OBJECTIVE: This implementation project compared standard operating procedures, accepted preventive measures, and disinfection procedures between the initial stage of the COVID-19 pandemic (first wave: March 15 to May 31, 2020) and the later stages of the pandemic (second and third waves: September 1, 2020 to January 31, 2021). INTRODUCTION: This project sought to improve compliance with international evidence-based guidelines and clinical standards for the prevention and control of COVID-19 infection during hyperbaric oxygen therapy taking into account the conditions of the local hospital. METHODS: Guided by the JBI evidence implementation framework, seven evidence-based audit criteria were developed for the prevention and control of COVID-19 infection during hyperbaric oxygen therapy. A questionnaire was used to measure compliance in baseline and follow-up audits. RESULTS: Differences between the baseline and follow-up audits were noted for criteria 6 and 7. Criterion 6 increased from 0% to 100% as the hyperbaric facility was equipped with certified ultraviolet-C radiation for air disinfection during the later period, but this equipment was not available in the initial period of the pandemic. Criterion 7 dropped from 100% in the baseline audit to 0% in the follow-up audit because of a significant increase in the operational burden of the treatment capacity of the facility, which made it impossible to comply with the recommended distancing between patients. CONCLUSIONS: Differences were found in preventive measures, disinfection procedures, work organization, and approach to care strategy. The project objectives were met and the implementation strategies proved effective. Larger sample sizes would need be needed to confirm the reproducibility of the results.

• MeSH
• COVID-19 * prevention & control   MeSH
• Hyperbaric Oxygenation * MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Hospitals MeSH
• Pandemics prevention & control   MeSH
• Reproducibility of Results MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH

• Publication type
• Meeting Abstract MeSH

• Publication type
• Meeting Abstract MeSH

Cellular immunity against SARS-CoV-2 is an important component of the immune response to the virus. At present, two such tests based on interferon-gamma release (interferon-γ release assays, IGRAs) are available-Quan-T-Cell SARS-CoV-2 by EUROIMMUN and T-SPOT.COVID by Oxford Immunotec. In this paper, we compared the results of these two tests in 90 subjects employed at the Public Health Institute Ostrava who had previously undergone COVID-19 infection or were vaccinated against that disease. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first head-to-head comparison of these two tests evaluating T-cell-mediated immunity against SARS-CoV-2. In addition, we also evaluated humoral immunity in the same individuals using the in-house virus neutralization test and IgG ELISA assay. The evaluation yielded similar results for both IGRAs, with Quan-T-Cell appearing to be insignificantly (p = 0.08) more sensitive (all 90 individuals were at least borderline positive) than T-SPOT.COVID (negative results found in five patients). The overall qualitative (presence/absence of immune response) agreement of both tests with virus neutralization test and anti-S IgG was also excellent (close or equal to 100% in all subgroups, with the exception of unvaccinated Omicron convalescents, a large proportion of whom, i.e., four out of six subjects, were IgG negative while at least borderline positive for T-cell-mediated immunity measured by Quan-T). This implies that the evaluation of T-cell-mediated immunity is a more sensitive indicator of immune response than the evaluation of IgG seropositivity. This is true at least for unvaccinated patients with a history of being infected only by the Omicron variant, but also likely for other groups of patients.

• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH

• Publication type
• Meeting Abstract MeSH

Termín anafylaxe byl po dlouhou dobu používán pouze pro hypersenzitivní reakce zprostředkované IgE. Nicméně anafylaktická reakce může vzniknout i jinými mechanismy. V současné době se tyto reakce dělí na anafylaktické reakce alergické, zapříčiněné imunologickými mechanismy a nealergické, vyvolané přímou stimulací žírných buněk. Na základě imunopatologických mechanismů dochází k další stratifikaci anafylaxe vycházející z jejího fenotypu a endotypu. Diagnóza anafylaxe je čistě klinická, laboratorní vyšetření mají v akutní fázi pouze pomocný význam, teprve následně mohou pomoci objasnit etiopatogenezi anafylaxe. Mezi nejčastější spouštěče anafylaxe patří složky potravy, bodnutí hmyzem a léčiva. Laboratorní diagnostika zahrnuje zejména postupy využívané v oblasti alergických chorob, a proto při interpretaci laboratorních výsledků je třeba mít na paměti variabilitu v mechanismu jednotlivých fenotypů a endotypů.

or a long time, the term anaphylaxis was used only for IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions. However, an anaphylactic reaction can also occur by other mechanisms, and these reactions are currently divided into allergic anaphylactic reactions, caused by immunological mechanisms, and non-allergic, caused by direct stimulation of mast cells. On the basis of immunopathological mechanisms, there is a further stratification of anaphylaxis based on its phenotype and endotype. The diagnosis of anaphylaxis is purely clinical, laboratory tests are only of auxiliary importance in the acute phase, and only subsequently can they help clarify the etiopathogenesis of anaphylaxis. The most common triggers of anaphylaxis include food components, insect bites, and medications. Laboratory diagnostics mainly includes procedures used in the field of allergic diseases, and therefore, when interpreting laboratory results, variability in the mechanism of individual phenotypes and endotypes must be kept in mind.

• Publication type
• Meeting Abstract MeSH

Komplementový systém je klíčovou složkou vrozené imunity. Skládá se z 50 plazmatických a membránových proteinů, které tvoří tři odlišné, ale překrývající se dráhy aktivace, stejně jako společnou terminální lytickou kaskádu a síť regulátorů a receptorů. Poruchy komplementu se mohou podílet na vzniku imunodeficiencí, autoimunit, malignit, infekčních onemocnění a na chorobách spojených s dysregulací komplementu. Striktní dodržování pravidel preanalytické fáze vyšetření je zásadní pro laboratorní diagnostiku. Pro komplexní posouzení funkce a zapojení komplementu do imunopatologických procesů, musíme testovat celou paletu vyšetření (od funkčních testů, vyšetření jednotlivých složek komplementu, až po genetickou analýzu).

The complement system is a key component of innate immunity. It consists of 50 plasma and membrane proteins that form three distinct but overlapping pathways of activation, as well as a common terminal lytic cascade and a network of regulators and receptors. Complement disorders may contribute to immunodeficiencies, autoimmunity, malignancies, infectious diseases, and diseases associated with complement dysregulation. Strict adherence to the rules of the preanalytical phase of the examination is essential for laboratory diagnosis. To comprehensively assess the function and involvement of complement in immunopathological processes, we need to perform a whole range of investigations (from functional tests, examination of individual complement components, to genetic analysis).

• MeSH
• Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome diagnosis   genetics   MeSH
• Complement System Proteins MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Complement Hemolytic Activity Assay * MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Review MeSH

• Publication type
• Meeting Abstract MeSH

• Publication type
• Meeting Abstract MeSH