Comprehensive evaluation of six interventions for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A propensity score matching study.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of either hydroxychloroquine, triple combination therapy (TCT), favipiravir, dexamethasone, remdesivir, or COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in comparison with standard-of-care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 using real-world data from Saudi Arabia. Patients and methods: A secondary database analysis was conducted using the Saudi Ministry of Health database for patients with COVID-19. Adult (≥18 years) hospitalized patients with COVID-19 between March 2020 and January 2021 were included in the analysis. A propensity score matching technique was used to establish comparable groups for each therapeutic approach. Lastly, an independent t-test and chi-square test were used to compare the matching groups in the aspects of the duration of hospitalization, length of stay (LOS) in intensive care units (ICU), in-hospital mortality, and composite poor outcome. Multilevel logistic regression model was used to assess the association between the severity stage of COVID-19 and the outcomes while using the medication or intervention used as a grouping variable in the model. Results: The mean duration of hospitalization was significantly longer for patients who received TCT, favipiravir, dexamethasone, or CCP compared to patients who did not receive these therapies, with a mean difference ranging between 2.2 and 4.9 days for dexamethasone and CCP, respectively. Furthermore, the use of favipiravir or CCP was associated with a longer stay in ICU. Remdesivir was the only agent associated with in-hospital mortality benefit. A higher risk of mortality and poorer composite outcome were associated with the use of favipiravir or dexamethasone. However, the logistic regression model reveled that the difference between the two matched cohorts was due to the severity stage not the medication. Additionally, the use of hydroxychloroquine, TCT, or CCP had no impact on the incidence of in-hospital mortality or composite poor outcomes. Conclusion: Remdesivir was the only agent associated with in-hospital mortality benefit. The observed worsened treatment outcomes associated with the use of dexamethasone or FPV shall be attributed to the severity stage rather than the medication use. In light of these varied results, additional studies are needed to continue evaluating the actual benefits of these therapies.

Predictors of Poor Outcome among Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: A Nationally Representative Sample of the Saudi Arabian Population.

The outbreak and continuing impact of COVID-19 have significantly increased the rates of hospitalization and admissions to intensive care units (ICU). This study evaluates clinical outcomes in critically ill patients and investigates variables tied to poor prognosis. A secondary database analysis was conducted to investigate the predictors of poor outcome among critically ill COVID-19 patients in Saudi Arabia. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess the association between various demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and COVID-19 symptoms and patients' poor prognosis, as a composite outcome. A total of 2257 critically ill patients were identified (male (71.8%), and elderly (37.3%)). The mortality rate was 50.0%, and the composite poor outcome was 68.4%. The predictors of poor outcome were being elderly (OR = 4.79, 95%CI 3.19-7.18), obesity (OR = 1.43, 95%CI 1.1-1.87), having a severe or critical case at admission (OR = 6.46, 95%CI 2.34-17.8; OR = 22.3, 95%CI 11.0-45, respectively), and some signs and symptoms of COVID-19 such as shortness of breath, feeling fatigued or headache, respiratory rate ≥ 30/min, PaO2/FiO2 ratio < 300, and altered consciousness. In conclusion, identifying high-risk populations that are expected to have a poor prognosis based on their criteria upon admission helps policymakers and practitioners better triage patients when faced with limited healthcare resources.

Associations of Depression and Anxiety with Stigma in a Sample of Patients in Saudi Arabia Who Recovered from COVID-19.

PURPOSE: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak combined with social distancing, isolation, and movement restrictions has had a profound impact on individuals' physical and psychological well-being. The aim of this study was to examine the associations of depression and anxiety with feelings of stigma among patients in Saudi Arabia who have recovered from COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted between July and December 2020. Trained healthcare providers contacted and interviewed participants by phone. Depression, anxiety, and stigma were assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) questionnaire, and the Explanatory Model Interview Catalogue stigma scale (EMIC). Data on sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, and family history of mental illness were also collected. Multiple linear regression models were performed to explore factors associated with depression and anxiety. RESULTS: A total of 174 adult participants (≥18 years old) who had recently recovered from COVID-19 were interviewed. The mean PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores were 7.53 (±5.04) and 3.77 (±4.47), respectively. About 68% of the participants had at least mild depression (PHQ-9 score of 5-9), whereas only 29.89% had at least mild anxiety (GAD-7 score of 5-9) during their infections with COVID-19. Multiple linear regression showed that females were more vulnerable to depression and anxiety disorders than their male counterparts were (ß=3.071 and ß=1.86, respectively). Notably, participants' stigma scores were significantly associated with higher scores on depression and anxiety. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the negative consequences of COVID-19 infection on the mental health of recovered patients. Therefore, considerable attention from local and international health authorities is needed to improve the mental well-being of recovered COVID-19 patients.

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].

Corrigendum: Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices Associated With COVID-19 Among Healthcare Workers in Hospitals: A Cross-Sectional Study in Saudi Arabia.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.643053.].

Corrigendum: Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices Associated With COVID-19 Among Healthcare Workers in Hospitals: A Cross-Sectional Study in India.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.787845.].

Demographic Characteristics and Status of Vaccinated Individuals with a History of COVID-19 Infection Pre- or Post-Vaccination: A Descriptive Study of a Nationally Representative Sample in Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND: Saudi Arabia expedited the approval of some COVID-19 vaccines and launched mass vaccination campaigns. The aim of this study was to describe the demographics of vaccinated COVID-19 cases and compare the mortality rates of COVID-19 cases who were infected post-vaccination in Saudi Arabia. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. We retrieved data for COVID-19 cases who were infected pre- or post-vaccination and had received at least one injection of the Oxford-AstraZeneca or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine from 4 December 2020 to 15 October 2021. RESULTS: The number of patients who were infected and had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine was 281,744. Approximately 45% of subjects were infected post-vaccination, and 75% of subjects had received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Only 0.342% of the patients who were infected post-vaccination died, and 447 patients were admitted to ICUs. Most of the patients who were infected with COVID-19 post-vaccination and were admitted to ICUs (69.84%) had received only one dose of the vaccine (p < 0.0001). The mean time to infection for patients who had received one and two doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine were 27 and 8 days longer than their counterparts who had received one and two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, respectively. No difference in the odds of mortality between the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines was found (OR = 1.121, 95% CI = [0.907-1.386], p-value = 0.291). Patients who had received two doses of the vaccine had significantly lower odds of mortality compared to those who had received one dose (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Vaccines are vital in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of this study show no difference between the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines in the rate of mortality. However, the number of vaccine doses was significantly associated with a lower risk of mortality. Future studies should examine the effectiveness of different COVID-19 vaccines using real-world data and more robust designs.

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices Associated With COVID-19 Among Healthcare Workers in Hospitals: A Cross-Sectional Study in India.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has caused phenomenal loss of lives and overburdened the health system in India. Low morale, fatigue, and inadequate knowledge among the healthcare workers (HCWs) are the perceived threats to pandemic control. We aimed to assess the COVID-19 related level of knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) among our HCWs. A cross-sectional, electronically distributed, questionnaire-based study was conducted which identified the demographics of HCWs and the current KAP related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The descriptive statistics were used to present the demographics of the participants and chi-square test was used to assess the differences in KAP among the participants. Of 1,429 total participants, 71.9% belonged to age group 21-40 years. Only 40.2% received any infection control training and 62.7% relied upon single source of information update. However, 82.9% of the participants had adequate knowledge. Being married, urban dwelling, and higher qualification were associated with knowledge adequacy (p < 0.001). Interestingly, the senior HCWs (age 41-50 years) were least likely to have adequate knowledge (74.1%). About 84% had positive attitude toward COVID-19, but 83.8% of the participants feared providing care to the patients with COVID-19. However, 93% of HCWs practiced safety precautions correctly most of the times and training had no influence on practice. In conclusion, more than 80% of HCWs in the study had adequate knowledge, positive attitude, and practiced safely most of the time. However, the pitfalls, such as poor training, knowledge uncertainties, and fear of disease acquisition among the HCWs need to be addressed.

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices Associated With COVID-19 Among Healthcare Workers in Hospitals: A Cross-Sectional Study in Saudi Arabia.

Lack of knowledge among healthcare workers (HCWs) about infectious diseases leads to delayed diagnosis of new cases, spread of infection, and poor infection control practices. Therefore, HCWs based in hospitals must be equipped with good knowledge about the pathogen and disease to put up a robust fight against the virus. The aim of this study was to assess knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) of HCWs about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at multiple public and private hospitals in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. A cross-sectional, online questionnaire-based study was conducted between July and August of 2020. Logistic regression was used to investigate differences in the level of KAP among different participants. A total of 510 HCWs in hospitals completed the questionnaire. Only two-thirds of the participants (67.8%) had adequate knowledge about COVID-19, 72.2% of the participants had a positive attitude toward COVID-19, and 80.2% of the participants were practicing appropriately most of the time. Poor KAP was associated with a low education level. The females had better knowledge and attitude, whereas the males were more likely to practice appropriately most of the time. Notably, the participants from the nursing profession demonstrated a less favorable attitude compared with medical staff from other professions, but that did not prevent them from being the best when it comes to applying appropriate practices. The inadequate level of KAP among HCWs with the continuation of the pandemic and the possibility of a second wave demonstrates the need for continuous COVID-19-specific infection control training and emotional well-being supporting programs, especially for HCWs with a low education level.

Validation and Cultural Adaptation of Explanatory Model Interview Catalogue (EMIC) in Assessing Stigma among Recovered Patients with COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia.

Stigma is a negative feeling affecting many patients with various health conditions, especially the contagious ones such as COVID-19. The Explanatory Model Interview Catalogue (EMIC) is one of the valid and reliable stigma-measuring tools; however, it has not been translated and validated in Arabic. Therefore, the aim of this study was to translate and validate the EMIC in Arabic among a sample of Arabic-speaking adults who recently recovered from COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia. The 12 items of the EMIC scale were forward- and backward-translated and reviewed by all authors to check the face and content validity prior to approving the final version of the Arabic 12-item EMIC. A total of 174 participants aged ≥18 years who contracted COVID-19 and recovered as of 29 July 2020 were interviewed. The Cronbach's alpha of the Arabic version of the 12-item EMIC was 0.79, indicating an acceptable level of internal consistency. Using principal component analysis with varimax rotation, two factors explained more than 60% of the variance of the translated EMIC scale. The mean EMIC score was 5.91, implying a low level of stigma among participants. Married participants (ß = 2.93; 95%CI 0.88 to 4.98, p = 0.005) and those with a family history of mental illness (ß = 2.38; 95%CI 0.29 to 4.46, p = 0.025) were more likely to have higher EMIC scores in comparison to their counterparts who were unmarried and had no family history of mental illness. On the contrary, older adults were less likely to have high EMIC scores (ß = -0.11; 95%CI -0.21 to -0.01, p = 0.03). Future studies with larger samples of patients with COVID-19 and various health conditions should be conducted to examine the validity and reliability of the Arabic version of the EMIC among different patient populations and to unveil the factors that may play a role in patients' feelings of stigmatization in this part of the world.

Association of Healthy Diet with Recovery Time from COVID-19: Results from a Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study.

The world is still in need of an effective therapy to treat coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). This cross-sectional study was conducted on COVID-19 survivors in Saudi Arabia to investigate the influence of a healthy diet on the recovery time from COVID-19. A questionnaire was developed to assess participants' dietary habits, based on the 2015 Dutch food-based dietary guidelines. A total of 738 COVID-19 survivors participated in the study, of whom 237 (32.1%) were hospitalized for COVID-19 treatment while 501 (76.9%) were not hospitalized, and 320 (43.4%) were females and 418 (56.6%) were males. Overall, no significant difference was noted in healthy diet score between males and females; however, this score was significantly lower for Saudis compared to non-Saudis. Among the non-hospitalized patients, eating a more healthy diet was associated with a shorter duration of recovery (p < 0.05) and was significantly affected by gender (15.8 ± 9.3 male vs. 12.1 ± 8.9 female; p < 0.001) and marital status (12.1 ± 8.4 singles vs. 13.7 ± 9.3 married vs. 16.1 ± 11.8 divorced; p < 0.05). In contrast, no significant correlation was found with age or BMI. In this study, a more healthy diet was associated with a shorter duration of recovery from COVID-19. However, further studies are needed to thoroughly investigate the relationship between diet and recovery time from COVID-19.

Demographics, comorbidities, and outcomes among young and middle-aged COVID-19 patients in Saudi Arabia.

The impact of different sociodemographic and clinical characteristics on the COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality rates have been studied extensively around the world; however, there is a dearth of data on the impact of different clinical and sociodemographic variables on the COVID-19-related outcomes in Saudi Arabia. This study aimed to identify those at high risk of worse clinical outcomes, such as hospitalization and longer length of stay (LOS) among young and middle-aged adults (18 to 55 years). In this questionnaire-based cross-sectional study, 706 patients with real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) confirmed COVID-19 infection were interviewed. Patients' demographic characteristics, dietary habits, medical history, and lifestyle choices were collected through phone interviews. Patients with chronic health conditions, such as diabetes and hypertension, reported a higher rate of hospitalization, ICU admission, oxygen-support needs, and a longer period of recovery and LOS. Multiple logistic regression showed that diabetes, hypertension, and pulmonary disease (e.g., asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)) were associated with a higher risk of hospitalization and longer LOS. Multiple logistic regression showed that symptoms of breathlessness, loss of smell and/or taste, diarrhea, and cough were associated with a longer recovery period. Similarly, breathlessness, vomiting, and diarrhea were associated with higher rates of hospitalization. The findings of this study confirm the similarity of the factors associated with worse clinical outcomes across the world. Future studies should use more robust designs to investigate the impact of different therapies on the COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality in Saudi Arabia.

Patients' Behavior Regarding Dietary or Herbal Supplements before and during COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia.

The use of traditional medicinal plants in Saudi Arabia stems mainly from consumers' belief in prophetic medicine. This study was conducted to explore changes in patients' use of dietary or herbal supplements among individuals infected with COVID-19 before and during infection and the association between herbal or dietary supplements and hospitalization. A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was conducted enrolling symptomatic patients who had recently recovered from COVID-19. Data were collected through phone interviews, and McNemar's test was used to investigate changes to consumption of dietary or herbal supplements before and during infection. Multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate the association between supplements use during patients' infection and hospitalization. A total of 738 patients were included in this study, of whom 32.1% required hospitalization. About 57% of participants were male with a mean age of 36.5 (±11.9) years. The use of lemon/orange, honey, ginger, vitamin C, and black seed among participants significantly increased during their infection. In contrast, patients using anise, peppermint, and coffee peel before their infection were more likely to stop using them during their infection. In addition, using lemon/orange (p < 0.0001), honey (p = 0.0002), ginger (p = 0.0053), vitamin C (p = 0.0006), black seed (p < 0.0001), peppermint (p = 0.0027), costus (p = 0.0095), and turmeric (p = 0.0012) was significantly higher among nonhospitalized patients than hospitalized ones. However, in the multivariable logistic regression, only use of vitamin C (OR = 0.51; 95% CI 0.33-0.79), peppermint (OR = 0.53; 95% CI 0.31-0.90), and lemon/orange (OR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.33-0.88) was associated with significantly lower odds of hospitalization. The study reveals that patients' consumption of dietary or herbal supplements changed in response to their COVID-19 infection, with hospitalized patients having a lower likelihood of using these supplements. Because some supplements were associated with lower odds of hospitalization, these supplements or their bioactive components should be further investigated as feasible options for COVID-19 treatment.