Search

Background: Type I interferons (IFNs) are essential antiviral cytokines induced upon respiratory exposure to coronaviruses. Defects in type I IFN signaling can result in severe disease upon exposure to respiratory viral infection and are associated with worse clinical outcomes. Neutralizing autoantibodies (auto-Abs) to type I IFNs were reported as a risk factor for life-threatening COVID-19, but their presence has not been evaluated in patients with severe Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)., Methods: We evaluated the prevalence of type I IFN auto-Abs in a cohort of hospitalized patients with MERS who were enrolled in a placebo-controlled clinical trial for treatment with IFN-β1b and lopinavir-ritonavir (MIRACLE trial). Samples were tested for type I IFN auto-Abs using a multiplex particle-based assay., Results: Among the 62 enrolled patients, 15 (24.2%) were positive for immunoglobulin G auto-Abs for at least one subtype of type I IFNs. Auto-Abs positive patients were not different from auto-Abs negative patients in age, sex, or comorbidities. However, the majority (93.3%) of patients who were auto-Abs positive were critically ill and admitted to the ICU at the time of enrollment compared to 66% in the auto-Abs negative patients. The effect of treatment with IFN-β1b and lopinavir-ritonavir did not significantly differ between the two groups., Conclusion: This study demonstrates the presence of type I IFN auto-Abs in hospitalized patients with MERS., Competing Interests: YA provided nonpaid consultations on therapeutics for MERS for Gilead Sciences and SAB Biotherapeutics, and he is a board member of the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC). All other authors declare no financial or commercial conflict of interest., (© 2023 The Authors. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Saudi Arabia (SA) reported its first case of COVID-19 on 2 March 2020. Mortality varied nationwide; by April 14, 2020, Medina had 16% of SA's total COVID-19 cases and 40% of all COVID-19 deaths. A team of epidemiologists investigated to identify factors impacting survival., Methods: We reviewed medical records from two hospitals: Hospital A in Medina and Hospital B in Dammam. All patients with a registered COVID-related death between March and May 1, 2020, were included. We collected data on demographics, chronic health conditions, clinical presentation, and treatment. We analyzed data using SPSS., Results: We identified 76 cases: 38 cases from each hospital. More fatalities were among non-Saudis at Hospital A (89%) versus Hospital B (82%, p  < 0.001). Hypertension prevalence was higher among cases at Hospital B (42%) versus Hospital A (21%) ( p  < 0.05). We found statistically significant differences ( p  < 0.05) in symptoms at initial presentation among cases at Hospital B versus Hospital A, including body temperature (38°C vs. 37°C), heart rate (104 bpm vs. 89 bpm), and regular breathing rhythms (61% vs. 55%). Fewer cases (50%) at Hospital A received heparin versus Hospital B (97%, p -value < 0.001)., Conclusion: Patients who died typically presented with more severe illnesses and were more likely to have underlying health conditions. Migrant workers may be at increased risk due to poorer baseline health and reluctance to seek care. This highlights the importance of cross-cultural outreach to prevent deaths. Health education efforts should be multilingual and accommodate all literacy levels., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflict of interest., (© 2023 The Authors. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: After the impressive results of the 2020 Hajj management, Saudi authorities decided to expand the quota to 60,000 pilgrims in 2021, which resulted in a convenient and successful experience., Patients and Methods: This was a retrospective pre and post-study study conducted on all pilgrims attending the 2021 Hajj using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test surveillance with paired-swab samples (pre-Hajj and post-Hajj) to evaluate the risk potential of COVID-19 among Hajj pilgrims, the effectiveness of preventive measures and the potential effect of the Hajj ritual as a huge mass gathering on the epidemiological situation of the Saudi Arabian population., Result: Forty-one cases had positive COVID-19 infections out of a total of 58,428 pilgrims who attended the 2021 Hajj season, as detected by nonmandatory pre- and post-Hajj PCR. Notably, the 2021 Hajj season achieved a decreasing leg of the COVID-19 pandemic curve. The adjusted incidence rate in KSA from July 11th to August 7th ranged from 19 to 24 cases per 100,000 population. In contrast, the incidence rate for the same duration in Hajj ranged from 3 to 7 cases per 100,000 pilgrims., Conclusion: The Saudi mitigation plan ensured the safety of pilgrims and healthcare workers for Hajj, successfully