Persistent COVID-19 symptoms at least one month after diagnosis: A national survey.

BACKGROUND: Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS) is an important healthcare burden. We examined persistent symptoms in COVID-19 patients at least four weeks after the onset of infection, participants' return to pre-COVID-19 health status and associated risk factors. METHODS: Cross-sectional study was conducted (December 2020 to January 2021). A validated online questionnaire was sent to randomly selected individuals aged more than 14 years from a total of 1397,386 people confirmed to have COVID-19 at least 4 weeks prior to the start of this survey. This sample was drawn from the Saudi ministry of health COVID-19 testing registry system. RESULTS: Out of the 9507 COVID-19 patients who responded to the survey, 5946 (62.5%) of them adequately completed it. 2895 patients (48.7%) were aged 35-44 years, 64.4% were males, and 91.5% were Middle Eastern or North African. 79.4% experienced unresolved symptoms for at least 4 weeks after the disease onset. 9.3% were hospitalized with 42.7% visiting healthcare facility after discharge and 14.3% requiring readmission. The rates of main reported persistent symptoms in descending order were fatigue 53.5%, muscle and body ache 38.2%, loss of smell 35.0%, joint pain 30.5%, and loss of taste 29.1%. There was moderate correlation between the number of symptoms at the onset and post-four weeks of COVID-19 infection. Female sex, pre-existing comorbidities, increased number of baseline symptoms, longer hospital-stay, and hospital readmission were predictors of delayed return to baseline health state (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The symptoms of PACS are prevalent after contracting COVID-19 disease. Several risk factors could predict delayed return to baseline health state.

Long term predictors of breathlessness, exercise intolerance, chronic fatigue and well-being in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A cohort study with 4 months median follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS) is an emerging healthcare burden. We therefore aimed to determine predictors of different functional outcomes after hospital discharge in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: An ambidirectional cohort study was conducted between May and July 2020, in which PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients underwent a standardized telephone assessment between 6 weeks and 6 months post discharge. We excluded patients who died, had a mental illness or failed to respond to two follow-up phone calls. The medical research council (MRC) dyspnea scale, metabolic equivalent of task (MET) score for exercise tolerance, chronic fatigability syndrome (CFS) scale and World Health Organization-five well-being index (WHO-5) for mental health were used to evaluate symptoms at follow-up. RESULTS: 375 patients were contacted and 153 failed to respond. The median timing for the follow-up assessment was 122 days (IQR, 109-158). On multivariate analyses, female gender, pre-existing lung disease, headache at presentation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, critical COVID-19 and post-discharge ER visit were predictors of higher MRC scores at follow-up. Female gender, older age >67 years, arterial hypertension and emergency room (ER) visit were associated with lower MET exercise tolerance scores. Female gender, pre-existing lung disease, and ER visit were associated with higher risk of CFS. Age, dyslipidemia, hypertension, pre-existing lung disease and duration of symptoms were negatively associated with WHO-5 score. CONCLUSIONS: Several risk factors were associated with an increased risk of PACS. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who are at risk for PACS may benefit from a targeted pre-emptive follow-up and rehabilitation programs.

Prevalence and predictors of Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome (PACS) after hospital discharge: A cohort study with 4 months median follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS) is an emerging healthcare burden. The risk factors associated with PACS remain largely unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency of new or persistent symptoms in COVID-19 patients post hospital discharge and identify associated risk factors. METHODS: Our prospective cohort comprised of PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia between May and July 2020. The patients were interviewed through phone calls by trained physicians from 6 weeks up to 6 months post hospital discharge. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models were used to examine for predictors associated with persistence of symptoms and non-return to baseline health. RESULTS: 222 COVID-19 patients responded to follow-up phone interviews after a median of 122 days post discharge. The majority of patients were men (77%) with mean age of 52.47 (± 13.95) years. 56.3% of patients complained of persistent symptoms; 66 (29.7%) experiencing them for >21 days and 64 (28.8%) reporting not having returned to their baseline health. Furthermore, 39 patients (17.6%) reported visiting an emergency room post discharge for COVID-19-related symptoms while 16 (7.2%) had required re-hospitalization. Shortness of breath (40.1%), cough (27.5%) and fatigue (29.7%) were the most frequently reported symptoms at follow-up. After multivariable adjustments, female gender, pre-existing hypertension and length of hospital stay were associated with an increased risk of new or persistent symptoms. Age, pre-existing lung disease and emergency room visits increased the likelihood of not fully recovering from acute COVID-19. Patients who were treated with interferon ß-1b based triple antiviral therapy during hospital stay were less likely to experience new or persistent symptoms and more likely to return to their baseline health. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 survivors continued to suffer from dyspnea, cough and fatigue at 4 months post hospital discharge. Several risk factors could predict which patients are more likely to experience PACS and may benefit from individualized follow-up and rehabilitation programs.

