ABSTRACT Background: This study aimed to assess the immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody response rate in emergency department (ED) healthcare workers (HCWs) and potential adverse effects after CoronaVac vaccination. Methods: All included HCWs were grouped based on the previous history of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the number of vaccinations. Furthermore, the IgG antibody response was evaluated based on the sex and smoking status of HCWs. Those with a cut-off index of ≥1.00 after vaccination with CoronaVac were considered to have had COVID-19 and had an adequate humoral response. Results: Among 224 ED HCWs, 18% experienced the adverse effects of CoronaVac vaccine, the most prevalent being pain in the injection site. The IgG antibody response rate was 20% after the first dose of vaccine, while the response rate increased to 90% after the second dose. Female HCWs had higher IgG response rates compared with male HCWs (53.8 [15.9-147.0] vs 31.2 [4.5-124.0]). Non-smokers had higher IgG response rate compared with smokers (49.0 [11.5-160.5] vs 23.1 [7.4-98.5]). Conclusion: A single dose of CoronaVac does not produce a sufficient antibody response; hence, two doses are recommended. Men have a lower IgG response compared with women. Smokers had a lower IgG response rate compared with non-smokers. Therefore, it may be necessary to carefully assess the humoral responses of men and smokers when implementing a community vaccination program.

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: While abdominal pain is one of the most prevalent reasons for seeking medical attention, diagnosing elderly adults with acute appendicitis (AA) may be difficult. In this study, Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) and Alvarado ratings were evaluated for diagnostic accuracy in patients who reported to the emergency department complaining of abdominal pain and received surgery for AA. METHODS: The data of patients over the age of 65 years who reported to the ER and had appendectomy after being diagnosed with AA were evaluated in this retrospective cohort study. For each patient, the diagnostic accuracy of the Alvarado and RIPASA scores was determined individually. RESULTS: A total of 86 patients were included in the research. The average patient was 71.2 years old, with a male preponderance of 46.5%. Alvarado’s score was found to have an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.799, the Youden’s index of 0.549, and a p-value of 0.001 after a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) study of the Alvarado score in identifying the diagnosis of AA. The AUC was 0.886 (95%CI 0.799–0.944), the Youden’s index was 0.642, and a p-value of 0.001 was found in the ROC analysis of the RIPASA score in identifying the diagnosis of AA. CONCLUSIONS: When comparing the two scores used to diagnose AA, we found no statistically significant difference between the RIPASA and Alvarado scores (p=0.09), although the Youden’s index for the RIPASA score was higher.