Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 32
Filter
1.
Trials ; 23(1): 105, 2022 Feb 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2098423

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive respiratory support is frequently needed for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). Helmet noninvasive ventilation has multiple advantages over other oxygen support modalities but data about effectiveness are limited. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized trial of helmet noninvasive ventilation for COVID-19 patients, 320 adult ICU patients (aged ≥14 years or as per local standards) with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fraction of inspired oxygen < 200 despite supplemental oxygen with a partial/non-rebreathing mask at a flow rate of 10 L/min or higher) will be randomized to helmet noninvasive ventilation with usual care or usual care alone, which may include mask noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen, or standard oxygen therapy. The primary outcome is death from any cause within 28 days after randomization. The trial has 80% power to detect a 15% absolute risk reduction in 28-day mortality from 40 to 25%. The primary outcome will be compared between the helmet and usual care group in the intention-to-treat using the chi-square test. Results will be reported as relative risk  and 95% confidence interval. The first patient was enrolled on February 8, 2021. As of August 1, 2021, 252 patients have been enrolled from 7 centers in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. DISCUSSION: We developed a detailed statistical analysis plan to guide the analysis of the Helmet-COVID trial, which is expected to conclude enrollment in November 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04477668 . Registered on July 20, 2020.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , Adult , Head Protective Devices , Humans , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Respiratory Insufficiency/diagnosis , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , SARS-CoV-2
2.
JAMA ; 328(11): 1063-1072, 2022 09 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2047353

ABSTRACT

Importance: Helmet noninvasive ventilation has been used in patients with COVID-19 with the premise that helmet interface is more effective than mask interface in delivering prolonged treatments with high positive airway pressure, but data about its effectiveness are limited. Objective: To evaluate whether helmet noninvasive ventilation compared with usual respiratory support reduces mortality in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a multicenter, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial that was conducted in 8 sites in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait between February 8, 2021, and November 16, 2021. Adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (n = 320) due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were included. The final follow-up date for the primary outcome was December 14, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive helmet noninvasive ventilation (n = 159) or usual respiratory support (n = 161), which included mask noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen, and standard oxygen. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. There were 12 prespecified secondary outcomes, including endotracheal intubation, barotrauma, skin pressure injury, and serious adverse events. Results: Among 322 patients who were randomized, 320 were included in the primary analysis, all of whom completed the trial. Median age was 58 years, and 187 were men (58.4%). Within 28 days, 43 of 159 patients (27.0%) died in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared with 42 of 161 (26.1%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference, 1.0% [95% CI, -8.7% to 10.6%]; relative risk, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.72-1.49]; P = .85). Within 28 days, 75 of 159 patients (47.2%) required endotracheal intubation in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared with 81 of 161 (50.3%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference, -3.1% [95% CI, -14.1% to 7.8%]; relative risk, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.75-1.17]). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in any of the prespecified secondary end points. Barotrauma occurred in 30 of 159 patients (18.9%) in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 25 of 161 (15.5%) in the usual respiratory support group. Skin pressure injury occurred in 5 of 159 patients (3.1%) in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 10 of 161 (6.2%) in the usual respiratory support group. There were 2 serious adverse events in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 1 in the usual respiratory support group. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study suggest that helmet noninvasive ventilation did not significantly reduce 28-day mortality compared with usual respiratory support among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. However, interpretation of the findings is limited by imprecision in the effect estimate, which does not exclude potentially clinically important benefit or harm. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04477668.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency , Acute Disease , Barotrauma/etiology , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Hypoxia/mortality , Hypoxia/therapy , Male , Middle Aged , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Oxygen/administration & dosage , Oxygen/adverse effects , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/adverse effects , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/mortality , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy
3.
International journal of general medicine ; 15:7475-7485, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-2044856