limited the risk of COVID-19 transmission inside and contributed to global health security. The success story of Hajj in 2020 and 2021 during the pandemic represents a successful model for planning, achieving and managing future mass gatherings by integrating technology with global and national health policies and public health measures., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Severe complications from COVID-19 and poor responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were commonly reported in cancer patients compared to those without cancer. Therefore, the identification of predisposing factors to SARS-CoV-2 infection in cancer patients would assist in the prevention of COVID-19 and improve vaccination strategies. The literature lacks reports on this topic from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Therefore, we studied clinical and laboratory data of 139 cancer patients from King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, KSA., Methods: The cancer patients fall into three categories; (i) uninfected with SARS-CoV-2 pre-vaccination and remained uninfected post-vaccination (control group; n = 114; 81%), (ii) pre-vaccination infected group (n = 16; 11%), or (iii) post-vaccination infected group (n = 9; 6%). Next, the clinical and lab data of the three groups of patients were investigated., Results: Comorbidity factors like diabetes and hemodialysis were associated with the risk of infection in cancer patients before the vaccination (p<0.05). In contrast to breast cancer, papillary thyroid cancer was more prevalent in the infected patients pre- and post-vaccination (p<0.05). Pre-vaccination infected group had earlier cancer stages compared with the control group (p = 0.01). On the other hand, combined therapy was less commonly administrated to the infected groups versus the control group (p<0.05). Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio was lower in the post-vaccination infected group compared to the control group (p = 0.01)., Conclusion: Collectively, this is the first study from KSA to report potential risk factors of SARS-CoV-2 infection in cancer patients pre- and post-vaccination. Further investigations on these risk factors in a larger cohort are worthwhile to draw a definitive conclusion about their roles in predisposing cancer patients to the infection., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Two vaccines for COVID-19 have been approved and administered in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA); Pfizer-BioNtech BNT162b2 and AstraZeneca-Oxford AZD1222 vaccines. The purpose of this study was to describe the real-world data on the outcome of single dose of these COVID-19 vaccines in a large cohort in KSA and to analyse demographics and co-morbidities as risk factors for infection post one-dose vaccination., Methods: In this prospective cohort study, a total of 18,543 subjects received one dose of either of the vaccines at a vaccination centre in KSA, and were followed up for three to eight months. Data were collected from three sources; clinical data from medical records, adverse events (AEs) from a self-reporting system, and COVID-19 infection data from the national databases. The study was conducted during the pandemic restrictions on travel, mobility, and social interactions., Results: The median age of participants was 33 years with an average body mass index of 27.3. The majority were males (60.1%). Results showed that 92.17% of the subjects had no COVID-19 infection post-vaccination as infection post-vaccination was documented for 1452 (7.83%). Diabetes mellitus 03), organ transplantation (p = 0.02), and obesity (p < 0.01) were associated with infection post-vaccination. Unlike vaccine type, being Saudi, male, or obese was associated with the occurrence breakthrough infections more than other parameters. AEs included injection site pain, fatigue, fever, myalgia, headache and was reported by 5.8% of the subjects., Conclusion: Single dose COVID-19 vaccines showed a protection rate of 92.17% up to eight months follow-up in this cohort. This rate in AZD1222 was higher than what have been previously reported in effectiveness studies and clinical trials. Obese, male, and Saudi were at higher risk of contracting the infection post-vaccination, Saudi and male might have more social interaction with the public when mobility and social interactions were limited during the pandemic. Side effects and AEs were within what has been reported in clinical trials., Competing Interests: Competing interests The authors declare no conflict of interest or competing interest., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: To mitigate morbidity, mortality, and impacts of COVID-19 on health, it was essential to implement a comprehensive framework for COVID-19 control and prevention. A well-recognized tool from the field of injury prevention known