Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 96
Filter
1.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 10(5)2022 May 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1855847

ABSTRACT

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron spread fast globally and became the predominant variant in many countries. Resumption of public regular life activities, including in-person schooling, presented parents with new sources of worry. Thus, it is important to study parental worry about the Omicron variant, willingness to vaccinate their children, and knowledge about school-based COVID-19 precautionary measures. Methods: A national, cross-sectional, pilot-validated online questionnaire targeting parents in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) was distributed between 31 December 2021, and 7 January 2022. The survey included sociodemographic, COVID-19 infection data, parental and children vaccination status, attitudes towards booster vaccine, parents' Omicron-related perceptions and worries, and attitude towards in-person schooling. Results: A total of 1340 participants completed the survey, most (65.3%) of whom were mothers. Of the parents, 96.3% either received two or three doses of the COVID-19 vaccine. Only 32.1% of the parents were willing to vaccinate their young children (5-11 years of age). In relation to their children 12-18 years of age, 48% had already had them vaccinated, 31% were planning to vaccinate them, and 42.8% were willing to administer a booster dose. Only 16% were more worried about the Omicron variant compared to the Delta variant. Residents of western KSA were more worried about Omicron compared to Delta. Parents worried about the Omicron variant and male participants were significantly less aware of school-based COVID-19 precautionary measures. Parents with post-graduate degrees and those having more children were significantly more inclined to send their children to school even if COVID-19 outbreaks could occur in schools, while parents who were more worried about the Omicron variant and were more committed to infection prevention measures were significantly less inclined to do so. Conclusions: Overall, parents had lower worry levels about the Omicron variant compared to the Delta variant. They had a higher willingness to vaccinate their older children compared to the younger ones. In addition, our cohort of parents showed high willingness to send their children to schools and trusted the school-based preventative measures. These findings can inform policy makers when considering school related decisions during the current or future public health crises.

2.
J Travel Med ; 2022 May 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1831240
3.
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 7005, 2022 04 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1830097

ABSTRACT

Camels gained attention since the discovery of MERS-CoV as intermediary hosts for potentially epidemic zoonotic viruses. DcHEV is a novel zoonotic pathogen associated with camel contact. This study aimed to genetically characterize DcHEV in domestic and imported camels in Saudi Arabia. DcHEV was detected by RT-PCR in serum samples, PCR-positive samples were subjected to sequencing and phylogenetic analyses. DcHEV was detected in 1.77% of samples with higher positivity in domestic DCs. All positive imported dromedaries were from Sudan with age declining prevalence. Domestic DcHEV sequences clustered with sequences from Kenya, Somalia, and UAE while imported sequences clustered with one DcHEV isolate from UAE and both sequences clustered away from isolates reported from Pakistan. Full-genome sequences showed 24 amino acid difference with reference sequences. Our results confirm the detection of DcHEV in domestic and imported DCs. Further investigations are needed in human and camel populations to identify DcHEV potential zoonosis threat.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections , Hepatitis E virus , Animals , Camelus , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/veterinary , Genetic Variation , Hepatitis E virus/genetics , Phylogeny , Saudi Arabia/epidemiology
4.
J Infect Public Health ; 15(6): 609-614, 2022 Apr 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1814760

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Despite substantial resources deployed to curb SARS-CoV-2 transmission, controlling the COVID-19 pandemic has been a major challenge. New variants of the virus are frequently emerging leading to new waves of infection and re-introduction of control measures. In this study, we assessed the effectiveness of containment strategies implemented in the early phase of the pandemic. METHODS: Real-world data for COVID-19 cases was retrieved for the period Jan 1 to May 1, 2020 from a number of different sources, including PubMed, MEDLINE, Facebook, Epidemic Forecasting and Google Mobility Reports. We analyzed data for 18 countries/regions that deployed containment strategies such as travel restrictions, lockdowns, stay-at-home requests, school/public events closure, social distancing, and exposure history information management (digital contact tracing, DCT). Primary outcome measure was the change in the number of new cases over 30 days before and after deployment of a control measure. We also compared the effectiveness of centralized versus decentralized DCT. Time series data for COVID-19 were analyzed using Mann-Kendall (M-K) trend tests to investigate the impact of these measures on changes in the number of new cases. The rate of change in the number of new cases was compared using M-K z-values and Sen's slope. RESULTS: In spite of the widespread implementation of conventional strategies such as lockdowns, travel restrictions, social distancing, school closures, and stay-at-home requests, analysis revealed that these measures could not prevent the spread of the virus. However, countries which adopted DCT with centralized data storage were more likely to contain the spread. CONCLUSIONS: Centralized DCT was more effective in containing the spread of COVID-19. Early implementation of centralized DCT should be considered in future outbreaks. However, challenges such as public acceptance, data security and privacy concerns will need to be addressed.

5.
Front Public Health ; 10: 878159, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1785459

ABSTRACT

Background: As the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant spreads in several countries, healthcare workers' (HCWs) perceptions and worries regarding vaccine effectiveness and boosters warrant reassessment. Methods: An online questionnaire among HCWs in Saudi Arabia (KSA) was distributed from Dec 1st-6th 2021 to assess their perceptions, vaccine advocacy to the Omicron variant, and their perception of the effectiveness of infection prevention measures and vaccination to prevent its spread, their Omicron variant related worries in comparison to the other variants, and their agreement with mandatory vaccination in general for adults. Results: Among the 1,285 HCW participants, two-thirds were female, 49.8 % were nurses, 46.4% were physicians, and 50.0% worked in tertiary care hospitals. 66.9% considered vaccination to be the most effective way to prevent the spread of the Omicron variant and future variants. The respondents however perceived social distancing (78.0%), universal masking (77.8%), and avoiding unnecessary travel (71.4%) as slightly superior to vaccination to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 variants. HCWs aging 55 or older agreed significantly with vaccine ineffectiveness to control Omicron spread, while those who believed in non-pharmacological infection prevention measures agreed significantly with vaccination for that purpose. Male HCWs had a significant agreement with mandatory vaccination of all eligible adult populations. On the other hand, unwilling HCWs to receive the vaccine had strong disagreements with mandatory vaccination. Conclusions: The current study in the first week of Omicron showed that only two-thirds of HCWs felt that vaccination was the best option to prevent the spread of the Omicron variant, indicating the need for further motivation campaigns for vaccination and booster dose. HCWs had a strong belief in infection prevention measures to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2 variants that should be encouraged and augmented.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Adult , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Male , Perception , SARS-CoV-2 , World Health Organization
6.
Semin Respir Crit Care Med ; 42(6): 828-838, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1768952

ABSTRACT

The past two decades have witnessed the emergence of three zoonotic coronaviruses which have jumped species to cause lethal disease in humans: severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 (SARS-CoV-1), Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), and SARS-CoV-2. MERS-CoV emerged in Saudi Arabia in 2012 and the origins of MERS-CoV are not fully understood. Genomic analysis indicates it originated in bats and transmitted to camels. Human-to-human transmission occurs in varying frequency, being highest in healthcare environment and to a lesser degree in the community and among family members. Several nosocomial outbreaks of human-to-human transmission have occurred, the largest in Riyadh and Jeddah in 2014 and South Korea in 2015. MERS-CoV remains a high-threat pathogen identified by World Health Organization as a priority pathogen because it causes severe disease that has a high mortality rate, epidemic potential, and no medical countermeasures. MERS-CoV has been identified in dromedaries in several countries in the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia. MERS-CoV-2 causes a wide range of clinical presentations, although the respiratory system is predominantly affected. There are no specific antiviral treatments, although recent trials indicate that combination antivirals may be useful in severely ill patients. Diagnosing MERS-CoV early and implementation infection control measures are critical to preventing hospital-associated outbreaks. Preventing MERS relies on avoiding unpasteurized or uncooked animal products, practicing safe hygiene habits in health care settings and around dromedaries, community education and awareness training for health workers, as well as implementing effective control measures. Effective vaccines for MERS-COV are urgently needed but still under development.


Subject(s)
Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus , Animals , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Camelus/virology , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus/drug effects , Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus/pathogenicity
7.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 9: 800241, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1753376

ABSTRACT

Purpose: There may be a difference in respiratory mechanics, inflammatory markers, and pulmonary emboli in COVID-19 associated ARDS vs. ARDS from other etiologies. Our purpose was to determine differences in respiratory mechanics, inflammatory markers, and incidence of pulmonary embolism in patients with and without COVID-19 associated ARDS admitted in the same period and treated with a similar ventilation strategy. Methods: A cohort study of COVID-19 associated ARDS and non COVID-19 patients in a Saudi Arabian center between June 1 and 15, 2020. We measured respiratory mechanics (ventilatory ratio (VR), recruitability index (RI), markers of inflammation, and computed tomography pulmonary angiograms. Results: Forty-two patients with COVID-19 and 43 non-COVID patients with ARDS comprised the cohort. The incidence of "recruitable" patients using the recruitment/inflation ratio was slightly lower in COVID-19 patients (62 vs. 86%; p = 0.01). Fifteen COVID-19 ARDS patients (35.7%) developed a pulmonary embolism as compared to 4 (9.3%) in other ARDS patients (p = 0.003). In COVID-19 patients, a D-Dimer ≥ 5.0 mcg/ml had a 73% (95% CI 45-92%) sensitivity and 89% (95% CI 71-98%) specificity for predicting pulmonary embolism. Crude 60-day mortality was higher in COVID-19 patients (35 vs. 15%; p = 0.039) but three multivariate analysis showed that independent predictors of 60-day mortality included the ventilatory ratio (OR 3.67, 95% CI 1.61-8.35), PaO2/FIO2 ratio (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.87-0.99), IL-6 (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.03), and D-dimer (OR 7.26, 95% CI 1.11-47.30) but not COVID-19 infection. Conclusion: COVID-19 patients were slightly less recruitable and had a higher incidence of pulmonary embolism than those with ARDS from other etiologies. A high D-dimer was predictive of pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 infection was not an independent predictor of 60-day mortality in the presence of ARDS.

8.
J Infect Public Health ; 15(3): 343-348, 2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1734755

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among Healthcare Workers (HCWs). METHODS: We carried out a cross-sectional study among 3644 HCWs at King Saud Medical City (KSMC) during the last two weeks of December 2020. A Google form survey was used to collect data on demographics, underlying health conditions, job duties, infection control competencies, COVID-19 exposure history, symptoms, and confirmed infections. FINDINGS: 26.5% demonstrated seropositivity to SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, 10-fold higher than the national seroprevalence (2.36) conducted in May 2020. Seropositivity was significantly higher among non-Saudi HCWs and participants who lived outside the hospital dormitory p < 0.0001 and 0.01, respectively). Seropositivity was significantly higher among HCWs who worked on clinical areas of high exposure level, and those who spent longer duration working with patients with COVID-19; p = 0.002 and 0.005, respectively). CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 infections among HCWs can go unrecognized, which magnifies the importance of complying with universal masking and social distancing directives. Detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in HCWs can help healthcare leaders in considering staff allocations and assignments accordingly.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Delivery of Health Care , Health Personnel , Humans , Prevalence , Saudi Arabia/epidemiology , Seroepidemiologic Studies
9.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(4)2022 02 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1700461

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: As the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant emerged and spread globally at an alarming speed, healthcare workers' (HCWs) uncertainties, worries, resilience, and coping strategies warranted assessment. The COVID-19 pandemic had a severe psychological impact on HCWs, including the development of Post-Traumatic Stress symptoms. Specific subgroups of HCWs, such as front-line and female workers, were more prone to poor mental health outcomes and difficulties facing stress. METHODS: The responses to an online questionnaire among HCWs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) were collected from 1 December 2021 to 6 December 2021, aiming to assess their uncertainties, worries, resilience, and coping strategies regarding the Omicron variant. Three validated instruments were used to achieve the study's goals: the Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS), the Standard Stress Scale (SSS), and the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (IUS)-Short Form. RESULTS: The online survey was completed by 1285 HCWs. Females made up the majority of the participants (64%). A total of 1285 HCW's completed the online survey from all regions in KSA. Resilient coping scored by the BRCS was negatively and significantly correlated with stress as scored by the SSS (r = -0.313, p < 0.010). Moreover, intolerance of uncertainty scored by the IUS positively and significantly correlated with stress (r = 0.326, p < 0.010). Increased stress levels were linked to a considerable drop in resilient coping scores. Furthermore, being a Saudi HCW or a nurse was linked to a significant reduction in resilient coping ratings. Coping by following healthcare authorities' preventative instructions and using the WHO website as a source of information was linked to a considerable rise in resilient coping. CONCLUSIONS: The negative association between resilient coping and stress was clearly shown, as well as how underlying intolerance of uncertainty is linked to higher stress among HCWs quickly following the development of a new infectious threat. The study provides early insights into developing and promoting coping strategies for emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adaptation, Psychological , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Health Personnel/psychology , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Uncertainty , World Health Organization
10.
Expert Opin Pharmacother ; 23(6): 639-642, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1700460
12.
PLoS One ; 16(11): e0244415, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1546844

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine perception, acceptance, confidence, hesitancy, and barriers among health care workers (HCWs). METHODS: An online national cross-sectional pilot-validated questionnaire was self-administered by HCWs in Saudi Arabia, which is a nation with MERS-CoV experience. The main outcome variable was HCWs' acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine candidates. The factors associated with vaccination acceptance were identified through a logistic regression analysis, and the level of anxiety was measured using a validated instrument to measure general anxiety levels. RESULTS: Out of the 1512 HCWs who completed the study questionnaire-of which 62.4% were women-70% were willing to receive COVID-19 vaccines. A logistic regression analysis revealed that male HCWs (ORa = 1.551, 95% CI: 1.122-2.144), HCWs who believe in vaccine safety (ORa = 2.151; 95% CI: 1.708-2.708), HCWs who believe that COVID vaccines are the most likely way to stop the pandemic (ORa = 1.539; 95% CI: 1.259-1.881), and HCWs who rely on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website for COVID 19 updates (ORa = 1.505, 95% CI: 1.125-2.013) were significantly associated with reporting a willingness to be vaccinated. However, HCWs who believed that the vaccines were rushed without evidence-informed testing were found to be 60% less inclined to accept COVID-19 vaccines (ORa = 0.394, 95% CI: 0.298-0.522). CONCLUSION: Most HCWs are willing to receive COVID-19 vaccines once they are available; the satisfactoriness of COVID-19 vaccination among HCWs is crucial because health professionals' knowledge and confidence toward vaccines are important determining factors for not only their own vaccine acceptance but also recommendation for such vaccines to their patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/psychology , Health Personnel/psychology , Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus/immunology , /psychology , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Multivariate Analysis , Saudi Arabia , Young Adult
13.
J Epidemiol Glob Health ; 11(4): 377-388, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1527544

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has been stressful and of considerable concern among health care workers (HCWs). Being particularly at increased risk for exposure, HCWs worry about becoming infected as well as infecting co-workers, patients and family members. Such distress and panic may have destructive effects on individuals and may last long after the pandemic situation leading to depression or post-traumatic stress disorder. Therefore, the aim of the current study is to measure and investigate the prevalence of the factors affecting psychological stress during the COVID-19 pandemic among HCWs. METHODS: A self-administered online survey-including perceived stress scale (PSS) questions-was disseminated among HCWs in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (SA) between1st June and 30th July 2020. RESULTS: A total of 469 HCWs responded to the survey for a high response rate (93.8%). The PSS revealed that 15.8% of the respondents were suffering from high stress levels, 77.2% were suffering from moderate stress levels and 7% with low stress levels. Females and junior frontline staff reported more severe stress levels. Participation on the pandemic team shows significant impact on stress levels. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 pandemic has increased stress levels among HCWs and affects their psychological wellbeing. Designing programs promoting HCWs mental health are crucial and emotional and psychological support strategies should be part of every public health crisis management plan.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Saudi Arabia/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology
14.
EClinicalMedicine ; 41: 101191, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1525767

