Cost-effectiveness of Favipiravir in moderately to severely ill COVID-19 patients in the real-world setting of Saudi arabian pandemic referral hospitals.

Purpose: We aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of Favipiravir treatment versus standard of care (SC) in moderately to severely ill COVID-19 patients from the Saudi healthcare payer perspective. Methods: We used the patient-level simulation method to simulate a cohort of 415 patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 disease who were admitted to two Saudi COVID-19 referral hospitals: 220 patients on Favipiravir and 195 patients on SC. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Favipiravir versus SC in terms of the probability to be discharged alive from hospital and the mean time in days to discharge one patient alive. The model was performed twice: first, using unweighted, and second, using weighted clinical and economic data. Weighting using the inverse weight probability method was performed to achieve balance in baseline characteristics. Results: In the unweighted model, base case (probabilistic) ICER estimates favored Favipiravir at savings of Saudi Riyal (SAR)1,611,511 (SAR1,998,948) per 1% increase in the probability of being discharged alive. As to mean time to discharging one patient alive, ICERs favored Favipiravir at savings of SAR11,498 (SAR11,125). Similar results were observed in the weighted model with savings using Favipiravir of SAR1,514,893 (SAR2,453,551) per 1% increase in the probability of being discharged alive, and savings of SAR11,989 (SAR11,277) for each day a patient is discharged alive. Conclusion: From the payer perspective, the addition of Favipiravir in moderately to severely ill COVID-19 patients was cost-savings over SC. Favipiravir was associated with a higher probability of discharging patients alive and lower daily spending on hospitalization than SC.

Analyzing the Difference in the Length of Stay (LOS) in Moderate to Severe COVID-19 Patients Receiving Hydroxychloroquine or Favipiravir.

Background: The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) disease, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus led to a global pandemic. HCQ and FPV were used early in the pandemic as a treatment modality for COVID-19. Various studies evaluated the HCQ and FPV effectiveness, based on the mortality endpoint and showed conflicting results. We hypothesize that analyzing the difference in the LOS as a significant endpoint would be of a major interest, especially for healthcare providers, to prevent a lengthy hospitalization and disease progression. Methods: This is a retrospective observational study, conducted via a medical chart review of COVD-19 patients who were admitted between April 2020 and March 2021 with a moderate to severe illness. The LOS endpoint was tested using the paired Wilcoxon signed-rank (WSR) model. Prior to using the WSR model, the balance between the HCQ and FPV groups, the propensity score matching, the LOS distribution, and the normality assumptions were tested. Two sensitivity statistical analyses were conducted to confirm the results (stratified log-rank test and U Welch test after transforming the LOS by the squared root values). Results: A total of 200 patients were included for the analysis: 83 patients in the HCQ group and 117 patients in the FPV group. Thirty-seven patients were matched in each group. The LOS data was positively skewed and violated the normality (Shapiro−Wilk p < 0.001) and had an unequal variance (Levene's test, p = 0.019). The WSR test showed no statistical significance in the LOS endpoint, with a median of −0.75 days (95% confidence interval: −4.0 to 2.5, p = 0.629), in favor of the HCQ group (four days), in comparison to seven days of the FPV group. The WSR findings were further confirmed with the stratified log rank test (p = 740) and the U Welch test (p = 391). Conclusions: The study concluded that the HCQ and FPV treatments have a comparable effectiveness in terms of the LOS in the moderate to severe COVID-19 patients. This study highlights the importance of analyzing the LOS as a relevant endpoint, in order to prevent the costs of a lengthy hospitalization and disease progression. The current study also emphasizes the importance of applying the appropriate statistical testing when dealing with two-sample paired data and analyzing non-parametric data such as the LOS.

A comparison of three thromboprophylaxis regimens in critically ill COVID-19 patients: An analysis of real-world data.

