Covid-19 and non-communicable diseases: evidence from a systematic literature review

Background: Since early 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic has engulfed the world. Amidst the growing number of infections and deaths, there has been an emphasis of patients with non-communicable diseases as they are particularly susceptible to the virus. The objective of this literature review is to systematize the available evidence on the link between non-communicable diseases and Covid-19. Methods: We have conducted a systematic review of the literature on Covid-19 and non-communicable diseases from December, 2019 until 15th of November, 2020. The search was done in PubMed and in doing so we used a variety of searching terms in order to isolate the final set of papers. At the end of the selection process, 45 papers were selected for inclusion in the literature review. Results: The results from the review indicate that patients with certain chronic illnesses such as diabetes, hypertension (and other cardiovascular diseases), chronic respiratory illnesses, chronic kidney and liver conditions are more likely to be affected by Covid-19. More importantly, once they do get infected by the virus, patients with chronic illnesses have a much higher likelihood of having worse clinical outcomes (developing a more severe form of the disease or dying) than an average patient. There are two hypothesized channels that explain this strong link between the chronic illnesses enumerated above and Covid 19: (i) increased ACE2 (angiotensin-converting enzyme 2) receptor expressions, which facilitates the entry of the virus into the host body; and (ii) hyperinflammatory response, referred to as “cytokine storm”. Finally, the literature review does not find any evidence that diabetes or hypertension related medications exacerbate the overall Covid-19 condition in chronic illness patients. Conclusions: Thus, the evidence points out to ‘business as usual’ disease management model, although with greater supervision. However, given the ongoing Covid-19 vulnerabilities among people with NCDs, prioritizing them for the vaccination process should also figure high on the agenda on health authorities

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) among Healthcare Workers in Saudi Arabia: Comparing Case and Control Hospitals

Healthcare workers (HCWs) stand at the frontline for fighting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This puts them at higher risk of acquiring the infection than other individuals in the community. Defining immunity status among health care workers is therefore of interest since it helps to mitigate the exposure risk. This study was conducted between May 20th and 30th, 2020. Eighty-five hospitals across Kingdom of Saudi Arabia were divided into 2 groups: COVID-19 referral hospitals are those to which RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients were admitted or referred for management (Case-hospitals). COVID-19 nonaffected hospitals where no COVID-19 patients had been admitted or managed and no HCW outbreak (Control hospitals). Next, seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 among HCWs was evaluated; there were 12,621 HCWs from the 85 hospitals. There were 61 case-hospitals with 9379 (74.3%) observations, and 24 control-hospitals with 3242 (25.7%) observations. The overall positivity rate by the immunoassay was 299 (2.36%) with a significant difference between the case-hospital (2.9%) and the control-group (0.8%) (P value <0.001). There was a wide variation in the positivity rate between regions and/or cities in Saudi Arabia, ranging from 0% to 6.31%. Of the serology positive samples, 100 samples were further tested using the SAS2pp neutralization assay; 92 (92%) samples showed neutralization activity. The seropositivity rate in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is low and varies across different regions with higher positivity in case-hospitals than control-hospitals. The lack of neutralizing antibodies (NAb) in 8% of the tested samples could mean that assay is a more sensitive assay or that neutralization assay has a lower detection limits; or possibly that some samples had cross-reaction to spike protein of other coronaviruses in the assay, but these were not specific to neutralize severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)

Knowledge and Attitude of Physicians toward Prescribing Antibiotics and the Risk of Resistance in Two Reference Hospitals

Introduction Antibiotics are essential and abundantly prescribed in hospitals because of their effectiveness and lifesaving benefits. However, the unnecessary use of antibiotics has been observed in earlier studies, and it has persisted through recent years as a major issue since it is one of the leading causes of antibiotic resistance. The increase in antibiotic resistance nowadays is one of the most critical concerns in global public health around the world. The objective of this study was to evaluate the knowledge and perceptions related to antibiotic prescription among physicians at our medical centers. Method A cross-sectional survey of non-infectious diseases specialized physicians. The study was conducted during 2015 at two tertiary care centers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Result Of the 107 returned questionnaires, 93 were complete and valuable. Most respondents (82%) perceived antibiotic resistance to be a critical problem globally, and 78% also think that it is a very important national problem. These attitudes did not differ across specialty or level of training. Widespread antibiotic use and inappropriate empirical choices were believed by 81% of the participants to be important general causes of resistance. Only half of respondents thought that antibiotic restriction is a useful intervention to decrease the antibiotic resistance. The physicians believed educational interventions are the most useful and effective way to improve prescription patterns and decrease antibiotic resistance. Complications due to infection with resistant organisms were acknowledged by almost all of the participants, with some differences in their estimations of how often it will occur. Conclusion Antimicrobial resistance, globally and nationally, is considered as a serious threat, and physicians in this survey acknowledged that. Among the most significant factors is antimicrobial misuse, either by overprescribing or providing inappropriate drugs with some ambivalence, as well as the importance of hand hygiene and antibiotic restrictions. By adhering to local guidelines, continuous education, and other practical interventions, the burden of resistance can be alleviated, as highlighted in this survey

Experience with ceftazidime–avibactam treatment in a tertiary care center in Saudi Arabia

Introduction: Carbapenem-resistant organisms have become major healthcare-associated pathogens and are responsible for significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Cases and managements: This case-series describes our experience with ceftazidime–avibactam in the treatment of six cases with carbapenem-resistant organisms in King Abdulaziz Medical City in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. After trying various combinations of antibiotic therapies without improvement, cases were treated with ceftazidime–avibactam. Outcomes: Five of the six achieved complete cure, both clinically and microbiologically. Keywords: MDR-infections, Ceftazidime–avibactam, Saudi Arabi

Clinical features and outcome of human Mpox (Monkeypox) in Saudi Arabia: An observational study of travel-related cases

Background: The 2022 Monkeypox virus (Mpox) outbreak had involved multiple countries around the globe. Here, we report clinical features and outcome of human Mpox of the first cases in Saudi Arabia. Methods: We obtained records of confirmed Mpox cases in Saudi Arabia from the public electronic health information system, Health Electronic Surveillance Network (HESN) and the healthcare providers completed a de-identified structured clinical data collection form. Results: The reported seven cases were travel-related and all were males between 24 and 41 years of age (mean age + SD) was 30.14 (+ 6.69) years. Of the cases, three (43 %) had heterosexual contact and the others had other intimate encounters while traveling abroad. They presented with skin lesions (100 %), fever (86 %), and lymphadenopathy (71 %). The illness was mild to moderate, did not require antiviral medications, and lasted 7–15 days. The mean duration of skin rash (+ SD) was 10 (+ 2.68) days. Routine laboratory tests (CBC, BUN, serum electrolytes, and liver enzymes) were within normal limits, and initial screening for HIV was negative. Expanded contact tracing did not reveal secondary cases of Mpox in the community or the healthcare setting. Conclusion: The current study showed heterosexual transmission of Mpox and the clinical course was mild and non-complicated. Therefore, clinicians and public health professionals should consider Mpox among individuals presenting with skin rash especially in the context of the investigation of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases