RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: There are limited direct data on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) long-term immune responses and reinfection. This study aimed to evaluate the rate, risk factors, and severity of COVID-19 reinfection. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included five hospitals across Saudi Arabia. All subjects who were presented or admitted with positive SARS-CoV-2 real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests were evaluated between March 2020 and August 2021. Reinfection was defined as a patient who was infected followed by clinical recovery, and later became infected again 90 days post first infection. The infection was confirmed with a positive SARS-CoV-2 (RT-PCR). Four hundred and seventeen recovered cases but with no reinfection were included as a control. RESULTS: A total of 35,288 RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients were observed between March 2020 and August 2021. Based on the case definition, (0.37%) 132 patients had COVID-19 reinfection. The mean age in the reinfected cases was 40.95 ± 19.48 (range 1-87 years); Females were 50.76%. Body mass index was 27.65 ± 6.65 kg/m2; diabetes and hypertension were the most common comorbidities. The first infection showed mild symptoms in 91 (68.94%) patients; and when compared to the control group, comorbidities, severity of infection, and laboratory investigations were not statistically different. Hospitalization at the first infection was higher, but not statistically different when compared to the control group (P = 0.093). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 reinfection is rare and does not carry a higher risk of severe disease. Further studies are required, especially with the continuously newly emerging variants, with the unpredictable risk of reinfection.
RESUMO
Background: Renal, gastrointestinal, and hepatic pathology, and the resources available for their management vary internationally. Whilst abdominal point-of-care ultrasound (APOCUS) should enhance management, uptake by physicians, worldwide, has been poor. So, the aim of this study was toexplore the applicability of APOCUS to medical practice in Saudi Arabia, residents' current ability to perform APOCUS, and the skill gaps. Methods: A validated questionnaire was distributed to theinternal medicine residents at our institution to determine their ability to perform APOCUS (self-reported), and obtain their opinions on its applicability for the detection of hepatomegaly, splenomegaly, hydronephrosis, and ascites. Statistical analysis: Standard descriptive statistical techniques were used. Categorical data, presented as frequency, were compared using the χ2 test. The Likert scale responses, presented as mean ± standard deviation, were compared with a t test or analysis of variance. Results: Ninety-eight residents participated (response rate 90.7%). Abdominal POCUS is very applicable to their practice. The use of APOCUS to detect ascites was the most applicable (mean 4.61 ± SD 0.69). However, proficiency in APOCUS was poor (mean 1.65 ± SD 1.11). Conclusions: The difference between internists' self-reported ability to perform APOCUS and its perceived usefulness demonstrates a skill gap. Thus, whilst APOCUS is applicable to medical practice in Saudi Arabia, significant skill gaps exist.