as the Haddon matrix was utilized. The matrix states that any accident is affected by the host, agent, and environment. Another well-recognized tool used by the national fire protection association known as the Community risk reduction tool (CRR). The (CRR) tool utilizes the Five E's of Community Risk Reduction., Aim of the Study: To describe the risk factors that increase the susceptibility and the severity of COVID-19 infection based on the Haddon matrix and the proposed prevention strategies by the CRR tool by using the combined model., Methodology: We reviewed the literature to assess known factors contributing to COVID-19 susceptibility, infection, and severity of infection. We then used the Haddon matrix to structure, separating human factors from technical and environmental details and timing. We then used the community risk reduction (CRR) model to set all responses and control measures for each element obtained from the Haddon matrix tool. Subsequently, we incorporated both tools to develop the combined model., Conclusion: we proposed and implemented a combined model that utilizes the CRR model as the systematic strategy for the more theoretical framework of Haddon's matrix. Combining both models was practical and helpful in planning the preparedness and control of the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia that can be generalized to national and international levels., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infects humans and dromedary camels and is responsible for an ongoing outbreak of severe respiratory illness in humans in the Middle East. Although some mutations found in camel-derived MERS-CoV strains have been characterized, most natural variation found across MERS-CoV isolates remains unstudied. We report on the environmental stability, replication kinetics, and pathogenicity of several diverse isolates of MERS-CoV, as well as isolates of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, to serve as a basis of comparison with other stability studies. Although most MERS-CoV isolates had similar stability and pathogenicity in our experiments, the camel-derived isolate C/KSA/13 had reduced surface stability, and another camel isolate, C/BF/15, had reduced pathogenicity in a small animal model. These results suggest that although betacoronaviruses might have similar environmental stability profiles, individual variation can influence this phenotype, underscoring the need for continual global viral surveillance.

Background: A growing number of experiments have suggested potential cross-reactive immunity between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and previous human coronaviruses. We conducted the present retrospective cohort study to investigate the relationship between previous Middle East respiratory syndrome-coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infection and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as the relationship between previous MERS-CoV and COVID-19-related hospitalization and mortality., Methods: Starting in March 2020, we prospectively followed two groups of individuals who tested negative for COVID-19 infection. The first group had a previously confirmed MERS-CoV infection, which was compared to a control group of MERS-negative individuals. The studied cohort was then followed until November 2020 to track evidence of contracting COVID-19 infection., Findings: A total of 82 (24%) MERS-positive and 260 (31%) MERS-negative individuals had COVID-19 infection. Patients in the MERS-positive group had a lower risk of COVID-19 infection than those in the MERS-negative group (Risk ratio [RR] 0.696, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.522-0.929; p =0.014). The risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization in the MERS-positive group was significantly higher (RR 4.036, 95% CI 1.705-9.555; p =0.002). The case fatality rate (CFR) from COVID-19 was 4.9% in the MERS-positive group and 1.2% in the MERS-negative group (p =0.038). The MERS-positive group had a higher risk of death than the MERS-negative group (RR 6.222, 95% CI 1.342-28.839; p =0.019). However, the risk of mortality was similar between the two groups when death was adjusted for age (p =0.068) and age and sex (p =0.057). After controlling for all the independent variables, only healthcare worker occupation and >1 comorbidity were independent predictors of SARS-CoV-2 infection., Interpretation: Individuals with previous MERS-CoV infection can exhibit a cross-reactive immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our study demonstrated that patients with MERS-CoV infection had higher risks of COVID-19-related hospitalization and death than MERS-negative individuals., 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 Khan, Alahmari, Almuzaini, Alamri, Alsofayan, Aburas, Al-Muhsen, Van Kerkhove, Yezli, Ciottone, Assiri and Jokhdar.)