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Of the three lethal coronaviruses, in addition to the ongoing pandemic-causing SARS-CoV 2, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) remains in circulation. Information on MERS-CoV has relied on small sample of patients. We updated the epidemiology, laboratory and clinical characteristics, and survival patterns of MERS-CoV retrospectively with the largest sample of followed patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of line-listed records of non-random, continuously admitted patients who were suspected (6,873) or confirmed with MERS-CoV (501) admitted to one of the four MERS-CoV referral hospitals in Saudi Arabia, 2014-2019. FINDINGS: Of the 6,873 MERS-CoV suspected persons, the majority were male (56%) and Saudi nationals (83%) and 95% had no known history that increased their risk of exposure to MERS-CoV patients or vectors (95%). More confirmed cases reported history that increased their risk of MERS-CoV infection (41%). Among the suspected, MERS-CoV confirmation (7.4% overall) was independently associated with being male, known transmission link to MERS-CoV patients or vectors, fever, symptoms for 7 days, admission through intensive care unit, and diabetes. Among persons with confirmed MERS-CoV, single symptoms were reported by 20%, 3-symptom combinations (fever, cough and dyspnea) reported by 21% and 2-symptom combinations (fever, cough) reported by 16%. Of the two-thirds (62%) of MERS-CoV confirmed patients who presented with co-morbidity, 32% had 2-"comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension). More than half of the MERS-CoV patents showed abnormal chest X-ray, elevated aspartate aminotransferase, and creatinine kinase. About a quarter of MERS-CoV patients had positive cultures on blood, urine, or respiratory secretions. During an average hospital stay of 18 days (range 11 to 30), 64% developed complications involving liver, lungs, or kidneys. Ventilation requirement (29% of MERS-CoV cases) was independently associated with abnormal chest X-ray, viremia (Ct value <30), elevated creatinine, and prothrombin time. Death (21% overall) was independently associated with older age, dyspnea and abnormal chest X-ray on admission, and low hemoglobulin levels. INTERPRETATIONS: With two-thirds of the symptomatic persons developing multiorgan complications MERS-CoV remains the coronavirus with the highest severity (29%) and case fatality rate (21%) among the three lethal coronaviruses. Metabolic abnormalities appear to be an independent risk factor for sustained MERS-CoV transmission. The poorly understood transmission dynamics and non-specific clinical and laboratory features call for high index of suspicion among respiratory disease experts to help early detection of outbreaks. We reiterate the need for case control studies on transmission. FUNDING: No special funding to declare.

15.
Infez Med ; 29(3): 345-354, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1527186

ABSTRACT

This is a systematic review of the literature specifically aimed to explore myocardial injury in coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) patients who were hospitalized with severe complicated infections. The medical literature was examined through the large medical databases, including Medline, Ovid, PubMed, and Embase, over the last year between January 2020 and May 2021. The search terms used were a combination of "myocardial injury" AND "COVID-19" AND "Hospitalization". Then we applied a step to filter the results to select original research articles only evaluating the myocardial injuries in severe COVID-19 hospitalized patients. Selected trials mentioned the type of myocardial injury detected with the infection. A total of 245 articles were extracted. Considering the exclusion of ineligible articles, 42 articles appeared. A total of 42 articles were eligible and were included in the review. These studies included a total of 4326 COVID-19 patients. The 30-day mortality was found to be associated with increased cardiac troponin and myocardial infarction could be a systemic reaction rather than the direct action of COVID-19. Patients with myocardial injury were significantly older and with co-morbid conditions. Studies also found a correlation of higher concentrations of cardiac enzymes with disease severity and increased in-hospital mortality. Myocardial injury was a significant predictor for severe COVID-19 infection and in-hospital mortality. Cardiac enzymes should be monitored in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 infections.

16.
Healthcare (Basel) ; 9(11)2021 Nov 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1523939

ABSTRACT

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

17.
Encyclopedia of Respiratory Medicine ; : 146-161, 2022.
Article in English | [Unspecified Source], Grey literature | ID: grc-750374

