Incidence of COVID-19 among returning travelers in quarantine facilities: A longitudinal study and lessons learned

This article is made available for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or be any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.Introduction: The emergence of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) had resulted in an unpresented global pandemic. In the initial events, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia implemented mandatory quarantine of returning travelers in order to contain COVID-19 cases. Materials and methods: This is a longitudinal study of the arriving travelers to Quarantine facilities and the prevalence of positive SARS-CoV-2 as detected by RT-PCR. Results: During the study period, there was a total of 1928 returning travelers with 1273 (66%) males. The age range was 28 days–69 years. Of all the travelers, 23 (1.2%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Of the first swab, 14/1928 (0.7%) tested positive. The positivity rate was 0.63% and 0.92% among males and females, respectively (P = 0.57). The second swab was positive in 9 (0.5%) of the other 1914 who were initially negative with a positivity rate of 0.39% and 0.62% among males and females, respectively (P = 0.49). There was no statistical difference in the positivity rates between first and second swab (P = 0.4). Of all travelers, 40 (n = 26, 1.3%) were admitted from the quarantine facility to the hospital due to COVID-19 related positive results or development of symptoms such as fever, cough, and respiratory symptoms; and 14 (0.7%) were admitted due to non-COVID-19 related illness. Conclusion: This study showed the efforts put for facility quarantine and that such activity yielded a lower incidence of positive cases. There was a need to have a backup healthcare facility to accommodate those developing a medical need for evaluation and admission for non-COVID-19 related illnesses

SnoRNAs and miRNAs networks underlying COVID-19 disease severity

There is a lack of predictive markers for early and rapid identification of disease progression in COVID-19 patients. Our study aims at identifying microRNAs (miRNAs)/small nucleolar RNAs (snoRNAs) as potential biomarkers of COVID-19 severity. Using differential expression analysis of microarray data (n = 29), we identified hsa-miR-1246, ACA40, hsa-miR-4532, hsa-miR-145-5p, and ACA18 as the top five differentially expressed transcripts in severe versus asymptomatic, and ACA40, hsa-miR-3609, ENSG00000212378 (SNORD78), hsa-miR-1231, hsa-miR-885-3p as the most significant five in severe versus mild cases. Moreover, we found that white blood cell (WBC) count, absolute neutrophil count (ANC), neutrophil (%), lymphocyte (%), red blood cell (RBC) count, hemoglobin, hematocrit, D-Dimer, and albumin are significantly correlated with the identified differentially expressed miRNAs and snoRNAs. We report a unique miRNA and snoRNA profile that is associated with a higher risk of severity in a cohort of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. Altogether, we present a differential expression analysis of COVID-19-associated microRNA (miRNA)/small nucleolar RNA (snoRNA) signature, highlighting their importance in SARS-CoV-2 infection

Complement C5a and clinical markers as predictors of COVID-19 disease severity and mortality in a multi-ethnic population

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) was declared as a pandemic by WHO in March 2020. SARS-CoV-2 causes a wide range of illness from asymptomatic to life-threatening. There is an essential need to identify biomarkers to predict disease severity and mortality during the earlier stages of the disease, aiding treatment and allocation of resources to improve survival. The aim of this study was to identify at the time of SARS-COV-2 infection patients at high risk of developing severe disease associated with low survival using blood parameters, including inflammation and coagulation mediators, vital signs, and pre-existing comorbidities. This cohort included 89 multi-ethnic COVID-19 patients recruited between July 14th and October 20th 2020 in Doha, Qatar. According to clinical severity, patients were grouped into severe (n=33), mild (n=33) and asymptomatic (n=23). Common routine tests such as complete blood count (CBC), glucose, electrolytes, liver and kidney function parameters and markers of inflammation, thrombosis and endothelial dysfunction including complement component split product C5a, Interleukin-6, ferritin and C-reactive protein were measured at the time COVID-19 infection was confirmed. Correlation tests suggest that C5a is a predictive marker of disease severity and mortality, in addition to 40 biological and physiological parameters that were found statistically significant between survivors and non-survivors. Survival analysis showed that high C5a levels, hypoalbuminemia, lymphopenia, elevated procalcitonin, neutrophilic leukocytosis, acute anemia along with increased acute kidney and hepatocellular injury markers were associated with a higher risk of death in COVID-19 patients. Altogether, we created a prognostic classification model, the CAL model (C5a, Albumin, and Lymphocyte count) to predict severity with significant accuracy. Stratification of patients using the CAL model could help in the identification of patients likely to develop severe symptoms in advance so that treatments can be targeted accordingly

Laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy - a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although laparoscopic surgery has been available for a long time and laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been performed universally, it is still not clear whether open appendectomy (OA) or laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is the most appropriate surgical approach to acute appendicitis. The purpose of this work is to compare the therapeutic effects and safety of laparoscopic and conventional "open" appendectomy by means of a meta-analysis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A meta-analysis was performed of all randomized controlled trials published in English that compared LA and OA in adults and children between 1990 and 2009. Calculations were made of the effect sizes of: operating time, postoperative length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, return to normal activity, resumption of diet, complications rates, and conversion to open surgery. The effect sizes were then pooled by a fixed or random-effects model.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Forty-four randomized controlled trials with 5292 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Operating time was 12.35 min longer for LA (95% CI: 7.99 to 16.72, p < 0.00001). Hospital stay after LA was 0.60 days shorter (95% CI: -0.85 to -0.36, p < 0.00001). Patients returned to their normal activity 4.52 days earlier after LA (95% CI: -5.95 to -3.10, p < 0.00001), and resumed their diet 0.34 days earlier(95% CI: -0.46 to -0.21, p < 0.00001). Pain after LA on the first postoperative day was significantly less (p = 0.008). The overall conversion rate from LA to OA was 9.51%. With regard to the rate of complications, wound infection after LA was definitely reduced (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.59, p < 0.00001), while postoperative ileus was not significantly reduced(OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.47, p = 0.71). However, intra-abdominal abscess (IAA), intraoperative bleeding and urinary tract infection (UIT) after LA, occurred slightly more frequently(OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.43, p = 0.05; OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.54 to 4.48, p = 0.41; OR = 1.76, 95% CI: 0.58 to 5.29, p = 0.32).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>LA provides considerable benefits over OA, including a shorter length of hospital stay, less postoperative pain, earlier postoperative recovery, and a lower complication rate. Furthermore, over the study period it was obvious that there had been a trend toward fewer differences in operating time for the two procedures. Although LA was associated with a slight increase in the incidence of IAA, intraoperative bleeding and UIT, it is a safe procedure. It may be that the widespread use of LA is due to its better therapeutic effect.</p

Male Gender is not a Risk Factor for the Outcome of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Single Surgeon Experience

<b>Background/Aim: </b> Previous studies regarding the outcome of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in men have reported inconsistent findings. We conducted this prospective study to test the hypothesis that the outcome of LC is worse in men than women. <b> Materials and Methods: </b> Between 1997 and 2002, a total of 391 consecutive LCs were performed by a single surgeon at King Fahd Hospital of the University. We collected and analyzed data including age, gender, body mass index (kg/m² ), the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, mode of admission (elective or emergency), indication for LC (chronic or acute cholecystitis [AC]), comorbid disease, previous abdominal surgery, conversion to open cholecystectomy, complications, operation time, and length of postoperative hospital stay. <b> Results:</b> Bivariate analysis showed that both genders were matched for age, ASA class and mode of admission. The incidences of AC (<i> P</i> = 0.003) and comorbid disease (<i> P</i> = 0.031) were significantly higher in men. Women were significantly more obese than men (<i> P</i> &lt; 0.001) and had a higher incidence of previous abdominal surgery (<i> P</i> = 0.017). There were no statistical differences between genders with regard to rates of conversion (<i> P</i> = 0.372) and complications (<i> P</i> = 0.647) and operation time (<i> P</i> = 0.063). The postoperative stay was significantly longer in men than women (<i> P</i> = 0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that male gender was not an independent predictor of conversion (Odds ratio [OR] = 0.37 and <i> P</i> = 0.43) or complications (OR = 0.42, <i> P</i> = 0.42). Linear regression analysis showed that male gender was not an independent predictor of the operation time, but was associated with a longer postoperative stay (<i> P</i> = 0.02). <b> Conclusion:</b> Male gender is not an independent risk factor for satisfactory outcome of LC in the experience of a single surgeon