Introduction: Thrombotic complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have received considerable attention. Although numerous conflicting findings have compared escalated thromboprophylaxis doses with a standard dose to prevent thrombosis, there is a paucity of literature comparing clinical outcomes in three different anticoagulation dosing regimens. Thus, we investigated the effectiveness and safety profiles of standard, intermediate, and high-anti-coagulation dosing strategies in COVID-19 critically ill patients. Methodology: This retrospective multicenter cohort study of intensive care unit (ICU) patients from the period of April 2020 to August 2021 in four Saudi Arabian centers. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years, diagnosis with severe or critical COVID-19 infection, and receiving prophylactic anticoagulant dose within 24-48 h of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was a composite of thrombotic events, with mortality rate and minor or major bleeding serving as secondary endpoints. We applied survival analyses with a matching weights procedure to control for confounding variables in the three arms. Results: A total of 811 patient records were reviewed, with 551 (standard-dose = 192, intermediate-dose = 180, and high-dose = 179) included in the analysis. After using weights matching, we found that the standard-dose group was not associated with an increase in the composite thrombotic events endpoint when compared to the intermediate-dose group {19.8 vs. 25%; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) =1.46, [95% confidence of interval (CI), 0.94-2.26]} or when compared to high-dose group [19.8 vs. 24%; aHR = 1.22 (95% CI, 0.88-1.72)]. Also, there were no statistically significant differences in overall in-hospital mortality between the standard-dose and the intermediate-dose group [51 vs. 53.4%; aHR = 1.4 (95% CI, 0.88-2.33)] or standard-dose and high-dose group [51 vs. 61.1%; aHR = 1.3 (95% CI, 0.83-2.20)]. Moreover, the risk of major bleeding was comparable in all three groups [standard vs. intermediate: 4.8 vs. 2.8%; aHR = 0.8 (95% CI, 0.23-2.74); standard vs. high: 4.8 vs. 9%; aHR = 2.1 (95% CI, 0.79-5.80)]. However, intermediate-dose and high-dose were both associated with an increase in minor bleeding incidence with aHR = 2.9 (95% CI, 1.26-6.80) and aHR = 3.9 (95% CI, 1.73-8.76), respectively. Conclusion: Among COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU, the three dosing regimens did not significantly affect the composite of thrombotic events and mortality. Compared with the standard-dose regimen, intermediate and high-dosing thromboprophylaxis were associated with a higher risk of minor but not major bleeding. Thus, these data recommend a standard dose as the preferred regimen.

Characteristics of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients in the Al-Ahsa Region of Saudi Arabia: a retrospective study with survival analysis.

BACKGROUND: About 5-10% of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infected patients require critical care hospitalization and a variety of respiratory support, including invasive mechanical ventilation. Several nationwide studies from Saudi Arabia have identified common comorbidities but none were focused on mechanically ventilated patients in the Al-Ahsa region of Saudi Arabia. OBJECTIVES: Identify characteristics and risk factors for mortality in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review SETTING: Two general hospitals in the Al-Ahsa region of Saudi Arabia PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (>18 years old) admitted between 1 May and 30 November 2020, in two major general hospitals in the Al-Ahsa region, Saudi Arabia. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize patients. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards (CPH) model was used exploratively to identify hazard ratios (HR) of predictors of mortality. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient characteristics, mortality rate, extubation rate, the need for re-intubation and clinical complications during hospitalization. SAMPLE SIZE AND CHARACTERISTICS: 154 mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients with median (interquartile range) age of 60 (22) years; 65.6% male. RESULTS: Common comorbidities were diabetes (72.2%), hypertension (67%), cardiovascular disease (14.9%) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) (14.3%). In the multivariable CPH model, age >60 years old (HR=1.83, 95% CI 1.2-2.7, P=.002), CKD (1.61, 95% CI 0.9-2.6, P=.062), insulin use (HR=0.65, 95% CI 0.35-.08, P<.001), and use of loop diuretics (HR=0.51, 95% CI 0.4, P=.037) were major predictors of mortality. CONCLUSION: Common diseases in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients from the Al-Ahsa region were diabetes, hypertension, other cardiovascular diseases, and CKD in this exploratory analysis. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective, weak CPH model performance. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None.

