Search

Background: As the COVID-19 Delta variant has spread across the globe, healthcare workers' (HCWs) knowledge, worries, and vaccine booster acceptance should be assessed. Methods: Online questionnaires aimed at HCWs in Saudi Arabia were distributed between 9 and 12 August 2021, aiming to evaluate HCWs' perceptions and worries about the Delta variant as well as their feelings about receiving a booster-vaccine. Results: A total of 1279 HCWs participated, with 51.1% being physicians and 41.7% nurses. 92.5% were aware of the emergence of the Delta variant. Still, only 28.7% were found to have sufficient knowledge of the variant, and their level of worry about it was higher than their level of worry about the Alpha variant (2.32/5 versus 1.79/5). The main information sources cited by the participants were social media (50.5%), while 30.5% used scientific journals. Overall, 55.3% were willing to receive a vaccine booster, while one third would have preferred to receive a new mRNA vaccine specifically developed for the Delta variant. Factors associated with vaccine booster acceptance were receiving both vaccination doses ( p = 0.008), believing that the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine is effective against variants ( p < 0.001), and agreement that mixing/matching vaccines is effective against variants ( p < 0.001). Conclusions: A high percentage of HCWs were aware of the Delta variant, but only a small fraction had decent quality of knowledge about it. The participants exhibited high worry levels and showed a modest acceptance of receiving a vaccine booster dose. These results should encourage public health officials to scale up educational efforts to disseminate reliable information about the different variants and provide recommendations about receiving a vaccine booster. Further research on methods to alleviate HCWs' worries about emerging variants is warranted.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in millions of deaths, including more than 6000 deaths in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Identifying key predictors of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality among infected cases would help in identifying individuals at risk to optimize their care. We aimed to determine factors of poor outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in a large academic hospital in Riyadh, KSA that serves as a Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) referral center., Methods: This is a single-center retrospective cohort study of hospitalized patients between March 15 and August 31, 2020. The study was conducted at King Saud University Medical City (KSUMC). COVID-19 infection was confirmed using real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for SARS-COV-2. Demographic data, clinical characteristics, laboratory, radiological features, and length of hospital stay were obtained. Poor outcomes were, admission to ICU, need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and in-hospital all-cause mortality., Results: Out of 16,947 individuals tested in KSUMC, 3480 (20.5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and of those 743 patients (21%) were hospitalized. There were 62% males, 77% were younger than 65 years. Of all cases, 204 patients (28%) required ICU admission, 104 (14%) required IMV, and 117 (16%) died in hospital. In bivariate analysis, multiple factors were associated with mortality among COVID-19 patients. Further multivariate analysis revealed the following factors were associated with mortality: respiratory rate more than 24/min and systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg in the first 24h of presentation, lymphocyte count <1 × 10 9 /L and aspartate transaminase level >37 units/L in the first 48 h of presentation, while a RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value ≤24 was a predictor for IMV., Conclusion: Variable factors were identified as predictors of different outcomes among COVID-19 patients. The only predictor of IMV was a low initial Ct values of SARS-CoV-2 PCR. The presence of tachypnea, hypotension, lymphopenia, and elevated AST in the first 48h of presentation were independently associated with mortality. This study provides possible independent predictors of mortality and invasive mechanical ventilation. The data may be helpful in the early identification of high-risk COVID-19 patients in areas endemic with MERS-CoV., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: One possible reason for increased mortality due to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with diabetes is from the complication of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA)., Objectives: To re-evaluate the association of SARS-CoV-2 and development of DKA and analyse the demographic and biochemical parameters and the clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients with DKA., Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement was followed., Methods: Electronic databases (Proquest, Medline, Embase, Pubmed, CINAHL, Wiley online library, Scopus and Nature) were searched from 1 December 2019 to 30 June 2021 in the English language using the following keywords alone or in combination: COVID-19 OR SARS-CoV-2 AND diabetic ketoacidosis OR DKA OR ketosis OR ketonemia OR hyperglycaemic emergency OR hyperglycaemic crisis. We included studies in adults and children of all ages in all healthcare settings. Binary logistic regression model was used to explore the effect of various demographic and biochemical parameters variables on patient's final treatment outcome (survival or death)., Results: Of the 484 papers that were identified, 68 articles were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis (54 case report, 10 case series, and 4 cohort studies). Studies involving 639 DKA patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 [46 (7.2%) were children and 334 (52.3%) were adults] were analyzed. The median or mean patient age ranged from < 1 years to 66 years across studies. Most of the patients (n = 309, 48.3%) had pre-existing type 2 diabetes mellitus. The majority of the patients were male (n = 373, 58.4%) and belonged to Hispanic (n = 156, 24.4%) and black (n = 98, 15.3%) ethnicity. The median random blood glucose level, HbA1c, pH, bicarbonate, and anion gap in all included patients at presentation were 507 mg/dl [IQR 399-638 mg/dl], 11.4% [IQR 9.9-13.5%], 7.16 [IQR 7.00-7.22], 10 mmol/l [IQR 6.9-13 mmol/l], and 24.5 mEq/l [18-29.2 mEq/l]; respectively. Mortality rate was [63/243, 25.9%], with a majority of death in patients of Hispanic ethnicity (n = 17, 27%; p = 0.001). The odd ratios of death were significantly high in patients with pre-existing diabetes mellitus type 2 [OR 5.24, 95% CI 2.07-15.19; p = 0.001], old age (≥ 60 years) [OR 3.29, 95% CI 1.38-7.91; p = 0.007], and male gender [OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.37-5.17; p = 0.004] compared to those who survived., Conclusion: DKA is not uncommon in SARS-CoV-2 patients with diabetes mellitus and results in a mortality rate of 25.9%. Mortality key determinants in DKA patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection are individuals with pre-existing diabetes mellitus type 2, older age [≥ 60 years old], male gender, BMI ≥ 30, blood glucose level > 1000 mg/dl, and anion gap ≥ 30 mEq/l., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Currently there is no systematic review and meta-analysis of the global incidence rates of anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the general adult population., Objectives: To estimate the incidence rates of anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions after COVID-19 vaccines and describe the demographic and clinical characteristics, triggers, presenting signs and symptoms, treatment and clinical course of confirmed cases., Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [PRISMA] statement was followed., Methods: Electronic databases (Proquest, Medline, Embase, Pubmed, CINAHL, Wiley online library, and Nature) were searched from 1 December 2020 to 31 May 2021 in the English language using the following keywords alone or in combination: anaphylaxis, non-anaphylaxis, anaphylactic reaction, nonanaphylactic reaction, anaphylactic/anaphylactoid shock, hypersensitivity, allergy reaction, allergic reaction, immunology reaction, immunologic reaction, angioedema, loss of consciousness, generalized erythema, urticaria, urticarial rash, cyanosis, grunting, stridor, tachypnoea, wheezing, tachycardia, abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and tryptase. We included studies in adults of all ages in all healthcare settings. Effect sizes of prevalence were pooled with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). To minimize heterogeneity, we performed sub-group analyses., Results: Of the 1,734 papers that were identified, 26 articles were included in the systematic review (8 case report, 5 cohort, 4 case series, 2 randomized controlled trial and 1 randomized cross-sectional studies) and 14 articles (1 cohort, 2 case series, 1 randomized controlled trial and 1 randomized cross-sectional studies) were included in meta-analysis. Studies involving 26,337,421 vaccine recipients [Pfizer-BioNTech (n = 14,505,399) and Moderna (n = 11,831,488)] were analyzed. The overall pooled prevalence estimate of anaphylaxis to both vaccines was 5.0 (95% CI 2.9 to 7.2, I 2  = 81%, p =  < 0.0001), while the overall pooled prevalence estimate of nonanaphylactic reactions to both vaccines was 53.9 (95% CI 0.0 to 116.1, I 2  = 99%, p =  < 0.0001). Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech resulted in higher anaphylactic reactions compared to Moderna (8.0, 95% CI 0.0 to 11.3, I 2  = 85% versus 2.8, 95% CI 0.0 to 5.7, I 2  = 59%). However, lower incidence of nonanaphylactic reactions was associated with Pfizer-BioNTech compared to Moderna (43.9, 95% CI 0.0 to 131.9, I 2  = 99% versus 63.8, 95% CI 0.0 to 151.8, I 2  = 98%). The funnel plots for possible publication bias for the pooled effect sizes to determine the incidence of anaphylaxis and nonanaphylactic reactions associated with mRNA COVID-19 immunization based on mRNA vaccine type appeared asymmetrical on visual inspection, and Egger's tests confirmed asymmetry by producing p values < 0.05. Across the included studies, the most commonly identified risk factors for anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were female sex and personal history of atopy. The key triggers to anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions identified in these studies included foods, medications, stinging insects or jellyfish, contrast media, cosmetics and detergents, household products, and latex. Previous history of anaphylaxis; and comorbidities such as asthma, allergic rhinitis, atopic and contact eczema/dermatitis and psoriasis and cholinergic urticaria were also found to be important., Conclusion: The prevalence of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-associated anaphylaxis is very low; and nonanaphylactic reactions occur at higher rate, however, cutaneous reactions are largely self-limited. Both anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions should not discourage vaccination., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Objectives: To quantify parental acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine and assess the vaccine hesitancy (VH) for COVID-19 vs. childhood vaccines. Methods: Eight vaccine hesitancy scale (VHS) items, adopted from WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Immunization (SAGE), were used to assess VH for COVID-19 vaccine vs. routine childhood vaccines. We distributed the online survey to parents with the commence of the national childhood COVID-19 vaccination program in Saudi Arabia. Results: Among 3,167 parents, 47.6% are decided to vaccinate their children against COVID-19. The most common reasons for refusal were inadequate safety information (69%) and worry about side effects (60.6%). Parents have a significantly greater positive attitudes toward children's routine vaccines vs. the COVID-19 vaccine, with higher mean VHS (±SD) = 2.98 ± 0.58 vs. 2.63 ± 0.73, respectively ( p -value < 0.001). Parents agreed more that routine childhood vaccines are more essential and effective as compared to the COVID-19 vaccine (Cohen's D: 0.946, and 0.826, consecutively; T -test p -value < 0.00). There is more parental anxiety about serious side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine vs. routine childhood vaccines (Cohen's D = 0.706, p -value < 0.001). Parents who relied on the Ministry of Health information were more predicted (OR = 1.28, p -value = 0.035) to intend to vaccinate as opposed to those who used the WHO website (OR = 0.47, -53%, p -value < 0.001). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, the factors associated with intention to vaccinate children were parents who received COVID-19 vaccine, older parents, having children aged 12-18, and parents with lower education levels. Conclusions: Significant proportion of parents are hesitant about the COVID-19 vaccine because they are less confident in its effectiveness, safety, and whether it is essential for their children. Relying on the national official healthcare authority's website for the source of information was associated with increased acceptance of childhood COVID-19 vaccination. As parental intention to vaccinate children against COVID-19 is suboptimal, healthcare authorities could boost vaccine uptake by campaigns targeting hesitant parents., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Temsah, Alhuzaimi, Aljamaan, Bahkali, Al-Eyadhy, Alrabiaah, Alhaboob, Bashiri, Alshaer, Temsah, Bassrawi, Alshahrani, Chaiah, Alaraj, Assiri, Jamal, Batais, Saddik, Halwani, Alzamil, Memish, Barry, Al-Subaie, Al-Tawfiq and Alhasan.)