Variation in access to pediatric surgical care among coexisting public and private providers: inguinal hernia as a model.

BACKGROUND: Faced with growing healthcare demand, the Saudi government is increasingly relying on privatization as a tool to improve patient access to care. Variation in children's access to surgical care between public (PB) and private providers (PV) has not been previously analyzed. OBJECTIVES: To compare access to pediatric surgical services between two coexisting PB and PV. DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. SETTINGS: A major teaching hospital and the largest PV group in Saudi Arabia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The outcomes for children who underwent inguinal herniotomy (IH) between May 2010 and December 2014 at both providers were with IH serving as the model. Data collected included patient demographics, insurance coverage, referral pattern and access parameters including time-to-surgery (TTS), surgery wait time (SWT) and duration of symptoms (DOS). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): TTS, SWT and DOS. RESULTS: Of 574 IH cases, 56 cases of in-hospital referrals were excluded leaving 290 PB and 228 PV cases. PV patients were younger (12.0 vs 16.4 months, P=.043) and more likely to be male (81.6% vs 72.8%, P=.019), expatriates (18% vs 3.4%, P < .001) and insured (47.4% vs 0%, P < .001). The emergency department was more frequently the source for PB referrals (35.2% vs 12.7%, P < .001) while most PV patients were self-referred (72.8% vs 16.7%, P < .001). Access parameters were remarkably better at PV: TTS (21 vs 66 days, P < .001), SWT (4 vs 31 days, P < .001) and DOS (33 vs 114 days, P < .001). CONCLUSION: When coexisting, PV offers significantly better access to pediatric surgical services compared to PB. Diverting public funds to expand children's access to PV can be a valid choice to improve access to care in case when outcomes with the two providers are similar. LIMITATIONS: Although it is the first and largest comparison in the pediatric population, the sample may not represent the whole population since it is confined to a single selected surgical condition.

Accuracy and readability of cardiovascular entries on Wikipedia: are they reliable learning resources for medical students?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate accuracy of content and readability level of English Wikipedia articles on cardiovascular diseases, using quality and readability tools. METHODS: Wikipedia was searched on the 6 October 2013 for articles on cardiovascular diseases. Using a modified DISCERN (DISCERN is an instrument widely used in assessing online resources), articles were independently scored by three assessors. The readability was calculated using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. The inter-rater agreement between evaluators was calculated using the Fleiss κ scale. RESULTS: This study was based on 47 English Wikipedia entries on cardiovascular diseases. The DISCERN scores had a median=33 (IQR=6). Four articles (8.5%) were of good quality (DISCERN score 40-50), 39 (83%) moderate (DISCERN 30-39) and 4 (8.5%) were poor (DISCERN 10-29). Although the entries covered the aetiology and the clinical picture, there were deficiencies in the pathophysiology of diseases, signs and symptoms, diagnostic approaches and treatment. The number of references varied from 1 to 127 references; 25.9±29.4 (mean±SD). Several problems were identified in the list of references and citations made in the articles. The readability of articles was 14.3±1.7 (mean±SD); consistent with the readability level for college students. In comparison, Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine 18th edition had more tables, less references and no significant difference in number of graphs, images, illustrations or readability level. The overall agreement between the evaluators was good (Fleiss κ 0.718 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: The Wikipedia entries are not aimed at a medical audience and should not be used as a substitute to recommended medical resources. Course designers and students should be aware that Wikipedia entries on cardiovascular diseases lack accuracy, predominantly due to errors of omission. Further improvement of the Wikipedia content of cardiovascular entries would be needed before they could be considered a supplementary resource.