Tocilizumab effectiveness in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (T-MVC-19 Study): a multicenter real-world evidence.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of tocilizumab in mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective multicenter study included adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from nasopharyngeal swab, and requiring invasive mechanical ventilation during admission. Survival analyses with inverse propensity score treatment weighting (IPTW) and propensity score matching (PSM) were conducted. To account for immortal bias, we used Cox proportional modeling with time-dependent covariance. Competing risk analysis was performed for the extubation endpoint. RESULTS: A total of 556 (tocilizumab = 193, control = 363) patients were included. Males constituted the majority of the participants (69.2% in tocilizumab arm,74.1% in control arm). Tocilizumab was not associated with a reduction in mortality with hazard ratio [(HR) = 0.82,95% confidence interval (95%CI): 0.62-1.10] in the Inverse propensity score weighting (IPTW) analysis and (HR = 0.86,95% CI: 0.64-1.16) in the PSM analysis. However, tocilizumab was associated with an increased rate of extubation (33.6%) compared to the control arm (11.9%); subdistributional hazards (SHR) = 3.1, 95% CI: 1.86-5.16). CONCLUSIONS: Although tocilizumab was not found to be effective in reducing mortality, extubation rate while on mechanical ventilation was higher among tocilizumab treated group.

A Patent Review on the Therapeutic Application of Monoclonal Antibodies in COVID-19.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) contains spike proteins that assist the virus in entering host cells. In the absence of a specific intervention, efforts are afoot throughout the world to find an effective treatment for SARS-CoV-2. Through innovative techniques, monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) are being designed and developed to block a particular pathway of SARS-CoV-2 infection. More than 100 patent applications describing the development of MAbs and their application against SARS-CoV-2 have been registered. Most of them target the receptor binding protein so that the interaction between virus and host cell can be prevented. A few monoclonal antibodies are also being patented for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. Some of them, like Regeneron® have already received emergency use authorization. These protein molecules are currently preferred for high-risk patients such as those over 65 years old with compromised immunity and those with metabolic disorders such as obesity. Being highly specific in action, monoclonal antibodies offer one of the most appropriate interventions for both the prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV-2. Technological advancement has helped in producing highly efficacious MAbs. However, these agents are known to induce immunogenic and non-immunogenic reactions. More research and testing are required to establish the suitability of administering MAbs to all patients at risk of developing a severe illness. This patent study is focused on MAbs as a therapeutic option for treating COVID-19, as well as their invention, patenting information, and key characteristics.

Identifying Mucormycosis Severity in Indian COVID-19 Patients: A Nano-Based Diagnosis and the Necessity for Critical Therapeutic Intervention.

The COVID-19 infection caused by the new SARS-CoV-2 virus has been linked to a broad spectrum of symptoms, from a mild cough to life-threatening pneumonia. As we learn more about this unusual COVID-19 epidemic, new issues are emerging and being reported daily. Mucormycosis, also known as zygomycosis or phycomycosis, causes severe fungal illness to individuals with a weakened immune system. It is a devastating fungal infection, and the most frequent kind is the rhino cerebral type. As a devastating second wave of COVID-19 sweeps India, doctors report several instances involving a strange illness-sometimes known as the "black fungus"-among returning and recovered COVID-19 patients. This paper analyzes the existing statistical data to address the severity of prevalence and further notes the nano-based diagnostic parameters, clinical presentations, its connection with other conditions like diabetes, hypertension, and GI disorders, and the importance of anti-fungal therapy in treating the same. Anti-fungal therapies, as well as surgical interventions, are currently used for the treatment of the disease. Proper and timely diagnosis is necessary, along with the reduction in the spread of COVID-19. From the review, it was found that timely pharmacologic interventions and early diagnosis by using a nano-based diagnostic kit can help control the disease. Additionally, this paper provides novel information about the nanotechnology approaches such as fungal detection biosensors, nucleic acids-based testing, point-of-care tests, and galactomannans detection, in the diagnosis of mucormycosis, and thereby reinforces the need for further research on the topic.

Public Knowledge, Attitude, and Perception towards COVID-19 Vaccination in Saudi Arabia.

Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is a highly contagious infection that mainly affects the respiratory system of patients. To date, more than 10 million people have been affected by this virus, and Saudi Arabia has also reported over 210 million cases. At present, there is no established treatment for COVID-19. Vaccination is one of the ways to defeat the pandemic. Recent reports have indicated rare but serious adverse events after vaccination, causing an anxious response from the general public worldwide. Therefore, this study was aimed at evaluating the knowledge, attitude, and perception of the COVID-19 vaccine among the Saudi population. This study is a cross-sectional, web-based online survey conducted using a snowball sampling technique. A self-administered questionnaire prepared in Arabic and English was used to collect feedback from the general population on their knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions about the COVID-19 vaccine. Participants (n = 2022) from different regions of the country replied to the questions. The responses to the questions were recorded on a spreadsheet and analyzed using the SPSS software. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA and non-parametric tests to draw conclusions about the results. Multivariate stepwise regression analysis was performed to determine the association between the knowledge, attitude, and perception scores and the demographic variables. p < 0.05 was used to indicate the significance of the data. The data from the study indicated that most of the participants were males (81%), between 18 and 59 years of age (85.9%), Saudi nationals (98.3%), and possessed graduation or above as a qualification (62.9%). The results suggest that a major portion of respondents have satisfactory knowledge (76%), a positive attitude (72.4%), and perception (71.3%) towards the use of COVID-19 vaccines. Their responses can be categorized as between 'good' and 'fair'. However, 30-40% of respondents lacked information about COVID-19 vaccination availability for under 18-year-olds as well as for pregnant women, in addition to the lack of knowledge about the serious unreported adverse reactions and long-term protection offered by the vaccine against coronavirus. The correlation analysis between the variables (p > 0.05) indicated that the response to the KAP domains has no direct relationship. The survey results suggest that most of the Saudi population has sound knowledge and a positive attitude and perception. Since the COVID-19 vaccines have been approved for use in pregnancy and above 12-year-old children by health authorities, the lack of information shown by a significant percentage of participants requires strategies to update this information. Awareness programs targeting all sections of the population must be continued to provide all the updates, including vaccinations for pregnant women and children.

Infection Spread, Recovery, and Fatality from Coronavirus in Different Provinces of Saudi Arabia.

The World Health Organization (WHO) announced COVID-19, a novel coronavirus outbreak, as a pandemic in 2020. In the month of February 2020, the disease began to spread through the Middle East. The first case of COVID-19 in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was identified in March 2020, and it is now one of the region's most affected countries. Analyzing the disease's propagation pattern may aid in the development of pandemic-fighting strategies. This study aims to analyze the trend of COVID-19's spread, its recovery, and mortality in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Two to three major cities from the 13 provinces of the country were chosen, and the rate of infection recovery was recorded from the first month until the number of confirmed cases showed a decline. The data published on the official Ministry of Health website were recorded on an Excel sheet, graphically represented as figures to indicate the pattern of spread. According to the study's findings, COVID-19 positive cases were discovered in the majority of provinces as early as March 2020. The province of Makkah had the largest number of COVID-19 positive cases (30.7%), followed by Riyadh (23%). The province of Al Jowf had the lowest number of COVID-19 cases (0.3%). Tabuk province had the highest rate of recovery (97.8%), followed by the Northern Border Province (96.7%). Makkah province had the highest mortality rate (2.6%), followed by Al Jawf province (2.4%). The peak case-fatality ratio was recorded in August and September. The highest number of tests to detect the COVID-19 was performed in the month of July, and the highest percentage of positive cases was detected in June (19.55%). All the provinces from the month of September 2020 showed a progressive decline in the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases. According to this study, COVID-19 infection was found in the majority of Saudi Arabian provinces in March 2020, with a peak in June-July 2020. Considering the climatic and demographic characteristics of the region, specific modalities need to be adopted in collaboration with international guidelines to defeat the COVID-19 pandemic.

Complement Anaphylatoxins and Inflammatory Cytokines as Prognostic Markers for COVID-19 Severity and In-Hospital Mortality.

COVID-19 severity due to innate immunity dysregulation accounts for prolonged hospitalization, critical complications, and mortality. Severe SARS-CoV-2 infections involve the complement pathway activation for cytokine storm development. Nevertheless, the role of complement in COVID-19 immunopathology, complement-modulating treatment strategies against COVID-19, and the complement and SARS-CoV-2 interaction with clinical disease outcomes remain elusive. This study investigated the potential changes in complement signaling, and the associated inflammatory mediators, in mild-to-critical COVID-19 patients and their clinical outcomes. A total of 53 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 were enrolled in the study (26 critical and 27 mild cases), and additional 18 healthy control patients were also included. Complement proteins and inflammatory cytokines and chemokines were measured in the sera of patients with COVID-19 as well as healthy controls by specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. C3a, C5a, and factor P (properdin), as well as interleukin (IL)-1ß, IL-6, IL-8, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, and IgM antibody levels, were higher in critical COVID-19 patients compared to mild COVID-19 patients. Additionally, compared to the mild COVID-19 patients, factor I and C4-BP levels were significantly decreased in the critical COVID-19 patients. Meanwhile, RANTES levels were significantly higher in the mild patients compared to critical patients. Furthermore, the critical COVID-19 intra-group analysis showed significantly higher C5a, C3a, and factor P levels in the critical COVID-19 non-survival group than in the survival group. Additionally, IL-1ß, IL-6, and IL-8 were significantly upregulated in the critical COVID-19 non-survival group compared to the survival group. Finally, C5a, C3a, factor P, and serum IL-1ß, IL-6, and IL-8 levels positively correlated with critical COVID-19 in-hospital deaths. These findings highlight the potential prognostic utility of the complement system for predicting COVID-19 severity and mortality while suggesting that complement anaphylatoxins and inflammatory cytokines are potential treatment targets against COVID-19.

