Search

We developed a Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) risk score to guide targeted RT-PCR testing in Qatar. The Qatar national COVID-19 testing database, encompassing a total of 2,688,232 RT-PCR tests conducted between February 5, 2020-January 27, 2021, was analyzed. Logistic regression analyses were implemented to derive the COVID-19 risk score, as a tool to identify those at highest risk of having the infection. Score cut-off was determined using the ROC curve based on maximum sum of sensitivity and specificity. The score’s performance diagnostics were assessed. Logistic regression analysis identified age, sex, and nationality as significant predictors of infection and were included in the risk score. The ROC curve was generated and the area under the curve was estimated at 0.63 (95% CI: 0.63–0.63). The score had a sensitivity of 59.4% (95% CI: 59.1%-59.7%), specificity of 61.1% (95% CI: 61.1%-61.2%), a positive predictive value of 10.9% (95% CI: 10.8%-10.9%), and a negative predictive value of 94.9% (94.9%-95.0%). The concept and utility of a COVID-19 risk score were demonstrated in Qatar. Such a public health tool can have considerable utility in optimizing testing and suppressing infection transmission, while maximizing efficiency and use of available resources.

This study investigated the performance of a rapid point-of-care antibody test, the BioMedomics COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test, in comparison with a high-quality, validated, laboratory-based platform, the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay. Serological testing was conducted on 709 individuals. Concordance metrics were estimated. Logistic regression was used to assess associations with seropositivity. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence was 63.5% (450/709; 95% CI 59.8%-67.0%) using the BioMedomics assay and 71.9% (510/709; 95% CI 68.5%-75.2%) using the Elecsys assay. There were 60 discordant results between the two assays, all of which were seropositive in the Elecsys assay, but seronegative in the BioMedomics assay. Overall, positive, and negative percent agreements between the two assays were 91.5% (95% CI 89.2%-93.5%), 88.2% (95% CI 85.1%-90.9%), and 100% (95% CI 98.2%-100%), respectively, with a Cohen’s kappa of 0.81 (95% CI 0.78–0.84). Excluding specimens with lower (Elecsys) antibody titers, the agreement improved with overall, positive, and negative percent concordance of 94.4% (95% CI 92.3%-96.1%), 91.8% (95% CI 88.8%-94.3%), and 100% (95% CI 98.2%-100%), respectively, and a Cohen’s kappa of 0.88 (95% CI 0.85–0.90). Logistic regression confirmed better agreement with higher antibody titers. The BioMedomics COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test demonstrated good performance in measuring detectable antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, supporting the utility of such rapid point-of-care serological testing to guide the public health responses and vaccine prioritization.

Limited data are available regarding antimicrobial resistance in Neisseria gonorrhoeae strains circulating in WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR). We investigated the antimicrobial susceptibility/resistance of N. gonorrhoeae isolates to five antimicrobials (ceftriaxone, azithromycin, ciprofloxacin, tetracycline, and benzylpenicillin) currently or previously used for gonorrhoea treatment in Qatar, 2017–2020. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs; mg/L) of antimicrobials were determined using Etest on gonococcal isolates collected during January 1, 2017-August 30, 2020 at Hamad Medical Corporation, a national public healthcare provider. During 2017–2020, resistance in isolates from urogenital sites of 433 patients was 64.7% (95% CI: 59.5–69.6%; range: 43.9–78.7%) for ciprofloxacin, 50.7% (95% CI: 45.3–56.1%; range: 41.3–70.4%) for tetracycline, and 30.8% (95% CI: 26.3–35.6%; range: 26.7–35.8%) for benzylpenicillin. Percentage of isolates non-susceptible to azithromycin was 4.1% (95% CI: 2.0–7.4%; range: 2.7–4.8%) and all (100%) isolates were susceptible to ceftriaxone. Two (1.6%) isolates from 2019 and one (2.2%) isolate from 2020 had high-level resistance to azithromycin (MIC≥256 mg/L). Overall, 1.0% (4/418) of isolates had a ceftriaxone MIC of 0.25 mg/L, which is at the ceftriaxone susceptibility breakpoint (MIC≤0.25 mg/L). Treatment with ceftriaxone 250 mg plus azithromycin 1 g can continuously be recommended for gonorrhoea therapy in Qatar. Continued quality-assured gonococcal AMR surveillance is warranted in EMR.