Introduction: Novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is a highly infectious serious acute respiratory syndrome that has emerged in Wuhan, China, and has spread rapidly throughout the world including Saudi Arabia. An important source of infection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) is healthcare-associated infection (HAI). Healthcare workers (HCWs) have a greater risk of acquiring COVID-19 infection than the general population. Globally, thousands of HCWs have lost their lives due to COVID-19 infection., Aim: Identify Incidence Rate and epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 infection among health workers in Saudi Arabia., Methodology: A retrospective cohort study carried from March to November 2020. HCWs selected by a Complete Enumeration Survey method. Data analyzed in frequencies and percentage tables. To test the differences, post hoc after chi-square-(χ 2 ) tests were used., Results: As of November 30, 2020, a total of 57,159 HCWs tested positive with COVID-19. Their median age was 34 years, and 53% were male. Nurses were the most infected HCWs category (36%). The most common source of infection was from the community (78%). The majority of HCWs who acquired the infection from healthcare facilities got the infection from another HCW (63%). There was a significant difference between community and healthcare-acquired COVID-19 in relation to gender (P < 0.001) nationality (P < 0.001) job categories (P < 0.001) three age groups (<26: P = 0.012, 26-35 and 36-45: P < 0.001), and among HCWs who worked in MOH and private healthcare facilities (P < 0.001). The total number of reported deaths among HCWs during the study period was 198, with a case fatality rate of (0.35%)., Conclusion: This study findings show that infected HCWs characteristics were similar to the previous studies and indicate incidence rates of 10% among COVID-19 infected HCWs in Saudi Arabia. Analysis of the infection status of HCWs is critical, to understand their needs and challenges, improve protective measures, and provide effective recommendations for policymakers., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of this study is to describe the clinical and demographic characteristics of COVID-19 patients, and the risk factors associated with death in Saudi Arabia to serve as a reference to further understand this pandemic and to help in the future decisions and control of this global crisis., Methods: This multicenter, retrospective, observational, cross-sectional study was conducted on 240,474 patients with confirmed COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia. Data was collected retrospectively through the Health Electronic Surveillance Network at the Ministry of Health. Patients were classified based on their outcome as recovered, dead, or active with no definite outcome. We must specify the date period., Results: As of 20th of June 2020, 79.7% of COVID-19 cases were young and middle-aged, ranging between 20-59 years. There was evidently a difference in the sex ratio, where males constituted 71.7% of cases. The majority were non-Saudi nationals, representing 54.7% of cases. Furthermore, the contraction of COVID-19 was travel-related in 45.1% of cases. Signs and symptoms were reported in 63% of cases, the most common of which were fever; 85.2%, and cough; 85%. Deaths occurred more frequently in patients 40-49 years, 50-59 years, and 60-69 years, representing 19.2%, 27.9%, and 21.3% of deaths, respectively. Additionally, the case fatality rate (CFR) was higher in older age-groups, reaching 10.1% in those ≥80 years. Moreover, the CFR of males was higher than that of females, with 0.95% and 0.62%, respectively. As for nationality, Saudis had a CFR of 0.46% versus 1.19% in non-Saudis., Conclusion: The total number of positive COVID-19 cases detected constitute 0.7% of the Saudi population to date. Older age, non-Saudi nationalities, being male, travelling outside Saudi Arabia, and the presence of symptoms, as opposed to being asymptomatic were considered risk factors and found to be significantly more associated with death in patients with COVID-19., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

A highly accelerating number of people around the world have been infected with novel Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Mass screening programs were suggested by the World Health Organization (WHO) as an effective precautionary measure to contain the spread of the virus. On 16 April 2020, a COVID-19 mass screening program was initiated in Saudi Arabia in multiple phases. This study aims to analyze the number of detected COVID-19 cases, their demographic data, and regions most affected in the initial two phases of these mass screening programs. A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted among the high-risk population as part of the COVID-19 mass screening program across all regions in Saudi Arabia during April and May 2020. A Chi-square-test was used to determine the associations between positive cases and various demographic variables. Out of 71,854 screened individuals, 13.50% ( n = 9701) were COVID-19 positive, of which 83.27% ( n = 59,835) were males. Among positive cases, in the 30-39 years age group, 6.36% were in the active phase, and 2.19% were in the community phase. Based on our experience, launching mass screening programs is crucial for early case detection, isolation, and pattern recognition for immediate public interventions., 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. The reviewer MM declared a shared affiliation with several of the authors YA, SSA, AA, and HJ to the handling editor at time of review., (Copyright © 2021 Khan, Alahdal, Alotaibi, Sonbol, Almaghrabi, Alsofayan, Althunayyan, Alsaif, Almudarra, Alabdulkareem, Assiri and Jokhdar.)