The impact of lockdown strategies on the basic reproductive number of coronavirus (COVID-19) cases in Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: In late December 2019, an outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS COV-2) occurred in the city of Wuhan, the capital of the Hubei province in the central part of the People's Republic of China (Ren et al., 2020). In Saudi Arabia, the first case of COVID-19 was reported in March 2, 2020. In March 8, 2020, the Saudi authorities adopted the lockdown strategy to contain the disease. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of the various phases of the lockdown strategy in Saudi Arabia and its impact on the basic reproductive number (R0) of the COVID-19 outbreak. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The timeline of the COVID-19 outbreak in Saudi Arabia was divided into three-time intervals. Google Mobility Community Reports (2020) was used to estimate the changes in community mobility during the various phases of the lockdown. The basic reproductive number (R0) of the COVID-19 outbreak was calculated daily using the Susceptible, Infected and Recovered (SIR) model based on the Saudi Ministry of Health (MOH) daily reports. This is a standard system to determine the spread of the virus on the basis of infection rate, quarantine rate as well as confirmation rate. The mean values of the calculated R0 during each interval were compared using one-way ANOVA test. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the mean values of the different phases of the lockdown (P > 0.05). Moreover, mean R0 value of the second interval was 0.09 higher than the initial interval with free community mobility. Furthermore, the mean R0 values of the third interval with the full lockdown was 0.28 higher than the initial interval. CONCLUSION: Early implementation of lockdown strategy combined with other social distancing strategies help in containing infectious outbreaks in their early phases. Continuous assessment of such strategies' effectiveness provides decision makers with precious information needed to justify their application when considering their economic impact.

Severity of COVID-19 infection in ACEI/ARB users in specialty hospitals: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The uncertainty about COVID-19 outcomes in angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) users continues with contradictory findings. This study aimed to determine the effect of ACEI/ARB use in patients with severe COVID-19. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was done in two Saudi public specialty hospitals designated as COVID-19 referral facilities. We included 354 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 between April and June 2020, of which 146 were ACEI/ARB users and 208 were non-ACEI/ARB users. Controlling for confounders, we conducted multivariate logistic regression and sensitivity analyses using propensity score matching (PSM) and Inverse propensity score weighting (IPSW) for high-risk patient subsets. RESULTS: Compared to non-ACEI/ARB users, ACEI/ARB users had an eight-fold higher risk of developing critical or severe COVID-19 (OR = 8.25, 95%CI = 3.32-20.53); a nearly 7-fold higher risk of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (OR = 6.76, 95%CI = 2.88-15.89) and a nearly 5-fold higher risk of requiring noninvasive ventilation (OR = 4.77,95%CI = 2.15-10.55). Patients with diabetes, hypertension, and/or renal disease had a five-fold higher risk of severe COVID-19 disease (OR = 5.40,95%CI = 2.0-14.54]. These results were confirmed in the PSM and IPSW analyses. CONCLUSION: In general, but especially among patients with hypertension, diabetes, and/or renal disease, ACEI/ARB use is associated with a significantly higher risk of severe or critical COVID-19 disease, and ICU care.

