Ureaplasma urealyticum: Presence among Sexually Transmitted Diseases

The aim of this study was to detect the presence of Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Mycoplasma genitalium, Mycoplasma hominis, Trichomonas vaginalis, and Ureaplasma urealyticum in genital specimens of symptomatic patients. This study also examined the role of U. urealyticum in infections of the lower genital tract. Cervical and urethral samples from 96 patients (46 males, 50 females) were tested using the Seeplex(^®) STD6 ACE kit. Consent forms were received and a questionnaire was applied. All statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS statistical software program (version 17.0). Among the samples tested, at least 1 pathogen was detected in 49% of the samples; specifically, the rate of detection of U. urealyticum, M. hominis, C. trachomatis, N. gonorrhoeae, M. genitalium, and T. vaginalis was 29.1%, 10.4%, 8.3%, 7.3%, 6.3%, and 4.2%, respectively. U. urealyticum was detected as the sole pathogen in samples from 10% of female patients and 28.3% of male patients (p = 0.035). U. urealyticum was present in 54.5% (18/33) of samples in which a single pathogen was detected and 71.4% (10/14) of samples in which multiple pathogens were detected. Among men, significant differences in discharge, dysuria, and pruritus were not noted among those with negative results (84.6%, 69.2%, and 38.5%, respectively), among those positive for only U. urealyticum (100%, 66.7%, and 26.7%, respectively), and those positive for N. gonorrhoeae, C. trachomatis, M. genitalium, and T. vaginalis (100%, 93.3%, and 26.7%, respectively). Detection of U. urealyticum, either alone or together with other pathogens, in a symptomatic group of patients is an important finding, particularly in men.

Human puumala and dobrava hantavirus infections in the Black Sea region of Turkey: a cross-sectional study

This study was carried out to better understand the epidemiology of hantaviruses in a province of Turkey (Giresun) where human hantavirus disease has recently been detected. In this cross-sectional study, a total of 626 blood samples from healthy people aged 15 and 84 years old were collected both in urban and rural areas in 2009. The sera were tested by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), immunoblotting assay, and the focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT). We screened the samples by an ELISA and found that 65/626 samples reacted positively for the presence of hantavirus-reactive immunoglobulin G (IgG). Twenty of the 65 ELISA-positive samples could be confirmed by an immunobloting assay, and the overall seroprevalence was thereby calculated to 3.2% (20/626). The seroprevalence of the people living in wood areas or adobe houses 9/17 (52.9%) was significantly higher than among people living in concrete houses 10/47 (21.3%) (p=0.014). Finally, 3 of the 20 immunoblot-positive sera were confirmed as specific for the Puumala hantavirus serotype by FRNT, 1 serum was confirmed as Dobrava virus-specific, whereas 1 serum was found to be equally reactive to Dobrava and Saaremaa viruses. We will now focus on further investigations of the ecology and epidemiology of hantaviruses in humans and their carrier animals in Turkey, studies that have already been started and will be further intensified.

Seroprevalence following the first wave of pandemic influenza A (H1N1) in Turkey, 2009

In this study, we sought to describe the community seropositivity of pandemic influenza A (H1N1) in order to estimate immunity shortly after the peak of the first pandemic wave in two provinces in Turkey. This cross-sectional study was conducted in the provinces of Diyarbakir and Ankara, after the first wave of H1N1 incidences in 2009. It was designed to evaluate 276 houses in Diyarbakir and 455 houses in Ankara. Everyone living in these houses was included in the study. An antibody titer of ≥1:40 was considered as a positive result for all age groups. Antibody titers of ≤1:20 were considered as 1 while calculating the log titer and geometric mean. The pandemic H1N1 seropositivity was found to be 24.1% for Ankara and 27.7% for Diyarbakir. In Ankara, seropositivity was statistically associated with the 15-24 age group (odds ratio [OR] = 11.47), pandemic influenza A (H1N1) vaccination (OR = 20.95), and influenza-like illness history (OR = 1.60). In Diyarbakir, H1N1 seropositivity was associated with the 15-24 age group (OR = 8.99) and pandemic influenza A (H1N1) vaccination (OR = 9.94). Because individuals less than 25 years old played an important role in the community transmission of infection and were largely protected against the pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus, these individuals should be given a high priority for pandemic influenza vaccination in the event of the emergence of another novel pandemic strain.

[Pandemic influenza A (H1N1)v vaccination status and factors affecting vaccination: Ankara and Diyarbakır 2009 data from Turkey]

In this study, it was aimed to determine the frequency of the symptoms of influenza-like illness during influenza A (H1N1)v pandemic in two provinces where sentinel influenza surveillance was conducted and also to obtain opinions about H1N1 influenza and vaccination, H1N1 vaccination status and factors affecting vaccination. This cross-sectional study was conducted in the provinces of Ankara (capital city, located at Central Anatolia) and Diyarbakır (located at southeastern Anatolia). It was planned to include 455 houses in Ankara and 276 houses in Diyarbakır. The household participation rate in the study was 78.9% and 53.6% for Ankara and Diyarbakır, respectively. Our study was carried out between January-February 2010, with 1164 participants from Ankara and 804 from Diyarbakır, including every household subjects except for infants younger than 11 months and patients with primary/secondary immunodeficiency diseases. Data was collected by site teams consisting of a physician and a healthcare staff with informed consent. Of the participants 45.5% from Ankara and 35.3% from Diyarbakır stated that they had gone through an influenza-like illness. The most frequently indicated clinical symptoms were fatigue/weakness, rhinitis, sore throat and cough. The rates of admission to a physician with influenza like illness complaints were 50.6% and 58.7%; rates of hospitalization due to influenza-like illness were 1% and 1.5%, and rates of antiviral drug use were 3.8% and 1.9%, in Ankara ve Diyarbakır participants, respectively. The rate of personal precautions taken by the subjects for prevention from pandemic influenza were 59% and 53.3%, in Ankara and Diyarbakır, respectively. These precautions most frequently were "hand washing" and "avoiding crowded public areas". H1N1 influenza vaccine was applied in 9.3% of the participants in Ankara and in 3.7% of the participants in Diyarbakır. Vaccination rate was higher in both of the provinces in adults over 25 years old than children and adolescents and in patients with chronic underlying disease. None of the 25 pregnant participants were vaccinated against pandemic influenza. The educational background, employment status and quality of the job have been detected as factors affecting the status of being vaccinated with H1N1 influenza vaccine in both provinces. In addition, the percentage of having H1N1 influenza vaccination was found to be higher in subjects who had seasonal influenza vaccination previously and in 2009, than those who had not, and this difference was statistically significant in both provinces (Ankara p< 0.001, Diyarbakır p< 0.001). The mostly indicated post-vaccination adverse reactions reported by vaccinated participants were local sensitivity, muscle and joint pains, headache and malaise. The most frequent rationale for not being vaccinated against H1N1 were "I do not consider it necessary/I do not want" (Ankara 33.4%, Diyarbakır 27.4%) and "I do not believe/trust its efficacy" (Ankara 25.6%, Diyarbakır 22.6%). Those data emphasized the insufficient awareness of our population about the importance of pandemic influenza and vaccine. It is also believed that possible case definition in H1N1 case management scheme should be revised. In conclusion an important part of pandemic preparation plans is risk communication with the public to increase awareness and to prevent the missed opportunities.