Post rollout safety for the coronavirus disease vaccines is crucial and recommended. To explore the early solicited adverse events (AE) following BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination in Saudi Arabia, we distributed an online survey to adults vaccinated with BNT162b2 over the first week of June 2021, to collect data on first (V1), second doses (V2), symptoms, severity, and outcome after an informed consent was obtained. We recruited 3639 BNT162b2 vaccinated individuals, of which one-third had received two doses, 63.3% were female, 77% were healthy, and 89% had 18-55 years of age, while only 9.8% had a history of allergy. Overall, 50.3% had any AEs after any dose, especially those younger than 55 years of age, female, history of comorbidity, and when adjusted for age and gender, lung or cardiovascular diseases. Overall, the most common AE were pain at the injection site (44%), tiredness (39%), or body ache (31%). Compared to V1, a higher rate of post-V2 systemic AE (36% vs. 51%). Most AEs started very early (within 3 days), and rarely delayed in recovery (>2 weeks). Anti-pyretic was the most commonly used (51.7%), a third of which was unnecessary. Only 1.7% required hospital admission. By multivariate analysis, predictors for admission were the presence of lung or immunocompromising diseases. In conclusion, common AEs after BNT162b2 in the real world were generally mild, self-limiting, higher after the second dose, and largely mimicking that reported in clinical trials. The causality of these AE and the persistence of post-vaccination symptoms needs to be investigated further., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2021 The Author(s).)

Background: The recent emergence of the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) disease had been associated with reports of fungal infections such as aspergillosis and mucormycosis especially among critically ill patients treated with steroids. The recent surge in cases of COVID-19 in India during the second wave of the pandemic had been associated with increased reporting of invasive mucormycosis post COVID-19. There are multiple case reports and case series describing mucormycosis in COVID-19., Purpose: In this review, we included most recent reported case reports and case-series of mucormycosis among patients with COVID-19 and describe the clinical features and outcome., Results: Many  of the mucormycosis reports were eported from India, especially in COVID-19 patients who were treated and recovered patients. The most commonly reported infection sites were rhino-orbital/rhino-cerebral mucormycosis. Those patients  were diabetic and had corticosteroids therapy for controlling the severity of COVID-19, leading to a higher fatality in such cases and complicating the pandemic scenario. The triad of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), corticosteroid use and uncontrolled diabetes mellitus have been evident for significant increase in the incidence of angioinvasive maxillofacial mucormycosis.  In addition, the presence of spores and other factors might play a role as well., Conclusion: With the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and increasing number of critically ill patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, it is important to develop a risk-based approach for patients at risk of mucormycosis based on the epidemiological burden of mucormycosis, prevalence of diabetes mellitus, COVID-19 disease severity and use of immune modulating agents including the combined use of corticosteroids and immunosuppressive agents in patients with cancer and transplants., (© 2021. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

The recent Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak has resulted in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic worldwide, affecting millions of lives. Although vaccines are presently made available, and vaccination drive is in progress to immunize a larger population; still the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and related mortality is persistent amid threats of the third wave of the ongoing pandemic. In the scenario of unavailability of robust and efficient treatment modalities, it becomes essential to understand the mechanism of action of the virus and deeply study the molecular mechanisms (both at the virus level and the host level) underlying the infection processes. Recent studies have shown that coronaviruses (CoVs) cause-specific epigenetic changes in the host cells to create a conducive microenvironment for replicating, assembling, and spreading. Epigenetic mechanisms can contribute to various aspects of the SARS-CoV-2 multiplication cycle, like expressing cytokine genes, viral receptor ACE2, and implicating different histone modifications. For SARS-CoV-2 infection, viral proteins are physically associated with various host proteins resulting in numerous interactions between epigenetic enzymes (i.e., histone deacetylases, bromodomain-containing proteins). The involvement of epigenetic mechanisms in the virus life cycle and the host immune responses to control infection result in epigenetic factors recognized as emerging prognostic COVID-19 biomarkers and epigenetic modulators as robust therapeutic targets to curb COVID-19. Therefore, this narrative review aimed to summarize and discuss the various epigenetic mechanisms that control gene expression and how these mechanisms are altered in the host cells during coronavirus infection. We also discuss the opportunities to exploit these epigenetic changes as therapeutic targets for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Epigenetic alterations and regulation play a pivotal role at various levels of coronavirus infection: entry, replication/transcription, and the process of maturation of viral proteins. Coronaviruses modulate the host epigenome to escape the host immune mechanisms. Therefore, host epigenetic alterations induced by CoVs can be considered to develop targeted therapies for COVID-19.

Background: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) was the fourth country in the world to authorize the BNT162b2 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, which it rolled out on December 17, 2020 and first targeted at healthcare workers (HCWs). This study assesses vaccine uptake among this group during the first month of its availability., Methods: A national cross-sectional, pilot-validated, self-administered survey was conducted among HCWs in the KSA between December 27, 2020 and January 3, 2021. The survey included sociodemographic details, previous contact with COVID-19 patients, previous infection with COVID-19, receiving (or registering with the Ministry of Health website to receive) the COVID-19 vaccine, sources of HCWs' information on vaccines, awareness of emerging variants of concern, and anxiety level using the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder assessment. A descriptive bivariate analysis and multivariate logistic binary regression analysis were performed. The primary evaluated outcome was vaccine uptake., Results: Of the 1058 participants who completed the survey, 704 (66.5%) were female, and 626 (59.2%) were nurses. Of all the respondents, 352 (33.27%) were enrolled to receive or had already received the vaccine, while 706 (66.73%) had not enrolled. In a bivariate analysis, not enrolling for vaccination was more likely in females than males (78.5% vs. 21.5%, P < 0.001), HCWs between the ages of 20 and 40 years than those >40 years (70.4% vs. 29.6%, P = 0.005), Saudi HCWs than expatriates (78% vs 22%, P < 0.001), and among HCWs who used social media as a source of information than those who did not (69.8% vs. 38.6%, P < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, independent factors associated with uptake were being a Saudi national (aOR = 1.918, 95 %CI = 1.363-2.698, P < 0.001), working in an intensive care unit (aOR = 1.495, 95 %CI = 1.083-2.063, P = 0.014), and working at a university hospital (aOR = 1.867, 95 %CI = 1.380-2.525, P < 0.001)., Conclusions: A low level of vaccine uptake was observed especially in female HCWs, those younger than 40 years old, and those who used social media as their source of vaccine information. This survey provides important information for public health authorities in order to scale up vaccination campaigns targeting these HCWs to increase vaccine enrollment and uptake., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is the leading cause of chronic liver disease. HCV genotypes and subtypes are important predictors of disease progression and antiviral treatment response. To our knowledge, there had been limited studies of HCV genotypes in Qatif, Saudi Arabia. This study aims to assess the distribution of HCV genotypes in Qatif Central Hospital, Qatif, Saudi Arabia. This is a retrospective study of adult patients with HCV infection between January 2015 and December 2020. Only patients with documented HCV genotyping were included. A total of 356 HCVinfected patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in further analysis. Of those patients, 179 (50.3%) were males, and most were Saudi (N=347, 97.5%). The median age was 60 years, and 191 (53.7%) were 50-69 years of age. Genotype 2 was present in 118 (33.1%) of the patients, followed by genotype 4 in 92 (25.8%), genotype 1B in 62 (17.4%), and genotype 1A in 37 (10.4%). The study showed that HCV genotype 2 is the predominant variant among chronic HCV patients in the study population. Monitoring the epidemiology of HCV genotypes may provide guidance in treatment decisions., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2016 - 2021 InfezMed.)

This is a systematic review of the literature specifically aimed to explore myocardial injury in coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) patients who were hospitalized with severe complicated infections. The medical literature was examined through the large medical databases, including Medline, Ovid, PubMed, and Embase, over the last year between January 2020 and May 2021. The search terms used were a combination of "myocardial injury" AND "COVID-19" AND "Hospitalization". Then we applied a step to filter the results to select original research articles only evaluating the myocardial injuries in severe COVID-19 hospitalized patients. Selected trials mentioned the type of myocardial injury detected with the infection. A total of 245 articles were extracted. Considering the exclusion of ineligible articles, 42 articles appeared. A total of 42 articles were eligible and were included in the review. These studies included a total of 4326 COVID-19 patients. The 30-day mortality was found to be associated with increased cardiac troponin and myocardial infarction could be a systemic reaction rather than the direct action of COVID-19. Patients with myocardial injury were significantly older and with co-morbid conditions. Studies also found a correlation of higher concentrations of cardiac enzymes with disease severity and increased in-hospital mortality. Myocardial injury was a significant predictor for severe COVID-19 infection and in-hospital mortality. Cardiac enzymes should be monitored in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 infections., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest This authors have no conflicts of interest to be declared with respect to this research study., (Copyright © 2016 - 2021 InfezMed.)

COVID-19 pandemic affected the lives of many with its devastating mortality and morbidity. Acquisition of herd immunity is one way to mitigate the spread of infection. Many factors influence the acceptance of vaccination including the regulatory process of the vaccines. This review article will briefly summarize the Emergency Use Authorization, Full FDA Approval process and highlight how the key factors affecting the vaccination hesitancy, are being influenced by the lack of Full FDA Approval., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest None of the co-authors have declared any conflict of interest. No funding is involved., (Copyright © 2016 - 2021 InfezMed.)

Background: There have been 2562 laboratory-confirmed cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in 27 countries, with a case fatality rate of 34.5%. Data on the turnaround time (TAT) are lacking. We report TAT for MERS-CoV samples over time., Methods: This is a monocentric study and the TAT for the reporting of 2664 MERS-CoV polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results were calculated in hours from the time of the receipt of respiratory samples to the reporting of the results., Results: The mean TAT±standard deviation was significantly lower in 2018 compared with previous years (19.25±13.8). The percentage of samples processed within 24 h increased from 42.3% to 73.8% in 2015 and 2018, respectively (p<0.0001). The mean TAT was 19.2 h in 2018 and was significantly lower than previous years., Conclusions: The TAT for the MERS-CoV results decreased during the study period. Timely reporting of MERS-CoV PCR results may aid in further enhancing infection control measures., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene.)