ABSTRACT

Three novel coronaviruses have emerged as new lethal zoonotic pathogens of humans during the past 17 years: The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) coronavirus (SARS-CoV), the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronavirus (MERS-CoV), and most recently SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV first surfaced as a human pathogen in Guangdong, China in November 2002 and rapidly spread worldwide with 8098 cases and 774 deaths before the end of the epidemic. SARS-like CoVs have been detected in horseshoe bats with high sequence homology with human or civet isolates, suggesting that bats could be a natural reservoir of a close ancestor of SARS-CoV. No cases of SARS have been reported since January 2004. MERS-CoV was first reported in September 2012, after it was isolated from respiratory samples from a patient in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia who died in June 2012. How humans acquire MERS-CoV infection is not yet known although bats and dromedary camels are intermediary reservoirs. MERS-CoV continues to circulate in the Middle East. As of May 22, 2019, 2428 cases of laboratory-confirmed MERS-CoV cases reported to the World Health Organization, including 838 deaths (34.5% mortality) have been reported from 27 countries. While the majority of MERS cases occur in the Middle East, travel related MERS cases have been reported from all continents. Large health care associated outbreaks of MERS-CoV have occurred in Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and the Republic of Korea. SARS-CoV-2 emerged from Wuhan, China in December 2019, and by March 2020 had established as a pandemic which has caused massive disruption in multiple countries. The eventual mortality caused by this virus remains to be seen. All three viruses cause a similar wide range of nonspecific clinical manifestations from mild upper respiratory tract illness to severe respiratory, gastrointestinal and other extra-pulmonary disease. Early recognition of cases, improved compliance with internationally recommended infection control protocols, and rapid implementation of infection control measures are required to prevent health care facility-associated outbreaks, and in the case of SARS-CoV-2 for control of community spread as well. Treatment is supportive and there are no specific antivirals or vaccines available for both SARS and MERS.

18.
Ann Med Surg (Lond) ; 72: 103069, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1509525

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to describe the epidemiological and clinical presentation of Healthcare Workers (HCWs) affected by COVID-19. METHODS: A cross-sectional retrospective study was conducted at King Saud Medical City (KSMC), Saudi Arabia (KSA). All KSMC employees who acquired COVID-19 between March 22nd to July 15th, 2020 have been included. Their data has been anonymously analyzed. FINDINGS: During the study period, among the 12000 HCWs working at KSMC, 9.75% tested positive for COVID-19. The source of HCWs infections was mainly community acquired (85%) which included incidences of transmission in hospital dormitories. Transmission among coworkers was the main source of hospital acquired incidences. Direct patient care was reported in 99.8% of study subjects among the high-risk areas, compared to 3.4% in low-risk areas (p-value <0.001), 12-h shifts were more common in the medium and high-risk areas, and at least one symptom was reported by 93.1% of HCWs in high-risk areas compared to 81.6% in low-risk areas (p-value <0.001). CONCLUSION: In KSA, for HCWs, reducing lapses in compliance with masking in non-patient care areas should be considered. In KSA the role that hospital dormitories play in the community transmission of COVID-19 among HCWs need further studies.

19.
Front Public Health ; 9: 752323, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1497184

ABSTRACT

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


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Child , Humans , Parents , Patient Acceptance of Health Care , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
20.
Ann Med Surg (Lond) ; 71: 102951, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1466028

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Vaccines against COVID-19 show high efficacy, yet, infection is still being detected among immunized patients, although with blunted severity. The purpose of this study was to assess the severity of COVID-19 infection among immunized versus non-immunized COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU. METHOD: A prospective observational cohort study, including all COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care unit between January 1st, 2021 and June 30th, 2021 were eligible for inclusion. A comparison of severity upon hospitalization of immunized versus non-immunized patients on a 7-level ordinal scale was conducted, using ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS: 592 patients were enrolled, 524 (88.5%) non-immunized, 63 (10.6%) partially immunized, and 5 (0.9%) fully immunized, partially and fully immunized patients were grouped together. Majority of immunized patients (86.7%) were symptomatic before 21 days of immunization. Non-immunized group had fewer patients in the lower severity categories, while more patients in the higher severity categories compared to immunized group. At least one dose of immunization was associated with reduction of odds of moving up severity scale (OR = 0.2 [95% CI: 0.15-0.4]; p < 0.001) in a well fitted ordinal logistic regression model. At least one dose of immunization was associated with lower adjusted odds of 30 day all-cause mortality (OR = 0.45 [95% CI: 0.23-0.89]; p = 0.02). Non-immunized group had higher mortality rate (43.9% versus 29.4% [95% CI: 1.5 to 25.8]; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Most COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU were non-immunized, most of the partially immunized patients got infected before immunity could develop, and fully immunized patients were likely non-responders. At least one dose of immunization significantly decreases severity of the disease across all ordinal severity categories, and is significantly associated with lower 30 day all-cause mortality. Accordingly, immunization status may have to be considered when deciding on disposition of COVID-19 patients at the point of triage.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL