The risk of tuberculosis infection in Saudi patients receiving adalimumab, etanercept, and tocilizumab therapy.

BACKGROUND: The risk of infection including tuberculosis (TB) infection or reactivation during biological therapy with the current various clinical application is a major concern. This risk may be higher in countries endemic to TB. Our aim of this study is to determine the risk of TB infection in patients receiving 3 biological treatments, Adalimumab, Etanercept and Tocilizumab. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study extending over 2 years follow-up for all patients receiving Adalimumab, Etanercept and Tocilizumab for various clinical indications in a tertiary care center in Saudi Arabia. RESULT: Over the period of 2015-2019, A total of 410 patients received Adalimumab, 271 received Etanercept and 58 patients received Tocilizumab. Rheumatoid arthritis was the most common indication for therapy in all groups and for Adalimumab the most common indication was inflammatory bowel disease, for Etanercept was psoriatic arthritis and for Tocilizumab was juvenile idiopathic arthritis. After a mean follow up period of 36 ± 8.9 months for patients receiving Adalimumab, 21.5 ± 8.4 months for patients receiving Etanercept and 21 ± 2.5 months for patients receiving Tocilizumab there were no reported cases of TB infection in all groups. Only one patient was diagnosed with latent TB 7 months later after starting Adalimumab and tow patients after starting Etanercept. The overall Interferon Gamma Release Assays (IGRA) positivity rate was 9.7%. There was significant association between IGRA positivity rate and patient age. The cutoff age in which IGRA positivity has significantly increased was 53.20 years. CONCLUSION: In our study, patients receiving Etanercept, Adalimumab and Tocilizumab had no increased risk of TB infection. Only 0.3% of patients treated with Adalimumab and 0.9% of patients treated with Etanercept converted to a positive IGRA during therapy.

A Clot in Transit: A Cause of Death or a Bystander?

Introduction: The clot in transit is a rare manifestation of thromboembolic disease occurring usually in the setting of PE and frequently associated with poor outcomes. The best therapeutic option is not well established. We describe a series of 35 patients diagnosed with clots in transit including their therapeutic interventions and outcome between the period January 2016 to December 2020. Methods: a retrospective chart review of all patients with an Echocardiogram showing thrombi in the right heart chambers including patients with thrombus in the presence of central lines or other devices. We exclude patients where masses were described as tumors or vegetation and masses in the presence of bacteremia. Results: There were 35 patients with echocardiographic evidence of a thrombus in the right heart chambers. In 12 of those patients, the thrombus was related to an intracardiac catheter. 37.1% of CT chest was done along with Echocardiogram and showed a concomitant PE in 77%. On echocardiogram, 66% of the thrombi were mobile. RV strain was present in 17% while abnormal RVSP (>30 mmHg) was present in 74%. Respiratory support was required in 37.1% and only 17% required inotropic support. There was a total or partial resolution in 80% those who had repeated echocardiogram after four weeks of therapy. Heparin was started in the majority of patients (74%). Warfarin was the most frequently used follow-up anti-coagulant in 51.4%. The mortality rate was significantly higher in those patients with RVSP >50, UFH group, O2 or inotropic support. 26% of patients died within the first 28 days after the diagnosis, while first 7 days mortality was 6% only. Conclusion: a clot in transit in our study was not directly associated with poor outcomes in the first week of therapy, UFH is still the most frequently used initial method to treat clots in transit. However, only 26% had a total resolution of clot within 4 weeks of treatment.

Adequacy of physician clinical rounds and nursing care elements for non-COVID-19 infected patients admitted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic created many challenges for healthcare systems. Frontline workers and especially healthcare professionals were the most severely affected through increased working hours, burnout and major psychological distress. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the changes in standard care elements which occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically the physician clinical rounds and nursing care provided to non-COVID-19 infected patients. DESIGN: Observational retrospective study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh Saudi Arabia. KAMC is a 1200 bed tertiary care referral academic medical center. PATIENTS (MATERIALS) AND METHODS: We compared the physician clinical rounds and nursing care elements in all admissions due to non-COVID-19 pneumonia and ST elevation myocardial infarction during the lockdown period with similar admissions in a baseline period in the same weeks in the previous pre-lockdown. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To evaluates the changes occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of the standard care elements, such as the physician rounds and nursing care. SAMPLE SIZE: Total of 113 patients records were analyzed. RESULTS: During the lock down period, a total of 113 patients were admitted to the medical and cardiology wards, (95 patients with pneumonia and 18 patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)) compared to 89 patients in the pre lockdown period (74 patients with pneumonia and 15 patients with STEMI). Both groups were similar in age, gender, disposition, length of stay, goal of care planning and outcome. Chronic respiratory disease and Diabetes were more present in patients admitted on the pre lockdown time. Azithromycin was more frequently used as part of the initial antibiotic regimen for pneumonia during the pre-lockdown while doxycycline was significantly more during the lockdown. For the 95 patients admitted in the medical wards during the lockdown, there were a total of 820 physicians' clinical rounds opportunities for senior and junior physicians each. The residents missed 133 (16.2%) and consultant missed 252 (30.7%) of those clinical rounds opportunities. Missed clinical rounds opportunities during the pre-lock down period was higher for residents and consultants at 19.3% (P = 0.429 ) and 36.3% respectively (P = 0.027 ). Similarly, missed clinical rounds opportunities was less during the lockdown period from 35.2% to 25% (p 0.022) and from 38.8% to 30.6% (p = 1 ) for junior staff and consultant cardiology respectively compared to pre lockdown period. For nursing care elements, there was a decrease in missed opportunities in vital signs measurement (p 0.47 and p 0.226), pain assessment (p 0.088 and p 0,366) and skin care (p 0.249 and p 0.576) for patients admitted during the lockdown period in medical and cardiology wards. CONCLUSIONS: Caring for patients admitted for non COVID 19 infection reasons, physicians' clinical rounds did marginally increase compared to pre lockdown period while nurses monitoring for those patients was significantly higher. No difference in mortality was observed for patients admitted pre and during lockdown. The number of missed opportunities to do clinical rounds by physicians remains high during both periods and measures to improve adherence of physicians to performed clinical rounds are needed.

Overview of clinical outcome and therapeutic effectiveness of Favipiravir in patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care unit, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND: Prior to the availability of the current COVID-19 vaccine, the need to control the pandemic worldwide was focused on management of the disease using previously approved antivirals, including Favipiravir which inhibits viral replication through the RNA dependent RNA polymerase enzyme. Favipiravir's efficacy against different viral infections has made it a potential treatment for COVID-19. We are aiming in this study to assess the therapeutic efficacy and safety of Favipiravir in treating critically ill patients admitted with COVID-19 to Intensive Care Units (ICUs). METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study was conducted in five tertiary hospitals in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). The studied sample was randomized from a huge pool of data collected primarily for critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to (ICUs) during the period between April 2020 to March 2021. Two groups of patients matched 1: 1 for age and body mass index (BMI) was enrolled in the study; one group received Favipiravir and another comparison group received other antimicrobial medications, not including Favipiravir. RESULTS: A total data of 538 COVID-19 patients were analyzed, 269 (50.%) received Favipiravir and 269 (50%) the control group received different treatments. More than two-thirds 201 (74.7%) were Saudi citizens, the majority 177 (65.8%) were males and the mean age and (BMI) were; (57.23 ± 15.16) years and (31.61 ± 7.33) kg/m2 respectively. The most frequent symptoms of presentation were shortness of breath (SOB), fever, and cough, and the most frequent comorbidity was diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and ischemic heart disease. In the supplemental therapy, corticosteroid, tocilizumab and chloroquine were statistically significant (P = 0.001) when combined in the FVP group more than in the comparison group. Severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was more frequent among Favipiravir group, while the overall mortality rate among the Favipiravir group was not statistically significant (p-value 0.4). CONCLUSION: According to the study's results revealing FVP is not superior to other antivirals, patients who received Favipiravir presented with more severe symptoms, more comorbidities, more complications, and is not effective in controlling the cytokine storm which negatively impact the efficacy of Favipiravir. FVP therapy had no influence on ICU and hospital length of stay in comparison with the control group as well as in the overall mortality rate among the FVP group was not statistically significant. further research is needed to understand how FVP along with other treatments can improve the length of stay among COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU.

Patient reluctance to accept Do Not Resuscitate order: impact on clinical care.

BACKGROUND: A Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order should only impede the performance of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in case of cardiac or respiratory arrest; it should not interfere with any other treatment decisions. AIMS: To study the impact of DNR order placement on daily clinical care of patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 72 patients in a tertiary care centre in Saudi Arabia. Daily clinical care measures were collected for 2 weeks prior and 2 weeks after DNR order placement and included vital signs, nursing care, comfort measures, documentation, visits by senior and junior physicians, and tests completed. RESULTS: Malignancy was the most common diagnostic category (43.1%). There was a significant reduction in vital signs documentation, tests completed, documentation, and visits by physicians after DNR orders, with no change in nursing care and comfort measures. No differences were seen for place of DNR order (intensive care unit vs medical ward), category of disease, or sex, but there were differences for documentation (more in females) and vital signs (more in males). More vital signs were documented and more tests were done in patients who survived compared to those who died. Regression analysis showed that the frequency of post-DNR order vital signs measurements and investigations done was not related to sex, age, diagnosis, time from admission to DNR order, or location of patients. Time to death was only related to sex and post-DNR order summary documentation. CONCLUSIONS: Placement of DNR orders significantly reduced vital signs measurements, investigations done, documentation and visits by physicians but not nursing care and comfort measures.