Introduction: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was one of the first countries to implement a COVID-19 vaccination program. This study estimated the safety and reactogenicity of the ChAdOx1-S vaccine after the first dose administered to adults., Methods: This cross-sectional study included 1592 randomly selected vaccinees from April to May 2021. A questionnaire was delivered to the vaccinees via phone calls 7 and 21 days after the first vaccine dose., Results: Of the 1592 vaccinees who had the first dose, the mean age was 37.4 (± 9.6) years and 81% were males. Of all the vaccinees, 553 (34.7%) reported an adverse reaction on the first telephone call. The most common symptoms were: pain at the site of injection (485, 30.5%), musculoskeletal symptoms (438, 27.5%), skin rash (307, 19.2%), gastrointestinal symptoms (379, 23.8%) and fever (498, 31.3%). Men were more likely to report fever (76.9% vs. 23.1%; P = 0.005), skin rash (81.1% vs. 18.9%, P = 0.005) and pain at the injection site (77.3% vs. 22.7%, P < 0.0001). Post-vaccine COVID-19 infection was 0.5% and there were no hospitalizations., Conclusion: This study observed no major side effects of the ChAdOx1-S vaccine and no reported breakthrough infection during the observation period., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: There is no specific anti-viral therapies for 2019 Coronavirus Diseases (COVID-19) infection. Here, we compared patients receiving steroids at different dosages versus no steroids in severe and critical COVID-19 patients., Methods: We retrospectively studied COVID-19 patients who received low-dose or high-dose corticosteroid therapy compared to no steroid., Results: The study period, June-August 2020, included 169 patients with COVID-19 were included and there were 39.1% female and 60.9% male with an average age of 53.1 years. The distribution of cases was as follows: high-dose 39 (23.1%), low-dose 54 (32.0%), and no steroid 76 (45.5%). Of all the patients, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission was for 31 (18.3%), nine (5.3%) required intubation, and 52 (30.8%) had no comorbidities. There is no difference in the mean age between the different groups. However, those being treated with steroid were more likely to have a high sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score (0.37 ± 0.68, 0.36 ± 0.67 and 0.04 ± 0.34, for low-dose, high-dose steroid and no steroid groups, respectively ( p = 0.001). Cox regression was not possible as the mortality rate was very low (3/169; 1.78%) and none of the multivariate methods would be possible. However, there was a significant difference in the hospital Length of stay (LOS) and the ICU LOS., Conclusion: Cox regression was not possible as the mortality rate was very low (1.78%) and none of the multivariate methods would be possible as the model will not converge. However, in t -test only, intubation was associated risk of mortality., Competing Interests: The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest., (© 2021 The Authors. Published by Atlantis Press International B.V.)

Introduction: The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) had caused an increased burden on healthcare organizations. Thus, a new strategy is needed to ensure all COVID-19 positive cases appropriately followed up , to receive the proper medical and psychological support, and to comply with the isolation guidelines. Here, we describe the characteristics and outcome of COVID-19 patients who were managed at home. In addition, we describe the differences between asymptomatic and those with mild symptoms., Materials and Methods: This is descriptive study of all COVID-19 positive cases who were monitored utilizing the home care concept., Results: During the study period from June 8 to October 18, 2020, there was a total of 5368 COVID-19 patients who were referred to the home isolation/monitoring program. Of those, 2397 (45%) were female and 2971 (55%) were male. Of the total cases, 295 (5%) required hospital admission, 45 (1%) were admitted to zone 2 (an intermediate care facility), and the majority 5028 (94%) were continued in the home monitoring program till recovery. Of the total cases, 3137 (59%) were asymptomatic and the remaining 41% were symptomatic. Asymptomatic patients in comparison to symptomatic patients showed significant differences in relation to mean age (+ SD) of 31.5 (+ 18.6) and 46.45 (+ 17.1), respectively (P < 0.001)), gender, being healthcare workers, and the presence of significant medical conditions. However, a logistic regression analysis showed that only age and the presence of diabetes mellitus were associated with the presence of symptoms. The mean age (±SD) of those who required hospital admission was higher than those who were continued in home monitoring or cared for in zone 2., Conclusion: The utilization of home monitoring program was effective and safe in patients who were either asymptomatic or had mild symptoms., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARSCoV- 2) emerged in Wuhan City, China. The SARS-CoV-2 crossed borders and quickly transformed into a "Public health emergency of international concern". Countries around the globe are in the race to achieve herd immunity. We describe the steps taken by Saudi Arabia to achieve this goal., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: With the evolving COVID-19 pandemic and the emphasis on social distancing to decrease the spread of SARS-CoV-2 among healthcare workers (HCWs), our pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) piloted the integration of Zoom meetings into clinical rounds. We aimed to explore the feasibility of these hybrid virtual and physical clinical rounds for PICU patients. Design: Mixed quantitative and qualitative deductive thematic content analysis of narrative responses. Setting: PICU, single tertiary-care academic center. Participants: Multidisciplinary PICU HCWs. Interventions: Integration of Zoom meeting into clinical daily PICU rounds. Measurements: For the quantitative part, we gathered the details of daily PICU hybrid rounds in terms of times, number of HCWs, and type of files shared through Zoom. For the qualitative part, open-ended questions were used. Main Results: The physical round took statistically significantly less time (34.68 ± 14.842 min) as compared with the Zoom round (72.45 ± 22.59 min), p < 0.001. The most shared component in the virtual round was chest X-rays (93.5%). Thirty-one HCWs participated in focus group discussions and were included in the analysis. Some of the HCWs' perceived advantages of the hybrid rounds were enabling multidisciplinary discussions, fewer round interruptions, and practicality of virtual discussions. The perceived challenges were the difficulty of the bedside nurse attending the virtual round, decreased teaching opportunities for the trainees, and decreased interactions among the team members, especially if video streaming was not utilized. Conclusions: Multidisciplinary hybrid virtual and physical clinical rounds in the PICU were perceived as feasible by HCWs. The virtual rounds decreased the physical contact between the HCWs, which could decrease the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 spread among the treating team. Still, several components of the hybrid round should be optimized to facilitate the virtual team-members' interactions and enhance the teaching experience., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Temsah, Alhboob, Abouammoh, Al-Eyadhy, Aljamaan, Alsohime, Alabdulhafid, Ashry, Bukhari, ElTahir, Jamal, Halwani, Alhasan, Alherbish, Temsah, Al-Tawfiq and Barry.)

Background: Antimicrobial resistance is a global issue that causes significant morbidity and mortality. Therefore, this study aims to assess knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of the general Saudi populations toward antibiotics use., Design and Methods: A cross-sectional, anonymous online survey was conducted from January 1 to May 11, 2020, across five major regions of Saudi Arabia. Participants (aged ≥18 years) were invited through social media to complete an online self-structured questionnaire. All data were analyzed by Statistical Package (SPSS v.25). Descriptive statistics, Pearson's Chi-squared, t-tests, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Pearson correlation analyses were conducted., Results: Out of 443 participants, the majority (n=309, 69.8%) were females, 294 (64.4%) were married, 176 (39.7%) were 25-34 years of age, 338 (76.3%) were living in the Eastern Province, 313 (70.7%) had college or higher education, 139 (31.4%) were not working, and 163 (36.8%) had a monthly income of USD 800-1330. Overall, most participants demonstrated good knowledge and practice (88% and 85.6%, respectively).  However, 76.8%had inadequate attitude score levels towards antibiotics use. Of all the respondents, 74.9% knew that not completing a full course of antibiotics may cause antibiotics resistance, 91.33% did not agree that antibiotics should be accessed without a prescription, and 94.04% will not hand over leftover antibiotics to family members. Factors associated with adequate knowledge were female, medical jobs, and higher income (p<0.05)., Conclusions: Our findings revealed that while most participants were aware of antibiotics use and demonstrated good knowledge, good practices, they had negative attitudes towards antibiotics use.

Background: Immunocompromised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have prolonged infectious viral shedding for more than 20 days. A test-based approach is suggested for de-isolation of these patients., Methods: The strategy was evaluated by comparing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load (cycle threshold (Ct) values) and viral culture at the time of hospital discharge in a series of 13 COVID-19 patients: six immunocompetent and seven immunocompromised (five solid organ transplant patients, one lymphoma patient, and one hepatocellular carcinoma patient)., Results: Three of the 13 (23%) patients had positive viral cultures: one patient with lymphoma (on day 16) and two immunocompetent patients (on day 7 and day 11). Eighty percent of the patients had negative viral cultures and had a mean Ct value of 20.5. None of the solid organ transplant recipients had positive viral cultures., Conclusions: The mean Ct value for negative viral cultures was 20.5 in this case series of immunocompromised patients. Unlike those with hematological malignancies, none of the solid organ transplant patients had positive viral cultures. Adopting the test-based approach for all immunocompromised patients may lead to prolonged quarantine. Large-scale studies in disease-specific populations are needed to determine whether a test-based approach versus a symptom-based approach or a combination is applicable for the de-isolation of various immunocompromised patients., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) and liver transplant recipients are at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although several studies demonstrated the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in the general population, data in CLD patients and liver transplant recipients are lacking. Two COVID-19 vaccines were approved by the Saudi Food and Drug Authority and rolled out to several million recipients in Saudi Arabia. These vaccines are mRNA-based vaccine BNT162b2 from Pfizer/BioNTech and adenovirus-based AZD1222 from Oxford/AstraZeneca from three manufacturing sites (EU Nodes, Serum Institute of India, and South Korea Bio). The Saudi Association for the Study of Liver diseases and Transplantation (SASLT) has reviewed the available evidence and issued interim recommendations for COVID-19 vaccination in CLD and liver transplant recipients. Since there is no evidence contradicting the safety and immunogenicity of the currently approved COVID-19 vaccines in patients with CLD and hepatobiliary cancer and liver transplant recipients, the SASLT recommends vaccination in those patient populations. CLD and hepatobiliary cancer patients and liver transplant recipients should be prioritized depending on the risk factors for severe COVID-19. In transplant recipients, the optimal timing of vaccination remains unknown; however, immunization is recommended after the initial immunosuppression phase. Patients with CLD and liver transplant candidates or recipients should be closely monitored after COVID-19 vaccination. These patient populations should be included in future clinical trials to provide further evidence on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines., Competing Interests: None

Aim: To determine the frequency, mode of transmission, and outcome of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) among healthcare workers (HCWs) in a tertiary care cardiac center in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Methods: This is a retrospective study of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infected HCWs and was conducted from 2 March to 31 December 2020. Data related to the presence of COVID-19 symptoms, mode of transmission, hospitalization, and mortality were collected from the patients' medical records. Results: Of the 4462 patients tested for COVID-19 by real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), 203 (4.5%) HCWs were positive; of these, 125 (61.6%) were males, and the most common age group was <40 years. The most commonly encountered health professionals were nurses (74, 36.4%), followed by therapists/technicians (48, 23.6%), housekeepers (25, 12.3%), and physicians (21, 10.4%). The majority (184, 90.6%) of the HCWs contracted COVID-19 in the community, and only 19 (9.4%) were healthcare-associated infections. Of the infected HCWs, 169 (83.3%) had mild symptoms and were managed in home isolation. The most common symptoms were fever (128, 63.1%), body ache (124, 61.8%), headache (113, 55.7%), dry cough (123, 60.6%), sore throat (97, 47.8%), body weakness (97, 47.8%), and fatigue (94, 46.3%). Comparing males and females, there was a significantly higher number of female nurses; in contrast, there was a higher number of male physicians, housekeepers, therapists/technicians, and other specialty HCWs. A significantly lower number of nurses, therapists/technicians were infected in the ≥40 years age group compared to <40 years. Furthermore, a significantly higher difference was observed among non-Saudi nurses compared to Saudi nurses. No mortality was documented among the included HCWs. Conclusions: In the largest tertiary cardiac center in KSA, most HCWs who contracted COVID-19 developed mild symptoms; nurses and those aged <40 years were most commonly infected, and most infections were acquired in the community. HCWs' adherence to mitigation measures outside of the workplace is vital to curb the current pandemic and decrease nosocomial transmission risk.

Background: Coinfection with bacteria, fungi, and respiratory viruses in SARS-CoV-2 is of particular importance due to the possibility of increased morbidity and mortality. In this meta-analysis, we calculated the prevalence of such coinfections., Methods: Electronic databases were searched from 1 December 2019 to 31 March 2021. Effect sizes of prevalence were pooled with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). To minimize heterogeneity, we performed sub-group analyses., Results: Of the 6189 papers that were identified, 72 articles were included in the systematic review (40 case series and 32 cohort studies) and 68 articles (38 case series and 30 cohort studies) were included in the meta-analysis. Of the 31,953 SARS-CoV-2 patients included in the meta-analysis, the overall pooled proportion who had a laboratory-confirmed bacterial infection was 15.9% (95% CI 13.6-18.2, n = 1940, 49 studies, I 2 = 99%, p < 0.00001), while 3.7% (95% CI 2.6-4.8, n = 177, 16 studies, I 2 = 93%, p < 0.00001) had fungal infections and 6.6% (95% CI 5.5-7.6, n = 737, 44 studies, I 2 = 96%, p < 0.00001) had other respiratory viruses. SARS-CoV-2 patients in the ICU had higher co-infections compared to ICU and non-ICU patients as follows: bacterial (22.2%, 95% CI 16.1-28.4, I 2 = 88% versus 14.8%, 95% CI 12.4-17.3, I 2 = 99%), and fungal (9.6%, 95% CI 6.8-12.4, I 2 = 74% versus 2.7%, 95% CI 0.0-3.8, I 2 = 95%); however, there was an identical other respiratory viral co-infection proportion between all SARS-CoV-2 patients [(ICU and non-ICU) and the ICU only] (6.6%, 95% CI 0.0-11.3, I 2 = 58% versus 6.6%, 95% CI 5.5-7.7, I 2 = 96%). Funnel plots for possible publication bias for the pooled effect sizes of the prevalence of coinfections was asymmetrical on visual inspection, and Egger's tests confirmed asymmetry ( p values < 0.05)., Conclusion: Bacterial co-infection is relatively high in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2, with little evidence of S. aureus playing a major role. Knowledge of the prevalence and type of co-infections in SARS-CoV-2 patients may have diagnostic and management implications.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the perception, confidence, hesitancy and acceptance rate of various COVID-19 vaccine types among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Saudi Arabia, a nation with Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus experience., Design: National cross-sectional, pilot-validated questionnaire., Setting: Online, self-administered questionnaire among HCWs., Participants: A total of 2007 HCWs working in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia participated; 1512 (75.3%) participants completed the survey and were included in the analysis., Intervention: Data were collected through an online survey sent to HCWs during 1-15 November 2020. The main outcome measure was HCW acceptance of COVID-19 candidate vaccines. The associated factors of vaccination acceptance were identified through a logistic regression analysis and via measurement of the level of anxiety, using the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7 scale., Results: Among the 1512 HCWs who were included, 62.4% were women, 70.3% were between 21 and 40 years of age, and the majority (62.2%) were from tertiary hospitals. In addition, 59.5% reported knowing about at least one vaccine; 24.4% of the participants were sure about their willingness to receive the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, and 20.9% were willing to receive the RNA BNT162b2 vaccine. However, 18.3% reported that they would refuse to receive the Ad5-vectored vaccine, and 17.9% would refuse the Gam-COVID-Vac vaccine. Factors that influenced the differential readiness of HCWs included their perceptions of the vaccine's efficiency in preventing the infection (33%), their personal preferences (29%) and the vaccine's manufacturing country (28.6%)., Conclusions: Awareness by HCWs of the several COVID-19 candidate vaccines could improve their perceptions and acceptance of vaccination. Reliable sources on vaccine efficiency could improve vaccine uptake, so healthcare authorities should use reliable information to decrease vaccine hesitancy among frontline healthcare providers., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Knowledge of infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures among healthcare workers (HCWs) is crucial for effective IPC. Compliance with IPC measures has critical implications for HCWs safety, patient protection and the care environment., Aims: To discuss the body of available literature regarding HCWs' knowledge of IPC and highlight potential factors that may influence compliance to IPC precautions., Design: A systematic review. A protocol was developed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis [PRISMA] statement., Data Sources: Electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Proquest, Wiley online library, Medline, and Nature) were searched from 1 January 2006 to 31 January 2021 in the English language using the following keywords alone or in combination: knowledge, awareness, healthcare workers, infection, compliance, comply, control, prevention, factors. 3417 papers were identified and 30 papers were included in the review., Results: Overall, the level of HCW knowledge of IPC appears to be adequate, good, and/or high concerning standard precautions, hand hygiene, and care pertaining to urinary catheters. Acceptable levels of knowledge were also detected in regards to IPC measures for specific diseases including TB, MRSA, MERS-CoV, COVID-19 and Ebola. However, gaps were identified in several HCWs' knowledge concerning occupational vaccinations, the modes of transmission of infectious diseases, and the risk of infection from needle stick and sharps injuries. Several factors for noncompliance surrounding IPC guidelines are discussed, as are recommendations for improving adherence to those guidelines., Conclusion: Embracing a multifaceted approach towards improving IPC-intervention strategies is highly suggested. The goal being to improve compliance among HCWs with IPC measures is necessary.

The purpose of this systematic review was to describe the characteristics of clinical trials that focused on COVID-19 patients with cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and the variability in CRS definitions. Two authors independently searched three clinical trial registries and included interventional clinical trials on COVID-19 hospitalized patients that required at least one elevated inflammatory biomarker. Relevant data, including the type and cutoff of the measured biomarker, oxygen/respiratory criteria, fever, radiologic criteria, and medications, were summarized. A total of 47 clinical trials were included. The included studies considered the following criteria: oxygen/respiratory criteria in 42 trials (89%), radiologic criteria in 29 trials (62%), and fever in 6 trials (18%). Serum ferritin was measured in 35 trials (74%), CRP in 34 trials (72%), D-dimer in 26 trials (55%), LDH in 24 trials (51%), lymphocyte count in 14 trials (30%), and IL-6 in 8 trials (17%). The cutoff values were variable for the included biomarkers. The most commonly used medications were tocilizumab, in 15 trials (32%), and anakinra in 10 trials (24.4%). This systematic review found high variability in CRS definitions and associated biomarker cutoff values in COVID-19 clinical trials. We call for a standardized definition of CRS, especially in COVID-19 patients.

Background: The clinical spectrum of COVID-19 is variable and ranges from asymptomatic, mildly symptomatic, moderately severe and severe disease. A small proportion might develop severe disease and may have cytokine storm. One of the therapeutic options to treat such cases is Tocilizumab (TCZ). In this study, we present cases of severe COVID-19 treated with TCZ and glucocorticoids and discuss the treatment responses., Methods: This is a retrospective observational study of severe COVID-19 cases treated with TCZ and glucocorticoids. The case series examined the characteristics and outcome of those patients., Results: This study included 40 Severe Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) confirmed patients who received TCZ and glucocorticoids. The mean age of the included patients was 57.55 (±Standard deviation 12.86) years. There were 34 (85%) males, 19 (47.5%) were obese (BMI >30), 13 (32.5%) over weight, and five (12.5%) normal weight. The mean days from positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test to admission was 1.641 (±3.2) days. Of the patients, 18 (45%) had diabetes mellitus, 14 (35%) had hypertension. The mean days from hospital admission to ICU was 1.8 (±2.6), 20 (50%) required mechanical ventilation, 39 (97.5%) had received prone position, seven (17.5%) had renal replacement therapy, 13 (32.5%) required inotropes, four (10%) had plasmapheresis, one (2.5%) had intravenous immunoglobulin, all patients received steroid therapy, and the majority 31 (77.5%) did not receive any anti-viral therapy. Of all the patients, six (15%) died, 28 (70%) were discharged and six (15%) were still in hospital., Conclusion: The overall mortality rate was lower than those cited in meta-analysis. As our understanding of the COVID-19 continues, the approach and therapeutics are also evolving., Competing Interests: The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest., (© 2021 The Authors. Published by Atlantis Press International B.V.)

Objectives: Awareness of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) patterns in a given healthcare setting is important to inform the selection of appropriate antimicrobial therapy to reduce the further rise and spread of AMR as well as the rate of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and multidrug-resistant (MDR) organisms. We aimed to describe resistance patterns to several antimicrobial agents in pathogens causing HAIs isolated from patients using data gathered at three private tertiary-care hospitals in Saudi Arabia., Methods: Data on trends in AMR among bacteria causing HAIs and MDR events in children and adults at three private hospitals were collected retrospectively (2015-2019) using surveillance data., Results: Over the 5-year period, 29 393 pathogens caused 17 539 HAIs in 15 259 patients. Approximately 57.3% of patients were female and the mean age was 38.4 ± 16.8 years (81.4% adults, 18.6% children). Gram-negative pathogens were four times more likely to cause HAIs compared with Gram-positive bacteria (79.3% vs. 20.7%). Ranking of causative pathogens in decreasing order was Escherichia coli (42.2%), Klebsiella spp. (16.8%) and Staphylococcus aureus (13.9%). Acinetobacter spp. were the only pathogens to decrease significantly (7% reduction; P = 0.033). The most common resistant pathogens were extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant E. coli (37.1%), extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant Klebsiella (27.8%), carbapenem-non-susceptible Acinetobacter spp. (19.5%), carbapenem-non-susceptible Pseudomonas aeruginosa (19.2%) and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (18.6%)., Conclusion: National collaboration is required by prompt feedback to local authorities to tackle regional differences in AMR. This can help plan timely containment interventions to stop and contain microbial threats and swiftly assess their impact., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Bacterial infections in sickle cell disease (SCD) are associated with major risks of morbidity and mortality. Here, we describe the occurrence of bacteremia in SCD patients from 2000 to 2017. This is an observational study which included children and adults with SCD and fever and had confirmed positive blood cultures. During the study period, there were 1095 SCD patients with 17,053 blood cultures. Of all the patients, 699 (63.8%) were children and 396 (36.2%) adults with 576 (52.6%) males and 519 (47.4%) females. The mean age ± SD was 17.8 (± 14.7), and a median age (IQR) of 13.6 (6.8-23.5) years. The mean (SD) follow up was 7.4 (5.4) years and the total number of patient-years was 8069.1 years. Out of the 1095 patients, 91 (8.3%) had bacteremia with 35 (38.5%) children and 65 (61.5%) adults (p = .079). The rate of bacteremia in all patients, children, and adults were 1.5 (95% CI: 1.3-1.8), 0.6 (95% CI: 0.4-0.8), and 2.4 (95% CI: 1.8-3.1) per 100 patient-years, respectively. The risk of Gram-positive bacteremia was 0.5 (96% CI: 0.36-0.69) in all patients, 0.1 (95% CI: 0.06-0.20) in children, and 1.4 (95% CI: 1.0-2.0) in adults per 100 patient-years. The risk of Gram-negative bacteremia was 1.0 (95% CI: 0.81-1.3) in all patients, 0.6 (95% CI: 0.4-0.8) in children, and 2 (95% CI: 1.5-2.7) in adults per 100 patient-years. The risk of Gram-negative bacteremia was higher than Gram-positive bacteremia in children (p < .001) but not in adults (p = .113) and adults had higher risk in general than children. In this study of SCD cohort, 8.3% had bacteremia with predominant Gram-negative infections. Bacteremia was more frequently encountered in the adult age group. Further studies are needed to verify the findings and explore possible reasons predisposing SCD patients to bacteremia.

Background: Healthcare workers' (HCWs') travel-related anxiety needs to be assessed in light of the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 mutations. Methods: An online, cross-sectional questionnaire among HCWs between December 21, 2020 to January 7, 2021. The outcome variables were HCWs' knowledge and awareness of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 lineage that was recently reported as the UK variant of concern, and its associated travel worry and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) score. Results: A total of 1,058 HCWs completed the survey; 66.5% were female, 59.0% were nurses. 9.0% indicated they had been previously diagnosed with COVID-19. Regarding the B.1.1.7 lineage, almost all (97.3%) were aware of its emergence, 73.8% were aware that it is more infectious, 78.0% thought it causes more severe disease, and only 50.0% knew that current COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing it. Despite this, 66.7% of HCWs were not registered to receive the vaccine. HCWs' most common source of information about the new variant was social media platforms (67.0%), and this subgroup was significantly more worried about traveling. Nurses were more worried than physicians ( P = 0.001). Conclusions: Most HCWs were aware of the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 variant and expressed substantial travel worries. Increased worry levels were found among HCWs who used social media as their main source of information, those with lower levels of COVID-19 vaccine uptake, and those with higher GAD-7 scores. The utilization of official social media platforms could improve accurate information dissemination among HCWs regarding the Pandemic's evolving mutations. Targeted vaccine campaigns are warranted to assure HCWs about the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines toward SARS-CoV-2 variants., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Temsah, Barry, Aljamaan, Alhuzaimi, Al-Eyadhy, Saddik, Alsohime, Alhaboob, Alhasan, Alaraj, Halwani, Jamal, Alamro, Temsah, Esmaeil, Alenezi, Alzamil, Somily and Al-Tawfiq.)

Background: COVID-19 is a worldwide pandemic and has placed significant demand for acute and critical care services on hospitals in many countries., Objectives: To determine the predictors of severe COVID-19 disease requiring admission to an ICU by comparing patients who were ICU admitted to non-ICU groups., Methods: A cohort study was conducted for the laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients who were admitted to six Saudi Ministry of Health's hospitals in Alahsa, between March 1, 2020, and July 30, 2020, by reviewing patient's medical records retrospectively., Results: This cohort included 1014 patients with an overall mean age of 47.2 ± 19.3 years and 582 (57%) were males. A total of 205 (20%) of the hospitalized patients were admitted to the ICU. Hypertension, diabetes and obesity were the most common comorbidities in all study patients (27.2, 19.9, and 9%, respectively). The most prevalent symptoms were cough (47.7%), shortness of breath (35.7%) and fever (34.3%). Compared with non-ICU group, ICU patients had older age (p ≤ 0.0005) and comprised a higher proportion of the current smokers and had higher respiratory rates (p ≤ 0.0005), and more percentage of body temperatures in the range of 37.3-38.0 °C (p ≥ 0.0005); and had more comorbidities including diabetes (p ≤ 0.0005), hypertension (p ≥ 0.0005), obesity (p = 0.048), and sickle cell disease (p = 0.039). There were significant differences between the non-ICU and ICU groups for fever, shortness of breath, cough, fatigue, vomiting, dizziness; elevated white blood cells, neutrophils, alanine aminotransferase and alkaline aminotransferase, lactate dehydrogenase, and ferritin, and decreased hemoglobin; and proportion of abnormal bilateral chest CT images (p < 0.05). Significant differences were also found for multiple treatments (p < 0.05). ICU patients group had a much higher mortality rate than those with non-ICU admission (p ≤ 0.0005)., Conclusion: Identifying key clinical characteristics of COVID-19 that predict ICU admission and high mortality can be useful for frontline healthcare providers in making the right clinical decision under time-sensitive and resource-constricted environment.

Introduction: The emergence of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coroanvirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) had raised possibilities of coinfection with the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in countries were these two viruses were reported. In this study, we describe the clinical presentation and demographics of eight patients who were coinfected with SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV., Materials and Methods: This is a case series of hospitalized patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). We collected demographics, underlying conditions, presenting symptoms and clinical outcome from the patients' medical records., Results: During the study period from March 14, 2020 to October 19, 2020, there was a total of 67 SARS-CoV-2 ICU admitted patients who underwent simultaneous SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV testing by PCR. Of those patients, 8 (12%) tested positive for both SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV. There were 6 (75%) males, the mean age ± SD was 44.4 ± 11.8 years, and 7 (87.5%) were obese. Of the patients, 7 (87.5%) were non-smokers, 1 (12.5%) had diabetes mellitus, 1 (12.5%) had heart failure, and 1 (12.5%) had been on anti-platelet therapy. The mean hospital length of stay (LOS) was 21.1 ± 11.6 days and the average ICU LOS was 10.9 ± 6.03 days. All patients received supportive therapy and all were treated with corticosteroid. Of all the patients, 4 (50%) were discharged home and 3 (37.5%) died., Conclusion: This case series is an important addition to the medical knowledge as it showed the interaction of the coinfection of SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The emergence of antimicrobial resistance is causing the loss of what was once considered the miracle cure. The transmission of antimicrobial resistance during mass gathering is a potential threat in addition to other infectious diseases. Here, we review the English language literature on the rate and the acquisition of antimicrobial resistance during the Hajj. There is a variable incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus , Escherichia coli , and Enterobacteriaceae. There had been no report of multi-drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis . Continued surveillance of antimicrobial resistance coupled with public health measures are needed to decrease the rate of emergence of resistance.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has become a pandemic worldwide. On a daily basis the number of deaths associated with COVID-19 is rapidly increasing. The main transmission route of SARS-CoV-2 is through the air (airborne transmission). This review details the airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the aerodynamics, and different modes of transmission (e.g. droplets, droplet nuclei, and aerosol particles). SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted by an infected person during activities such as expiration, coughing, sneezing, and talking. During such activities and some medical procedures, aerosols and droplets contaminated with SARS-CoV-2 particles are formed. Depending on their sizes and the environmental conditions, such particles stay viable in the air for varying time periods and can cause infection in a susceptible host. Very few studies have been conducted to establish the mechanism or the aerodynamics of virus-loaded particles and droplets in causing infection. In this review we discuss the various forms in which SARS-CoV-2 virus particles can be transmitted in air and cause infections.

Background: Serologic testing provides better understanding of SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and its transmission. This study was an investigation of the prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 among blood donors in Saudi Arabia., Objective: To estimate the seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among blood donors in Saudi Arabia during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: Serology results and epidemiological data were analyzed for 837 adult blood donors, with no confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, in Saudi Arabia from 20th to 25th May 2020. Seroprevalence was determined using electrochemical immunoassay to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies., Results: The overall seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was 1.4% (12/837). Non-citizens had higher seroprevalence compared with citizens (OR 13.6, p = 0.001). Secondary education was significantly associated with higher seroprevalence compared with higher education (OR 6.8, p = 0.005). The data showed that the highest seroprevalence was in Makkah (8.1%). Uisng Makkah seroprevalence as the reference, the seroprevalence in other areas was: Madinah 4.1% (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.12-1.94), Jeddah 2.3% (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.31-2.25), and Qassim 2.9 % (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.04-2.89) and these were not statistically different from seroprevalence in the Makkah region., Conclusions: At the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia, the seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 among blood donors was low, but was higher among non-citizens. These findings may indicate that non-citizens and less educated individuals may be less attentive to preventive measures. Monitoring seroprevalence trends over time require repeated sampling., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Healthcare workers (HCWs) stand at the frontline for fighting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This puts them at higher risk of acquiring the infection than other individuals in the community. Defining immunity status among health care workers is therefore of interest since it helps to mitigate the exposure risk. This study was conducted between May 20 th and 30 th , 2020. Eighty-five hospitals across Kingdom of Saudi Arabia were divided into 2 groups: COVID-19 referral hospitals are those to which RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients were admitted or referred for management (Case-hospitals). COVID-19 nonaffected hospitals where no COVID-19 patients had been admitted or managed and no HCW outbreak (Control hospitals). Next, seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 among HCWs was evaluated; there were 12,621 HCWs from the 85 hospitals. There were 61 case-hospitals with 9379 (74.3%) observations, and 24 control-hospitals with 3242 (25.7%) observations. The overall positivity rate by the immunoassay was 299 (2.36%) with a significant difference between the case-hospital (2.9%) and the control-group (0.8%) (P value <0.001). There was a wide variation in the positivity rate between regions and/or cities in Saudi Arabia, ranging from 0% to 6.31%. Of the serology positive samples, 100 samples were further tested using the SAS2pp neutralization assay; 92 (92%) samples showed neutralization activity. The seropositivity rate in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is low and varies across different regions with higher positivity in case-hospitals than control-hospitals. The lack of neutralizing antibodies (NAb) in 8% of the tested samples could mean that assay is a more sensitive assay or that neutralization assay has a lower detection limits; or possibly that some samples had cross-reaction to spike protein of other coronaviruses in the assay, but these were not specific to neutralize severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

(1) Background: COVID-19 has become a worldwide public health problem. No previous study has investigated factors associated with COVID-19 knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) after completely lifting the curfew in all Saudi Arabia regions and cities. Therefore, adequate knowledge, a positive attitude, and correct control of COVID-19 are essential to eradicate the disease. Hence, this study aims to assess factors associated with KAP of COVID-19; (2) Methods: This cross-sectional web-based survey was performed with the participation of 4305 individuals aged over 15 years living in Saudi Arabia from 11 to 19 August 2020. They were included using the snowball sampling method; (3) Results: Of the 4305 participants, 94.9% were Saudis, 60% females, and 45.4% were in the age group of 20-34 years, 61.7% married, and 49.3% from the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. Most of the participants demonstrated good KAP levels (89.6%, 87.2%, and 87.2%) towards the COVID-19 pandemic, respectively. In addition, most of the participants (85.8%) used the internet and social media as a source for COVID-19 information (4) Conclusions: The finding showed that most of the participants demonstrated good knowledge of COVID-19, positive attitudes, and demonstrated good practices for preventing the spread of disease infection.

Background: The first case of COVID-19 infection in Saudi Arabia was reported in Qatif on March 2nd, 2020. Here, we describe the clinical characteristics of the initial COVID-19 patients in that area., Methods: This is an observational study describing the clinical presentation, radiographic and laboratory data of COVID-19 cases., Results: From March 1st, 2020 to April 5th, 2020 we identified a total of 82 adult COVID-19 patients. The median age of the patients was 50 years, with a range of 30 to 60 years and most of patients were female 54 (65.9%). Of all the patients, 29 (35.4%) were contacts and 43 (52.4%) were returning travelers, mainly from Iraq (65% of the total returning travelers). Comorbidities were present in 50% of patients, G6PD deficiency in 33%, hypertension in 27%, and diabetes mellitus in 26%. Chest radiographs were abnormal in 46% of symptomatic and 15.5% of asymptomatic patients (P value = 0.0035). Of all patients, 4 (4.87%) required intensive care admission. There was no significant difference in time to negative RT-PCR with mean days to negativity of 13.6 and 16.9 for asymptomatic and symptomatic group, respectively (P value = 0.42)., Conclusions: In the initial Epicenter of the COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia, the majority of the patients were asymptomatic and were returning travelers. Comorbidities were present in nearly half of the patients., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

In late December 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic started to spread from Hubei province in China. Currently there are many affected countries worldwide, including Saudi Arabia. This study aimed to assess the use of social media as a source for COVID-19 awareness in Saudi Arabia. An online survey was conducted between 9 and 13 May 2020 and a total of 3,204 subjects participated in the survey. We used snowball sampling techniques through an online structured questionnaire. The data were cleaned, coded and analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences SPSS version 25.0. A chi-square test was used to find the associations between variables. Of all participants, 75.4% had a high level of awareness of the COVID-19 pandemic. Saudi participants above 18 years old and medical practitioners showed a high level of awareness. All participants from all regions of Saudi Arabia showed a high level of awareness except for those from the northern region. The most common source of information was the official government social media, and 44.1% reported the use of Twitter. Our findings show that social media have a positive impact on the circulation of information about the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia.

To date, research on viral shedding (VS), live virus isolation and infection status remains ongoing as scientists and clinicians attempt to better understand the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Viral RNA detection at different stages of the disease, quantitative changes and patterns of viral persistence and clearance all provide context for the pathogenesis and transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Given the highly infectious nature of SARS-CoV-2 and its impact on the global population and economy, clinicians continue to seek the best methods for controlling its spread, and data on public health preventative measures continue to emerge. In this paper we review the available evidence on the viral dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 in the URT to determine a timeline for infection based on molecular and viral culture findings and to assess the significance of persistently positive results. Keywords: viral shedding, viral load, viral culture, SARS-CoV-2, upper respiratory tract.