Aims: Colistin became the primary treatment option for Acinetobacters that had developed a high rate of resistance to carbapenems which were the first-line therapy in the past, and now Acinetobacters become resistant to nearly all antibiotics. Because of the resistance potential to colistin and the concerns about toxicity, especially for high doses, colistin combination therapies are preferred nowadays. In this study, we aimed to investigate whether combinations of colistin with meropenem, sulbactam, fosfomycin, vancomycin, and minocycline are synergic or not and to determine minocycline susceptibility rate, which is not in use in our country. Results: For the studied 23 Acinetobacter strains, the highest synergy was between colistin and vancomycin, which was shown in 4 (17.4%) strains. The synergy of colistin with meropenem and fosfomycin was detected for 1 (4.3%) strain, the synergy of colistin with minocycline was detected for 2 (8.6%) strains, and no synergy was detected for colistin–sulbactam combination. All the strains were susceptible to minocycline. Conclusion: None of the antibiotic combinations was antagonistic. They had synergistic and additive interactions. Thus, these combinations can be used in clinical practices. The remarkable synergistic interaction of colistin–vancomycin combination and high susceptibility to minocycline highlight the need for more researches on these subjects.

Background: Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF) is a tick-borne disease characterized by nonspecific symptoms like fever, myalgia, severe headache, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. It can result in various complications during the course of the disease due to the diffuse endothelial injury involved in the pathogenesis of CCHF. Objectives: Here we present a patient with CCHF complicated by acute pancreatitis, including pleural and intra-abdominal effusions. Case report: A 70-year-old patient was referred to our hospital from an endemic area with the suspicion of CCHF. The physical examination of the patient revealed high fever (38°C), somnolence, and petechial eruption. The diagnosis of case was confirmed with positive reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The viral load of the patient was 4×10 ⁹ copies/mL. On the fifth day of admission, upper abdominal pain, scleral ichter, and abdominal distention developed. The patient had abdominal tenderness with guarding. The laboratory tests revealed an amylase level of 1740 U/L (28–100), lipase level of 583 U/L (13–60), and total bilirubin level of 3.75 mg/dL (<0.3). The diagnosis of acute pancreatitis was confirmed with radiological findings. Conclusions: Until now, atypical presentations of CCHF have been reported in some case reports, but not acute pancreatitis. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case of acute pancreatitis in the literature seen in the course of CCHF.

The incidence of anaphylaxis is increasing worldwide. However, there is a lack of data on anaphylaxis trends in Türkiye. This study aims to analyse trends in anaphylaxis-related emergency department (ED) visits and examines factors associated with fatal anaphylaxis in Türkiye. We retrospectively analyzed data from Türkiye's Ministry of Health database from 2015 to 2022. Codes from the International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10), were used to identify anaphylaxis. During the study period, a total 21,370 ED admissions for anaphylaxis were identified, and anaphylaxis admissions increased 1.23-fold from 3.90 to 4.79 per 10⁵ population per year. The anaphylaxis trigger was unknown in 79.9% of cases, followed by drugs (11.7%), food (5.7%) and venom (2.7%). Epinephrine was administered in 49.6% of cases, and a total of 424 patients (2.1% of total cases) died. The frequency of intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalization increased 6.0-fold from 2015 to 2021, and age-adjusted average-weighted mortality rate for anaphylaxis was 0.66 per million. Older age, presence of asthma, and ICU hospitalization were found to be significantly associated with fatal anaphylaxis (p < 0.001 for all). Frequencies of death were 9.1% for venom anaphylaxis, 1.2% in drug anaphylaxis, and 0.2% for food anaphylaxis. Epinephrine autoinjector (EAI) was prescribed for 6.9% of all patients. This is the first study of ED admissions for anaphylaxis using a large, nationwide data from Türkiye. Increasing numbers of ED admissions, ICU hospitalizations and mortality show that anaphylaxis is an important public health issue in Türkiye.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) were seriously affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It is a priority to protect HCWs against COVID-19 and ensure the continuity of the health care system. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk factors for COVID-19 in HCWs and the effectiveness of the measures taken on protection. METHODS: A nested case-control study was conducted in two hospitals serving on the same campus which are affiliated with a university from Turkey, between 03.12.2020 and 05.22.2020. We aimed to recruit three controls working in the same unit with the cases diagnosed with COVID-19 by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and whose SARS-CoV-2 PCR test is negative. Self-reported data were collected from the HCWs by the face-to-face method. Descriptive and analytical methods were used and a logistic regression model was built. Results: The study was completed with 271 HCWs, 72 cases, and 199 controls. Household contact with a COVID-19 patient or a patient with symptoms compatible with COVID-19 was found to be significantly higher in the cases than in the controls (p = 0.02, p < 0.001). When the measures for control the COVID-19 were analyzed, using a medical mask (OR = 0.28, 95% confidence interval = 0.11–0.76, p = 0.01) by COVID-19 patient and using the respiratory mask by HCWs (OR = 0.13, 95% CI = 0.03–0.52, p = 0.004) during close contact was found to be protective against COVID-19 transmission. Conclusion: This study showed an association with using medical masks by the patients as an important protective precaution for the transmission of COVID-19 to HCWs. Respiratory masks should be used by HCWs while in close contact with COVID-19 patients regardless of aerosol-producing procedures.