ABSTRACT

Purpose Secondary infections have been observed among coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, especially in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting, which is associated with worse clinical outcomes. The current study aimed to investigate the incidence, common pathogens, and outcome of bacterial and fungal secondary infections among ICU patients with COVID-19. Methods A retrospective chart review of all patients admitted to the ICU at King Fahd Hospital of the University in Saudi Arabia. All adult patients aged ≥18 admitted in the ICU for ≥48 hours with positive COVID-19 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test during the period between March 2020 till September 2021 were included. Results Out of 314 critically ill patients, 133 (42.4%) developed secondary infections. The incidence of secondary bacterial infection was 32.5% with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 34), Acinetobacter baumannii (n = 33), and Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 17) being the predominant pathogens, while secondary fungal infection was 25.2% mainly caused by Candida albicans (n = 43). Invasive mechanical ventilation was significantly associated with the development of secondary bacterial infections (odds ratio [OR] = 17.702, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.842–39.961, p < 0.001) and secondary fungal infections (OR = 12.914, 95% CI 5.406–30.849, p < 0.001). Mortality among patients with secondary infections was 69.2% (n = 92). Secondary infections were associated with longer hospital and ICU stays with a median of 25 days (interquartile range [IQR] 17–42) and 19 days (IQR 13–32), respectively. Conclusion Bacterial and fungal secondary infections are common among COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU with a predominance of gram-negative bacteria and Candida species. The development of secondary infections was significantly associated with invasive mechanical ventilation. Poor clinical outcomes have been observed, demonstrated with a prolonged hospital and ICU stays and higher mortality.

4.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(16)2022 08 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1979257

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted healthcare systems worldwide, resulting in decreased and delayed hospital visits of patients with non-COVID-19-related acute emergencies. We evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the presentation and outcomes of patients with non-COVID-19-related medical and surgical emergencies. METHOD: All non-COVID-19-related patients hospitalized through emergency departments in three tertiary care hospitals in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in June and July 2020 were enrolled and categorized into delayed and non-delayed groups (presentation ≥/=24 or <24 h after onset of symptom). Primary outcome was the prevalence and cause of delayed presentation; secondary outcomes included comparative 28-day clinical outcomes (i.e., 28-day mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, and acute surgical interventions). Mean, median, and IQR were used to calculate the primary outcomes and inferential statistics including chi-square/Fisher exact test, t-test where appropriate were used for comparisons. Stepwise multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify the factors associated with delay in seeking medical attention. RESULTS: In total, 24,129 patients visited emergency departments during the study period, compared to 48,734 patients in the year 2019. Of the 256 hospitalized patients with non-COVID-19-related diagnoses, 134 (52%) had delayed presentation. Fear of COVID-19 and curfew-related restrictions represented 46 (34%) and 25 (19%) of the reasons for delay. The 28-day mortality rates were significantly higher among delayed patients vs. non-delayed patients (n = 14, 10.4% vs. n = 3, 2.5%, OR: 4.628 (CI: 1.296-16.520), p = 0.038). CONCLUSION: More than half of hospitalized patients with non-COVID-19-related diagnoses had delayed presentation to the ED where mortality was found to be significantly higher in this group. Fear of COVID-19 and curfew restrictions were the main reasons for delaying hospital visit.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Emergencies , Emergency Service, Hospital , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Prevalence , Retrospective Studies
5.
J Infect Public Health ; 15(9): 937-941, 2022 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1936832

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has spread globally. The major reservoir for SARS-CoV-2 transmission remains controversial, with the airborne route remaining a possible transmission vehicle for carrying the virus within indoor environments. This study aimed to detect contamination of SARS-CoV-2 in high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters within hospital isolation rooms of confirmed COVID-19 patients, exploring the role of nano-treatment of these filters with silver and titanium dioxide nanoparticles (Ag/TiO2 NPs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We investigated the effectiveness of Ag-NPs/TiO2-treated HEPA filters in the air of rooms occupied by patients with confirmed COVID-19 in a university teaching hospital in the Eastern province of Saudi Arabia during the first wave of the pandemic. Ag/TiO2 NPs were designed and coated on HEPA filters to examine the filtration efficiency and antiviral ability in the presence of aerosolized virus particles. A total of 20 viral swab samples were collected from five patients' rooms before and after treatment with nanoparticle-prepared solutions into the sterile virus-transporting media. Samples were evaluated for SARS-CoV-2 with a reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: Two samples taken from the HEPA filter air exhaust outlets prior to nano-treatment tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the intensive care unit, which has stringent aerosolization control procedures, suggesting that small virus-laden droplets may be displaced by airflow. All air samples collected from the HEPA filters from the rooms of patients with confirmed COVID-19 following nano-treatment were negative. CONCLUSION: We recommend further experimental exploration using a larger number of HEPA filters in areas with aerosol-generating procedures, along with viability studies on the HEPA filters to facilitate decision-making in high-risk facilities regarding the replacement, storage, and disposal of HEPA filters in wards occupied by cases diagnosed with a highly transmissible disease.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Academic Medical Centers , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , RNA, Viral , Respiratory Aerosols and Droplets , SARS-CoV-2 , Saudi Arabia
6.
Comput Math Methods Med ; 2022: 2066787, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1932823

ABSTRACT

Since December 2019, the COVID-19 outbreak has touched every area of everyday life and caused immense destruction to the planet. More than 150 nations have been affected by the coronavirus outbreak. Many academics have attempted to create a statistical model that may be used to interpret the COVID-19 data. This article extends to probability theory by developing a unique two-parameter statistical distribution called the half-logistic inverse moment exponential (HLIMExp). Advanced mathematical characterizations of the suggested distribution have explicit formulations. The maximum likelihood estimation approach is used to provide estimates for unknown model parameters. A complete simulation study is carried out to evaluate the performance of these estimations. Three separate sets of COVID-19 data from Al Bahah, Al Madinah Al Munawarah, and Riyadh are utilized to test the HLIMExp model's applicability. The HLIMExp model is compared to several other well-known distributions. Using several analytical criteria, the results show that the HLIMExp distribution produces promising outcomes in terms of flexibility.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , Humans , Models, Statistical , Saudi Arabia/epidemiology
7.
Molecules ; 27(13)2022 Jun 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1911488

ABSTRACT

One-step direct unimolar valeroylation of methyl α-D-galactopyranoside (MDG) mainly furnished the corresponding 6-O-valeroate. However, DMAP catalyzed a similar reaction that produced 2,6-di-O-valeroate and 6-O-valeroate, with the reactivity sequence as 6-OH > 2-OH > 3-OH,4-OH. To obtain novel antimicrobial agents, 6-O- and 2,6-di-O-valeroate were converted into several 2,3,4-tri-O- and 3,4-di-O-acyl esters, respectively, with other acylating agents in good yields. The PASS activity spectra along with in vitro antimicrobial evaluation clearly indicated that these MDG esters had better antifungal activities than antibacterial agents. To rationalize higher antifungal potentiality, molecular docking was conducted with sterol 14α-demethylase (PDB ID: 4UYL, Aspergillus fumigatus), which clearly supported the in vitro antifungal results. In particular, MDG ester 7-12 showed higher binding energy than the antifungal drug, fluconazole. Additionally, these compounds were found to have more promising binding energy with the SARS-CoV-2 main protease (6LU7) than tetracycline, fluconazole, and native inhibitor N3. Detailed investigation of Ki values, absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET), and the drug-likeness profile indicated that most of these compounds satisfy the drug-likeness evaluation, bioavailability, and safety tests, and hence, these synthetic novel MDG esters could be new antifungal and antiviral drugs.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents , COVID-19 , Anti-Bacterial Agents/chemistry , Anti-Bacterial Agents/pharmacology , Anti-Infective Agents/chemistry , Anti-Infective Agents/pharmacology , Antifungal Agents/chemistry , Antifungal Agents/pharmacology , Esters/chemistry , Fluconazole , Galactose , Humans , Molecular Docking Simulation , SARS-CoV-2
8.
JAMA ; 327(21): 2104-2113, 2022 06 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1898487

ABSTRACT

Importance: The efficacy and safety of prone positioning is unclear in nonintubated patients with acute hypoxemia and COVID-19. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of prone positioning in nonintubated adult patients with acute hypoxemia and COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, unblinded randomized clinical trial conducted at 21 hospitals in Canada, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the US. Eligible adult patients with COVID-19 were not intubated and required oxygen (≥40%) or noninvasive ventilation. A total of 400 patients were enrolled between May 19, 2020, and May 18, 2021, and final follow-up was completed in July 2021. Intervention: Patients were randomized to awake prone positioning (n = 205) or usual care without prone positioning (control; n = 195). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation within 30 days of randomization. The secondary outcomes included mortality at 60 days, days free from invasive mechanical ventilation or noninvasive ventilation at 30 days, days free from the intensive care unit or hospital at 60 days, adverse events, and serious adverse events. Results: Among the 400 patients who were randomized (mean age, 57.6 years [SD, 12.83 years]; 117 [29.3%] were women), all (100%) completed the trial. In the first 4 days after randomization, the median duration of prone positioning was 4.8 h/d (IQR, 1.8 to 8.0 h/d) in the awake prone positioning group vs 0 h/d (IQR, 0 to 0 h/d) in the control group. By day 30, 70 of 205 patients (34.1%) in the prone positioning group were intubated vs 79 of 195 patients (40.5%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.59 to 1.12], P = .20; absolute difference, -6.37% [95% CI, -15.83% to 3.10%]). Prone positioning did not significantly reduce mortality at 60 days (hazard ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.40], P = .54; absolute difference, -1.15% [95% CI, -9.40% to 7.10%]) and had no significant effect on days free from invasive mechanical ventilation or noninvasive ventilation at 30 days or on days free from the intensive care unit or hospital at 60 days. There were no serious adverse events in either group. In the awake prone positioning group, 21 patients (10%) experienced adverse events and the most frequently reported were musculoskeletal pain or discomfort from prone positioning (13 of 205 patients [6.34%]) and desaturation (2 of 205 patients [0.98%]). There were no reported adverse events in the control group. Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure from COVID-19, prone positioning, compared with usual care without prone positioning, did not significantly reduce endotracheal intubation at 30 days. However, the effect size for the primary study outcome was imprecise and does not exclude a clinically important benefit. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04350723.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Intubation, Intratracheal , Prone Position , Respiratory Insufficiency , Wakefulness , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Hypoxia/therapy , Intubation, Intratracheal/methods , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy
9.
J Infect Public Health ; 15(7): 826-834, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1895224

