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

Multicentre randomised double-blinded placebo-controlled trial of favipiravir in adults with mild COVID-19

Introduction A novel coronavirus, designated SARS-CoV-2, caused an international outbreak of a respiratory illness, termed COVID-19 in December 2019. There is a lack of specific therapeutic agents based on evidence for this novel coronavirus infection; however, several medications have been evaluated as a potential therapy. Therapy is required to treat symptomatic patients and decrease the virus carriage duration to limit the communitytransmission.Methods and analysis We hypothesise that patients with mild COVID-19 treated with favipiravir will have a shorter duration of time to virus clearance than the control group. The primary outcome is to evaluate the effect of favipiravir on the timing of the PCR test conversion from positive to negative within 15 days after starting the medicine.Adults (>18 years, men or nonpregnant women, diagnosed with mild COVID-19 within 5 days of disease onset) are being recruited by physicians participating from the Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs and the Ministry of Health ethics committee approved primary healthcare centres. This double-blind, randomised trial comprises three significant parts: screening, treatment and a follow-up period. The treating physician and patients are blinded. Eligible participants are randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the therapy group (favipiravir) or a control group (placebo) with 1800 mg by mouth two times per day for the first day, followed by 800 mg two times per day for 4–7 days. Serial nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swab samples are obtained on day 1 (5 days before therapy). On day5±1 day, 10±1 day, 15±2 days, extra nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal PCR COVID-19 samples are requested.The primary analysis population for evaluating both the efficacy and safety outcomes will be a modified intention to treat population. Anticipating a 10% dropout rate, we expect to recruit 288 subjects per arm. The results assume that the hazard ratio is constant throughout the study and that the Cox proportional hazard regression is used to analyse the data.Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by the King Abdullah International Medical Research Centre Institutional Review Board (28 April 2020) and the Ministry of Health Institutional Review Board (1 July 2020). Protocol details and any amendments will be reported to https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04464408. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration number National Clinical Trial Registry (NCT04464408)

Persistence of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG Antibodies Following COVID-19 Vaccines

Purpose: This study was conducted to investigate antibody immune responses induced by BNT162b2 and AZD1222 human COVID-19 vaccines in Riyadh city, Saudi Arabia. Patients and methods: ELISA was used to evaluate antibodies, against the SARS-CoV-2 spike S1 protein, in serum samples from 432 vaccinated individuals at six time points: pre-vaccination (baseline), post-prime, post-boost, 6-months, and 1 year post-vaccination, and 3 weeks post a third dose. Virus microneutralization assay was used to confirm antibody responses in a subset of samples. Results: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG were detected in most subjects post-prime, reached a peak level post-boost, and remained at high level at the 6-month follow-up. At 1 year post-vaccine, the antibody levels were low but increased to a significant level higher than the peak following a third dose. The third dose was given at an average of 250 days after the second dose. The virus microneutralization assay confirmed the neutralization activity of the induced SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies. The vaccines induced higher IgG titres at post-prime (p=0.0001) and 6 months (p=0.006) in previously infected individuals. An increased interval between prime and boost, more than recommended time, appeared to enhance the IgG levels (p=0004). Moreover, the vaccines induced higher IgG levels in younger subjects (p=0.01). Conclusion: These data provide insights and build on the current understanding of immune responses induced by these two vaccines; and support a third boosting dose for these COVID-19 vaccines

Immunogenicity of High-Dose MVA-Based MERS Vaccine Candidate in Mice and Camels

The Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) is a zoonotic pathogen that can transmit from dromedary camels to humans, causing severe pneumonia, with a 35% mortality rate. Vaccine candidates have been developed and tested in mice, camels, and humans. Previously, we developed a vaccine based on the modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) viral vector, encoding a full-length spike protein of MERS-CoV, MVA-MERS. Here, we report the immunogenicity of high-dose MVA-MERS in prime–boost vaccinations in mice and camels. Methods: Three groups of mice were immunised with MVA wild-type (MVA-wt) and MVA-MERS (MVA-wt/MVA-MERS), MVA-MERS/MVA-wt, or MVA-MERS/MVA-MERS. Camels were immunised with two doses of PBS, MVA-wt, or MVA-MERS. Antibody (Ab) responses were evaluated using ELISA and MERS pseudovirus neutralisation assays. Results: Two high doses of MVA-MERS induced strong Ab responses in both mice and camels, including neutralising antibodies. Anti-MVA Ab responses did not affect the immune responses to the vaccine antigen (MERS-CoV spike). Conclusions: MVA-MERS vaccine, administered in a homologous prime–boost regimen, induced high levels of neutralising anti-MERS-CoV antibodies in mice and camels. This could be considered for further development and evaluation as a dromedary vaccine to reduce MERS-CoV transmission to humans