COVID-19 is a global threat with an increasing number of infections. Research on IgG seroprevalence among health care workers (HCWs) is needed to re-evaluate health policies. This study was performed in three pandemic hospitals in Istanbul and Kocaeli. Different clusters of HCWs were screened for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Seropositivity rate among participants was evaluated by chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay. We recruited 813 non-infected and 119 PCR-confirmed infected HCWs. Of the previously undiagnosed HCWs, 22 (2.7%) were seropositive. Seropositivity rates were highest for cleaning staff (6%), physicians (4%), nurses (2.2%) and radiology technicians (1%). Non-pandemic clinic (6.4%) and ICU (4.3%) had the highest prevalence. HCWs in “high risk” group had similar seropositivity rate with “no risk” group (2.9 vs 3.5 p = 0.7). These findings might lead to the re-evaluation of infection control and transmission dynamics in hospitals.

Introduction Vaccines generally have reduced effectiveness in hemodialysis patients and a similar condition may also apply for the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. The aim of this study was to analyze humoral responses of hemodialysis patients to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Methods Eighty-five maintenance hemodialysis patients who received either inactivated or mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were investigated. Antibody levels were measured by a commercial antibody kit, which detected antibodies towards receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Comparative analyzes were carried between vaccine groups and with a control group of 103 healthy volunteers. Results Seropositivity rate and antibody levels were significantly lower in hemodialysis patients who received inactivated vaccine (p=0,000). While mRNA vaccine had better immunogenicity, both vaccines protected from symptomatic infection when seropositivity was achieved. Discussion/Conclusions When used in the same dose with the general population, inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines generate reduced humoral response in hemodialysis patients. mRNA vaccines have better immunogenicity in this group.

Glomerular diseases may occur secondary to malignancies. Age-specific cancer screening is recommended for patients with glomerular diseases and may be extended based on the specific risk associated with the detected histopathologic pattern. Membranous nephropathy is the prototype of cancer-associated glomerulonephritis, with 10% of cases presenting with malignancy within a year from diagnosis. Among antigens that are expressed in patients with membranous nephropathy thrombospondin type 1 domain-containing 7A and neural epidermal growth factor-like-1 are often reported in patients with underlying malignancies. However, the risk of having a concurrent malignancy does not exceed 25%–30% when these antigens are expressed. While less frequent in other glomerulonephritides, co-occurrence of malignancy is reported in a substantial proportion of glomerular diseases including IgA nephropathy, podocytopathies with prominent podocyte foot process effacement such as minimal change disease as glomerular lesion pattern, amyloidosis, C3 glomerulopathy, monoclonal immunoglobulin deposition disease, or immune-complex-mediated glomerulonephritis. Treatment of malignancy-associated glomerulonephritis is usually directed toward treatment of the underlying malignancy with combinations of surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiotherapy. Moreover, relapse of the malignancy may result in recurrence of glomerulonephritis. Refractoriness of glomerulonephritis to initial therapy may be due to an occult primary malignancy that was not diagnosed during initial cancer screening. In such a scenario a step-up diagnostic approach is recommended. In addition, re-screening may be sensible for relapsing patients who carry higher risks for cancer including patients of older age and those with a smoking history. This review focuses on the description of malignancies in the context of glomerular diseases and provides practical guidance on screening.

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.