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and is currently a major cause of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions globally. The role of machine learning in the ICU is evolving but currently limited to diagnostic and prognostic values. A decision tree (DT) algorithm is a simple and intuitive machine learning method that provides sequential nonlinear analysis of variables. It is simple and might be a valuable tool for bedside physicians during COVID-19 to predict ICU outcomes and help in critical decision-making like end-of-life decisions and bed allocation in the event of limited ICU bed capacities. Herein, we utilized a machine learning DT algorithm to describe the association of a predefined set of variables and 28-day ICU outcome in adult COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. We highlight the value of utilizing a machine learning DT algorithm in the ICU at the time of a COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This was a prospective and multicenter cohort study involving 14 hospitals in Saudi Arabia. We included critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU between March 1, 2020, and October 31, 2020. The predictors of 28-day ICU mortality were identified using two predictive models: conventional logistic regression and DT analyses. RESULTS: There were 1468 critically ill COVID-19 patients included in the study. The 28-day ICU mortality was 540 (36.8 %), and the 90-day mortality was 600 (40.9 %). The DT algorithm identified five variables that were integrated into the algorithm to predict 28-day ICU outcomes: need for intubation, need for vasopressors, age, gender, and PaO2/FiO2 ratio. CONCLUSION: DT is a simple tool that might be utilized in the ICU to identify critically ill COVID-19 patients who are at high risk of 28-day ICU mortality. However, further studies and external validation are still required.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Algorithms , Cohort Studies , Critical Illness , Decision Trees , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Machine Learning , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(11)2022 06 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1884130

ABSTRACT

Rapid antigen detection of SARS-CoV-2 has been widely used. However, there is no consensus on the best sampling method. This study aimed to determine the level of agreement between SARS-CoV-2 fluorescent detection and a real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), using different swab methods. Fifty COVID-19 and twenty-six healthy patients were confirmed via rRT-PCR, and each patient was sampled via four swab methods: oropharyngeal (O), nasal (N), spit saliva (S), and combined O/N/S swabs. Each swab was analyzed using an immunofluorescent Quidel system. The combined O/N/S swab provided the highest sensitivity (86%; Kappa = 0.8), followed by nasal (76%; Kappa = 0.68), whereas the saliva revealed the lowest sensitivity (66%; kappa = 0.57). Further, when considering positive detection in any of the O, N, and S samples, excellent agreements with rRT-PCR were achieved (Kappa = 0.91 and 0.97, respectively). Finally, among multiple factors, only patient age revealed a significant negative association with antigenic detection in the saliva. It is concluded that immunofluorescent detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen is a reliable method for rapid diagnosis under circumstances where at least two swabs, one nasal and one oropharyngeal, are analyzed. Alternatively, a single combined O/N/S swab would improve the sensitivity in contrast to each site swabbed alone.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Saliva , Sensitivity and Specificity , Specimen Handling/methods
11.
Inform Med Unlocked ; 30: 100937, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1851297