Effectiveness and safety of favipiravir compared to supportive care in moderately to critically ill COVID-19 patients: a retrospective study with propensity score matching sensitivity analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Favipiravir is a repurposed drug to treat coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). Due to a lack of available real-world data, we assessed its effectiveness and safety in moderately to critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted in two public/specialty hospitals in Saudi Arabia. We included patients ≥18 years) admitted April-August 2020 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 diagnosed by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from nasopharyngeal swab. Patients received either favipiravir (1800 mg or 1600 mg twice daily loading dose, followed by 800 mg or 600 mg twice daily) or supportive-care treatment. Patients were excluded if they were outside the study period, classified as having a mild form of the disease per WHO criteria, or had an incomplete patient file. Kaplan-Meier (KM) models were used to estimate median time to discharge. Discharge ratios, progression to mechanical ventilation, and mortality outcomes were estimated across the severity spectrum using Cox proportional-hazards models. As a sensitivity analysis, we performed propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis. RESULTS: Overall, median time to discharge was 10 days (95%CI = 9-10) in the favipiravir arm versus 15 days (95%CI = 14-16) in the supportive-care arm. The accelerated discharge benefit was seen across the COVID-19 spectrum of severity. The adjusted discharge ratio was 1.96 (95%CI = 1.56-2.46). Progression to mechanical ventilation was slower with favipiravir (HRadj = 0.10, 95%CI = 0.04-0.29). There was no significant effect on mortality (HRadj = 1.56, 95%CI = 0.73-3.36). There was a statistically non-significant trend toward worse outcomes in the critical category (HRadj = 2.80, 95%CI = 0.99-7.89). Age was an independent risk factor for mortality in mechanically ventilated patients. PSM analyses confirmed these findings. CONCLUSION: Favipiravir was associated with clinical benefits, including accelerated discharge rate and less progression to mechanical ventilation; however, no overall mortality benefits were seen across the severity spectrum.

Mortality, Severity, and Hospital Admission among COVID-19 Patients with ACEI/ARB Use: A Meta-Analysis Stratifying Countries Based on Response to the First Wave of the Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) is controversial for treating COVID-19 patients. We aimed to estimate pooled risks of mortality, disease severity, and hospitalization associated with ACEI/ARB use and stratify them by country and country clusters. METHODS: We conducted a search in various databases through 4 July 2020 and then applied random-effects models to estimate pooled risks (ORp) across stratifications by country cluster. Clusters were chosen to reflect outbreak times (China followed by Korea/Italy, others subsequently) and mobility restrictions (China and Denmark/France/Spain with stricter lockdowns than the UK/US). RESULTS: Overall analysis showed no increase in mortality; however, a statistical increase in mortality was seen in the US/UK cluster with ORp = 1.28 [95% CI = 1.04; 1.56] and a decrease in China with ORp = 0.65 [95% CI = 0.43; 0.96] and France with OR = 0.31 [95% CI = 0.14; 0.69]. Severity and hospitalization were not statistically significant in the analysis; however, several associations were seen in specific countries but not in country clusters. CONCLUSION: The country-cluster meta-analysis provided a reasonable explanation for COVID-19 mortality among ACEI/ARB users. The analysis did not explain differences in severity and suggested the involvement of other factors. Hospitalization findings among ACEI/ARB users may be considered informative as they may have been subjected to clinical decisions and hospital-bed availability.

COVID-19 and Psychological Health of Female Saudi Arabian Population: A Cross-Sectional Study.

The influence of the COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented on physical and mental health. This study aimed to determine the impact of the COVID-19 event on mental health among Saudi Arabian females of Riyadh by a cross-sectional study design. The samples of the study were recruited using convenience and snowball sampling methods. The questionnaire is composed of items related to sociodemographic profile, general mental status, negative attitude scale, impact of event (COVID-19 pandemic) scale (R) and negative health impact. The data obtained were analyzed using multivariate regression analysis. Out of the 797 samples (34.58 ± 12.89 years), 457 (57.34%) belonged to an age group of ≥25 years. The average BMI of the participants was 26.73 (kg/m2). Significantly (p = 0.000), a large proportion of the participants were overweight and unemployed. Age group (>25 years) have more odds for abnormal mental status (OR; 1.592), development of negative attitudes (OR; 1.986), the intense impact of COVID-19 events (OR; 1.444) and susceptibility to attain negative health impacts (OR; 1.574). High body weight is another risk factor for altered mental status, negative attitude and developing impact of COVID-19 quickly. Overall, the COVID-19 pandemic was directly associated with stress (53%), anxiety (63%) and depression (44%) in our sample population. There is an urgent need for psychological counseling for the distressed population.