Sumaya N Almohareb,1– 3 Majed S Al Yami,1– 3 Ahmed M Assiri,4 Omar A Almohammed5,6 1Department of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 2Department of Clinical Pharmacy, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 3King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 4Health Volunteering Center, Ministry of Health, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 5Department of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 6Pharmacoeconomics Research Unit, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi ArabiaCorrespondence: Omar A Almohammed, Department of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2457, Riyadh, 11451, Saudi Arabia, Tel +966 555104065, Email oalmohammed@ksu.edu.saPurpose: Venous thromboembolism (VTE), a major complication that has been reported in patients with COVID-19, is associated with an increased risk of mortality. The purpose of this study was to compare in-hospital mortality among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received high-intensity versus standard-intensity thromboprophylactic anticoagulation.Patients and Methods: A secondary database analysis was conducted using data for adult patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia and received enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis during their hospitalization. While enoxaparin 40 mg daily is considered the standard-intensity, doses higher than the standard but not to reach the therapeutic dose were considered as high-intensity. The primary outcome in the study was in-hospital mortality, and the secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay. Chi-square and t-tests were used to assess the difference between the two independent groups, and propensity score matching was performed to adjust for baseline characteristics.Results: From 3508 patients who received high- or standard-intensity enoxaparin, 1422 patients, 711 in each group, were included in the analyses after propensity score matching. The mean age of the participants was 57.2 years, and around 30% of them were female. About 72% of the patients were admitted to the ICU. No difference was observed between the two groups in the in-hospital mortality outcome (36% vs 33.5% in the high-intensity and the standard group, respectively; RR=1.06, 95% CI 0.95– 1.18). However, patients who received high-intensity thromboprophylaxis had a significantly longer duration of hospitalization (15.6 days vs 13.6 days; p=0.003) and ICU stay (12.3 days vs 10.8 days; p=0.039) compared to patients who received the standard dose.Conclusion: The use of high-intensity thromboprophylaxis was not associated with a reduction in mortality. Therefore, our results do not support the routine use of high-intensity prophylactic anticoagulation in both ICU and non-ICU patients with COVID-19.Graphical Abstract: Keywords: COVID-19, venous thromboembolism, anticoagulation, thromboprophylaxis, mortality

Amani Almeharish,1 Abdullah M Assiri,2 Areej Alfattani,1 Edward De Vol1 1Department of Biostatics, Epidemiology and Scientific Computing, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 2Department of Comparative Medicine, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi ArabiaCorrespondence: Amani AlmeharishDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Scientific Computing, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, P.O. Box 3354, Riyadh 11211, Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaEmail aalmeharish26@kfshrc.edu.saAbstract: The spread of COVID-19 has become a significant threat to economic activity throughout the world, and it has made life particularly difficult for research institutions. According to a report published by Spain’s largest public research body, Cybermetrics Labs, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre (KFSH&RC) is ranked first among the leading hospitals in the Arab world, and it has instituted a wide range of policy changes to accommodate researchers by providing them with additional flexibility. The aim of this project was to highlight the most prevalent COVID-related global challenges facing research institutions and describe how research protocol at KFSH&RC has been adjusted to minimize the disruption experienced by its researchers.Keywords: SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, healthcare, disease, research, virus