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 virus has spread rapidally throughout the world. Managing resources is one of the biggest challenges that healthcare providers around the world face during the pandemic. Allocating the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) beds' capacity is important since COVID-19 is a respiratory disease and some patients need to be admitted to the hospital with an urgent need for oxygen support, ventilation, and/or intensive medical care. In the battle against COVID-19, many governments utilized technology, especially Artificial Intelligence (AI), to contain the pandemic and limit its hazardous effects. In this paper, Machine Learning models (ML) were developed to help in detecting the COVID-19 patients' need for the ICU and the estimated duration of their stay. Four ML algorithms were utilized: Random Forest (RF), Gradient Boosting (GB), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and Ensemble models were trained and validated on a dataset of 895 COVID-19 patients admitted to King Fahad University hospital in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia. The conducted experiments show that the Length of Stay (LoS) in the ICU can be predicted with the highest accuracy by applying the RF model for prediction, as the achieved accuracy was 94.16%. In terms of the contributor factors to the length of stay in the ICU, correlation results showed that age, C-Reactive Protein (CRP), nasal oxygen support days are the top related factors. By searching the literature, there is no published work that used the Saudi Arabia dataset to predict the need for ICU with the number of days needed. This contribution is hoped to pave the path for hospitals and healthcare providers to manage their resources more efficiently and to help in saving lives.

12.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 10(4)2022 Mar 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1822464

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Mixing two different vaccines has been utilized to minimize the impact of any supply chain interruptions and to combat the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia. We conducted this study to evaluate the side effects, if any, associated with the mixed vaccination approach. METHODS: An online survey study was administered among COVID-19 vaccine recipients in Saudi Arabia. Symptoms post vaccination were assessed in 311 vaccinated participants with two matched doses of either Oxford-AstraZeneca or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, or two mixed doses, respectively. RESULTS: After the second dose, around 31% of the matched vaccine group reported no symptoms, while only 6% of the mixed vaccine group reported no symptoms. Most of the side effects after the second dose associated with matched vaccines were injection site pain (46%), while the mixed vaccines group reported significantly more symptoms compared with the matched vaccine group, which included fever (41%), fatigue (66%), muscle pain (44%), chills (17%) and injection site pain (60%). CONCLUSION: The data suggest the overall safety of the mixed vaccination protocol; however, it might be associated with side effects such as fever, fatigue, muscle pain, chills, and injection site pain. Further studies with a larger cohort size could shed more light on this aspect, which would be imperative for deciding to utilize a mixed vaccination approach.

13.
J Epidemiol Glob Health ; 12(2): 188-195, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1783064

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coinfection at various sites can complicate the clinical course of coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) patients leading to worse prognosis and increased mortality. We aimed to investigate the occurrence of coinfection in critically ill COVID-19 cases, and the predictive role of routinely tested biomarkers on admission for mortality. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of all SARS-CoV-2-infected cases, who were admitted to King Fahad Hospital of the University between March 2020 and December 2020. We reviewed the data in the electronic charts in the healthcare information management system including initial presentation, clinical course, radiological and laboratory findings and reported all significant microbiological cultures that indicated antimicrobial therapy. The mortality data were reviewed for severely ill patients who were admitted to critical care units. RESULTS: Of 1091 admitted patients, there were 70 fatalities (6.4%). 182 COVID-19 persons were admitted to the critical care service, of whom 114 patients (62.6%) survived. The in-hospital mortality was 13.4%. Coinfection was noted in 67/68 non-survivors, and Gram-negative pathogens (Enterobacterales, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter baumanni) represented more than 50% of the etiological agents. We noted that the serum procalcitonin on admission was higher for non-survivors (Median = 1.6 ng/mL ± 4.7) than in survivors (Median = 0.2 ng/mL ± 4.2) (p ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSION: Coinfection is a serious complication for COVID-19 especially in the presence of co-morbidities. High levels of procalcitonin on admission may predict non-survival in critically ill cases in whom bacterial or fungal co-infection is likely.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Coinfection , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Coinfection/epidemiology , Critical Illness , Humans , Procalcitonin , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
14.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(4)2022 02 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1709358

