Parents' Hesitancy to Vaccinate Their 5-11-Year-Old Children Against COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia: Predictors From the Health Belief Model.

Data exploring parents' hesitancy to vaccinate their 5-11-year-old children against COVID-19, and associated factors, is limited. This study aims to investigate parents' beliefs and intentions to vaccinate their 5-11-year-old children using the Health Belief Model in Saudi Arabia. A national, cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was conducted in November, 2021. The self-administered online questionnaire was distributed to a random sample of parents. Adult parents with at least one 5-11-year-old child were included. The main outcome was parents' intention to vaccinate their 5-11-year-old children. Variability in parents' intention was assessed by demographics, COVID-19-related factors, children's health status, and constructs from the Health Belief Model. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used to investigate each factor and adjust for the intervariable effect on parental intention to vaccinate their children. Of the 4,135 participants, 61.9% were hesitant to vaccinate their 5-11-year-old children. Parents aged 31 to 40 years (OR = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.02-1.49) and females (OR = 1.52; 95% CI, 1.25-1.84) had higher odds of being hesitant to vaccinate their children than parents from other groups. Parents who perceived low benefit from the vaccine (OR = 16.3; 95% CI, 12.1-21.9) or who had safety or efficacy concerns (OR = 3.76; 95% CI, 3.10-4.58) were among the most hesitant to vaccinate their children. In conclusion, vaccine hesitancy is prevalent among parents of 5-11-year-old children in Saudi Arabia and those who had beliefs of minimal benefits or lack of safety from the COVID-19 vaccine were more hesitant. Government efforts must be directed toward increasing parents' vaccine awareness and tackling the constructs of the Health Belief Model through a well-designed vaccination campaign.

Impact of Thromboprophylaxis Intensity on Patients' Mortality Among Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Propensity-Score Matched Study.

Purpose: 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.

Incidence of Diabetic Ketoacidosis Among Pediatrics With Type 1 Diabetes Prior to and During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

Background: Previous reports suggest that the Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic might have affected incidences of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and new diagnoses of type 1 diabetes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the risk of DKA, including severe DKA, during the COVID-19 pandemic versus the prior-to-COVID-19 period among pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched for observational studies investigating the risk of DKA among pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic and the prior-to-COVID-19 period. A random meta-analysis model was performed to estimate the relative risk of DKA during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to before the pandemic. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the type 1 diabetes status, established or newly diagnosed. In addition, sensitivity analysis was conducted for studies that reported results from adjusted analysis for potential confounders using fixed effect model. Results: A total of 20 observational studies reported the risk of DKA, of which 18 reported the risk of severe DKA. The risks of DKA and severe DKA were 35% (RR 1.35, 95%CI 1.2-1.53, I2 = 71%) and 76% (RR 1.76, 95%CI 1.33-2.33, I2 = 44%) higher in the during-COVID-19 group compared to the prior-to-COVID-19 group, respectively. Among patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes, the risk of DKA was 44% higher for the during-COVID-19 group compared to the prior-to-COVID-19 group (RR 1.44, 95%CI 1.26-1.65; I2 = 64%). Only two studies reported the risk of DKA among patients with established type 1 diabetes and the cumulative risk was not statistically significant. In the sensitivity analysis, four studies reported an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of the risk of DKA during COVID-19 compared to the prior-to-COVID-19 period. The fixed estimate from the meta-analysis found an increase in the risk of DKA in the during-COVID-19 group compared to the prior-to-COVID-19 group (aOR 2.04, 95%CI 1.66-2.50). Conclusions: This study showed that DKA risk, especially the risk of severe DKA, has increased significantly during the pandemic. Healthcare systems must be aware and prepared for such an increase in DKA cases and take all necessary measures to prevent future spikes during the pandemic. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=272775, identifier PROSPERO [CRD42021272775].