BackgroundLimited data is available about the etiology of influenza like illnesses (ILIs) in Qatar.ObjectivesThis study aimed at providing preliminary estimates of influenza and other respiratory infections circulating among adults in Qatar.MethodsWe retrospectively collected data of about 44,000 patients who visited Hamad General Hospital clinics, sentinel sites, and all primary healthcare centers in Qatar between 2012 and 2017. All samples were tested for influenza viruses, whereas about 38,000 samples were tested for influenza and a panel of respiratory viruses using Fast Track Diagnostics (FTD) RT-PCR kit.ResultsAmong all ILIs cases, 20,278 (46.5%) tested positive for at least one respiratory pathogen. Influenza virus was predominating (22.6%), followed by human rhinoviruses (HRVs) (9.5%), and human coronaviruses (HCoVs) (5%). A detection rate of 2-3% was recorded for mycoplasma pneumonia, adenoviruses, human parainfluenza viruses (HPIVs), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and human metapneumovirus (HMPV). ILIs cases were reported throughout the year, however, influenza, RSV, and HMPV exhibited strong seasonal peaks in the winter, while HRVs circulated more during fall and spring. Elderly (>50 years) had the lowest rates of influenza A (13.9%) and B (4.2%), while presenting the highest rates of RSV (3.4%) and HMPV (3.3%). While males had higher rates of HRVs (11.9%), enteroviruses (1.1%) and MERS CoV (0.2%), females had higher proportions of influenza (26.3%), HPIVs (3.2%) and RSV (3.6%) infections.ConclusionThis report provides a comprehensive insight about the epidemiology of ILIs among adults in the Qatar, as a representative of Gulf States. These results would help in improvement and optimization of diagnostic procedures, as well as control and prevention of the respiratory infections.

BackgroundCoronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an evolving pandemic that urged the need to investigate various antiviral therapies. This study was conducted to compare efficacy and safety outcomes of darunavir-cobicistat versus lopinavir-ritonavir in treating patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.Methods and findingsThis retrospective, multicenter, observational study was conducted on adult patients hospitalized in one of the COVID-19 facilities in Qatar. Patients were included if they received darunavir-cobicistat or lopinavir-ritonavir for at least three days as part of their COVID-19 treatments. Data were collected from patients' electronic medical records. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of time to clinical improvement and/or virological clearance. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used at alpha level of 0.05. A total of 400 patients was analyzed, of whom 100 received darunavir-cobicistat and 300 received lopinavir-ritonavir. Majority of patients were male (92.5%), with a mean (SD) time from symptoms onset to start of therapy of 7.57 days (4.89). Patients received lopinavir-ritonavir had significantly faster time to clinical improvement and/or virological clearance than patients received darunavir-cobicistat (4 days [IQR 3-7] vs. 6.5 days [IQR 4-12]; HR 1.345 [95%CI: 1.070-1.691], P = 0.011). Patients received lopinavir-ritonavir had significantly faster time to clinical improvement (5 days [IQR 3-8] vs. 8 days [IQR 4-13]; HR 1.520 (95%CI: 1.2-1.925), P = 0.000), and slower time to virological clearance than darunavir-cobicistat (25 days [IQR 15-33] vs. 21 days [IQR 12.8-30]; HR 0.772 (95%CI: 0.607-0.982), P = 0.035). No significant difference in the incidence or severity of adverse events between groups. The study was limited to its retrospective nature and the possibility of covariates, which was accounted for by multivariate analyses.ConclusionIn patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, early treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir was associated with faster time to clinical improvement and/or virological clearance than darunavir-cobicistat. Future trials are warranted to confirm these findings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04425382.