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) is an ongoing global pandemic that is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The severity and mortality rates of COVID-19 are affected by several factors, such as respiratory diseases, diabetes, and hypertension. Bacterial coinfections are another factor that could contribute to the severity of COVID-19. Limited studies have investigated morbidity and mortality due to microbial coinfections in COVID-19 patients. Here, we retrospectively studied the effects of bacterial coinfections on intensive care unit (ICU)-admitted patients with COVID-19 in Asir province, Saudi Arabia. We analyzed electronic medical records of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 at Asir Central Hospital. A total of 34 patients were included, and the clinical data of 16 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 only and 18 patients coinfected with SARS-CoV-2 and bacterial infections were analyzed in our study. Our data showed that the length of stay at the hospital for patients infected with both SARS-CoV-2 and bacterial infection was 35.2 days, compared to 16.2 days for patients infected with only SARS-CoV-2 (p = 0.0001). In addition, higher mortality rates were associated with patients in the coinfection group compared to the SARS-CoV-2-only infected group (50% vs. 18.7%, respectively). The study also showed that gram-negative bacteria are the most commonly isolated bacteria in COVID-19 patients. To conclude, this study found that individuals with COVID-19 who presented with bacterial infections are at higher risk for a longer stay at the hospital and potentially death. Further studies with a larger population are warranted to better understand the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 with bacterial infections.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Coinfection , Bacteria , Coinfection/microbiology , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Saudi Arabia/epidemiology
15.
Microorganisms ; 10(2)2022 Feb 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1709111

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) first emerged in Wuhan city in December 2019, and became a grave global concern due to its highly infectious nature. The Severe Acute Respiratory Coronavirus-2, with its predecessors (i.e., MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV) belong to the family of Coronaviridae. Reportedly, COVID-19 has infected 344,710,576 people around the globe and killed nearly 5,598,511 persons in the short span of two years. On November 24, 2021, B.1.1.529 strain, later named Omicron, was classified as a Variant of Concern (VOC). SARS-CoV-2 has continuously undergone a series of unprecedented mutations and evolved to exhibit varying characteristics. These mutations have largely occurred in the spike (S) protein (site for antibody binding), which attribute high infectivity and transmissibility characteristics to the Omicron strain. Although many studies have attempted to understand this new challenge in the COVID-19 strains race, there is still a lot to be demystified. Therefore, the purpose of this review was to summarize the structural or virologic characteristics, burden, and epidemiology of the Omicron variant and its potential to evade the immune response.

16.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-305413

ABSTRACT

Background: The increasing burden of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) is straining intensive care unit (ICU) resources globally. Early use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) decreases the need for endotracheal intubation (EI) in different causes of respiratory failure. While HFNC is used in COVID-19-related AHRF, its efficacy remains to be investigated. We aimed to examine whether the use of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO) prevents the need for intubation in COVID-19 with (AHRF). Methods: This is a single-center prospective observational study that was conducted at a tertiary teaching hospital in Saudi Arabia the period from April, 2020 to August, 2020. Adults patients admitted to the ICU with AHRF secondary to COVID-19 pneumonia and managed with HFNC were included. We excluded hemodynamically unstable patients and those who were intubated or managed with non-invasive ventilation. Patients’ data and clinical outcomes were pre-defined. The primary outcome was to determine the rate of EI among patients who were treated with HFNC. Secondary outcomes included predictors of HFNC success/failure, mortality, and hospital length of stay. Results: We consecutively screened 111 hospitalized COVID-19 patients with AHRF,. Out of those, 44 (40%) patients received HFNC with a median duration of three days (IQR, 1–5). The median age was 57 years (interquartile range [IQR], 46–64), and 82% were men. HFNC failure and EI occurred in 29 (66%) patients. Patients who failed HFNC treatment had higher risk of death compared to those who did not (52% vs. 0%;p=0.001). At baseline, the prevalence of hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and asthma was higher in the HFNC failure group. After adjustment for possible confounders, a high Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score and a low ROX index were significantly associated with HFNC failure (hazard ratio [HR], 1.42;95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04–1.93;p=0.025;and HR, 0.61;95% CI, 0.42–0.88;p=0.008, respectively). Conclusions: In this prospective study, one-third of hypoxemic COVID-19 patients who received HFNC did not require intubation. High SOFA score and low ROX index were associated with HFNC failure.

17.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-305264

ABSTRACT

Background: The rapid increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases during the subsequent waves in Saudi Arabia and other countries prompted the Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) to put together a panel of experts to issue evidence-based recommendations for the management of COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: The SCCS COVID-19 panel included 51 experts with expertise in critical care, respirology, infectious disease, epidemiology, emergency medicine, clinical pharmacy, nursing, respiratory therapy, methodology, and health policy. All members completed an electronic conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel addressed 9 questions that are related to the therapy of COVID-19 in the ICU. We identified relevant systematic reviews and clinical trials, then used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach as well as the evidence-to-decision framework (EtD) to assess the quality of evidence and generate recommendations. Results: The SCCS COVID-19 panel issued 12 recommendations on pharmacotherapeutic interventions (immunomodulators, antiviral agents, and anticoagulants) for severe and critical COVID-19, of which 3 were strong recommendations and 9 were weak recommendations. Conclusion: The SCCS COVID-19 panel used the GRADE approach to formulate recommendations on therapy for COVID-19 in the ICU. The EtD framework allows adaptation of these recommendations in different contexts. The SCCS guideline committee will update recommendations as new evidence becomes available.

