48+VIM (0.5%). Resistance to colistin was detected in 23.3% of the isolates but mcr1-8 genes were not detected. It was found that all colistin resistant isolates are resistant to at least one of the carbapenems. The importance of a molecular-based antimicrobial resistance surveillance system in our country was demonstrated with this pilot study. It is thought that continuous monitoring of these epidemiological features will contribute to the management of infections due to carbapenemase-producing organisms.

Purpose. Sepsis and septic shock are the major causes of death in intensive care units. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical safety and efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in sepsis and septic shock patients. Methods. Ten patients were enrolled in the study. Adipose-derived MSC infusions were given (1×10⁶/kg, on the 1^st, 3^rd, 5^th, 7^th, and 9^th days of therapy) together with standard therapy. Before the MSC applications, blood samples were collected for cytokine assessment (TNF-α, IFN-γ, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-10). The clinical and laboratory improvements were recorded and compared with control groups selected retrospectively. The clinical trial was registered on 16.03.2022 with the registration number NCT05283317. Results. In the study group, the ages of patients ranged from 22 to 68 years, and APACHE II scores ranged from 14 to 42. In the control group, ages ranged from 22 to 80 years and their APACHE II scores were between 1435. The survival rate in the study group was 100 on the 14^th day whereas it was 70 on the 28^th day. A significant decrease in the SOFA score (adjusted), clinical, and laboratory improvements were observed during the MSC administration. However, no significant cytokine level changes were observed. In the control group, the survival rate of 20 patients was 70 on the 14^th day, whereas 60 was on the 28^th day. While deaths were observed in the control group in the first week of treatment, deaths in the MSCs group were observed between the 15^th and 28^th days. Conclusion. MSCs treatment may have a positive impact on the survival rates of sepsis during the early phase. However, further randomized controlled studies with a large group of patients are needed. Trial Registration. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05283317.