18.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-305217

ABSTRACT

Background: Multiple studies worldwide reported the clinical and epidemiological features of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with limited reports form the Middle East area. Methods This is an observational study to describe the clinical and epidemiological features of 341 COVID-19 cases in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia over the first three months from reporting the first case in the country and identify factors associated with severity of the illness. Results The median age was 45 years and males were twice as affected as females (p value < 0.0001). The duration of viral shedding ranged from 9 to 36 days. The most common clinical presentations include fever, shortness of breath, cough, myalgia, sore throat, vomiting, and headache. Severe and critical cases were significantly higher in males compared to females (23% vs 8.7%), senior adults (> 65 years), Bengali ethnicity, and in patient with com-morbidities including diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia (p-value = 0.001). Furthermore, case fatality rate was found to be 10% and was significantly higher in male gender compared to female (13.8%vs 2.6%), and in Asian ethnicity (17.9%) compared to Arabs (6%) and African counterparts (0) (p-value = 0.002). No association was found between viral load represented by the RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values and severity of illness. Conclusion Age, gender and ethnicity are important predictors of COVID-19 severity while Cycle threshold (Ct) of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test cannot be used as a predictor of criticality of illness.

19.
Arab J Chem ; 15(2): 103600, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1540372

ABSTRACT

Although World Health Organization-approved emergency vaccines are available in many countries, the mortality rate from COVID-19 remains high due to the fourth or fifth wave and the delta variant of the coronavirus. Thus, an effective mechanistic investigation in treating this disease is urgently needed. In this work, we extracted phytochemicals from two mangrove plants, Pistacia integerrima and Pandanus odorifer, assessing their potential actions against the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. The antioxidant activities of Pistacia integerrima leaves and fruits were 142.10 and 97.13 µg/mL, respectively, whereas Pandanus odorifer leaves and fruits were 112.50 and 292.71 µg/mL, respectively. Furthermore, leaf extracts from both plants had lower cytotoxicity against Artemia salina than fruit extracts. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis revealed a total of 145 potential phytochemicals from these extracts. Three phytochemicals, 28-demethyl-beta-amyrone, 24-Noroleana-3,12-diene, and stigmasterol, displayed binding free energy values of - 8.3, -7.5, and - 8.1 Kcal/mol, respectively, in complexes with the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. The root-mean-square deviation, solvent-accessible surface area, radius of gyration, root-mean-square fluctuations, and hydrogen bonds were used to ensure the binding stability of the docked complexes in the atomistic simulation. Thus, wet-lab validations are necessary to support these findings.

20.
J Infect Public Health ; 15(1): 142-151, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1525853

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The rapid increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases during the subsequent waves in Saudi Arabia and other countries prompted the Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) to put together a panel of experts to issue evidence-based recommendations for the management of COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: The SCCS COVID-19 panel included 51 experts with expertise in critical care, respirology, infectious disease, epidemiology, emergency medicine, clinical pharmacy, nursing, respiratory therapy, methodology, and health policy. All members completed an electronic conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel addressed 9 questions that are related to the therapy of COVID-19 in the ICU. We identified relevant systematic reviews and clinical trials, then used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach as well as the evidence-to-decision framework (EtD) to assess the quality of evidence and generate recommendations. RESULTS: The SCCS COVID-19 panel issued 12 recommendations on pharmacotherapeutic interventions (immunomodulators, antiviral agents, and anticoagulants) for severe and critical COVID-19, of which 3 were strong recommendations and 9 were weak recommendations. CONCLUSION: The SCCS COVID-19 panel used the GRADE approach to formulate recommendations on therapy for COVID-19 in the ICU. The EtD framework allows adaptation of these recommendations in different contexts. The SCCS guideline committee will update recommendations as new evidence becomes available.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Care , Humans , Intensive Care Units , SARS-CoV-2 , Saudi Arabia
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL