Correlation between Micronutrient plasma concentration and disease severity in COVID-19 patients

Objectives: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by a new strain of betacoronavirus called SARS-CoV-2, which leads to mild to severe symptoms. Micronutrients in blood serum, namely, zinc, iron, copper, and selenium, play essential roles in the human body’s various organs. This study investigates the association between micronutrient levels and the severity of symptoms in SARS-CoV-2 infected patients.Methods: A cross-section study was conducted during June–August 2020 in Riyadh city among 80 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Within 24 hours of hospital admission, patients have been divided into non-severe and severe cases, and blood samples were drawn from each patient to measure the serum levels of copper, iron “in the form of ferritin,” selenium, and zinc.Results: In both study groups, the mean copper and selenium serum levels were within the normal range, while the mean zinc and iron serum levels were elevated. A statistically significant difference was recorded between non-severe and severe cases regarding serum levels of iron and selenium (331.24 vs. 1174.95 ng/ml and 134 vs. 162 mcg/L, respectively, P < 0.0001). On the other hand, no significant difference was detected between both studied groups regarding serum level of zinc and copper (124.57 vs. 116.37 mcq/L and 18.35 vs. 18.2 mcmol/ L, respectively, P > 0.05).Conclusions: There was a significant elevation of selenium and iron serum levels among severe cases compared to non-severe cases of COVID-19. High levels of iron and selenium could be correlated with the disease severity during infection with SARS-CoV-2

Seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 among blood donors in the early month of the pandemic in Saudi Arabia

Background: Serologic testing provides better understanding of SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and its transmission. This study was an investigation of the prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 among blood donors in Saudi Arabia. Objective: To estimate the seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among blood donors in Saudi Arabia during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Serology results and epidemiological data were analyzed for 837 adult blood donors, with no confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, in Saudi Arabia from 20th to 25th May 2020. Seroprevalence was determined using electrochemical immunoassay to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Results: The overall seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was 1.4% (12/837). Non-citizens had higher seroprevalence compared with citizens (OR 13.6, p = 0.001). Secondary education was significantly associated with higher seroprevalence compared with higher education (OR 6.8, p = 0.005). The data showed that the highest seroprevalence was in Makkah (8.1%). Uisng Makkah seroprevalence as the reference, the seroprevalence in other areas was: Madinah 4.1% (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.12-1.94), Jeddah 2.3% (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.31-2.25), and Qassim 2.9 % (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.04-2.89) and these were not statistically different from seroprevalence in the Makkah region. Conclusions: At the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia, the seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 among blood donors was low, but was higher among non-citizens. These findings may indicate that non-citizens and less educated individuals may be less attentive to preventive measures. Monitoring seroprevalence trends over time require repeated sampling

Factors Affecting COVID-19 Vaccination among the General Population in Saudi Arabia

Vaccine refusal or hesitancy is one of the significant issues that can have an adverse impact on people’s health and their countries’ economy. Additionally, vaccine acceptance or refusal could have a decisive role in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to investigate the factors affecting COVID-19 vaccine refusal and hesitancy among the general population in Saudi Arabia. The method is a cross-sectional survey using an online questionnaire, and data were collected from 1935 participants between 18 February 2021 and 1 April 2021. Out of 1935 participants aged ≥18 years and residing in Saudi Arabia, 46.9% reported their intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, 22.4% had received the vaccine, 9.5% did not intend to receive the vaccine, and 21.2% had not made their decision. In the multinomial logistic regression models, vaccine refusal was associated with age (OR: 0.961), nationality (OR: 0.182), monthly income of more than SAR 18,000 (OR: 2.325), chronic diseases (OR: 0.521), knowledge about the vaccine (OR: 0.937), and concerns about the vaccine (OR: 1.5). The hesitancy was associated with age (OR: 0.977), nationality (OR: 0.231), monthly income between SAR 6000 to 12,000 (OR: 0.607), chronic diseases (OR: 0.640), knowledge about the vaccine (OR: 0.907), and concerns about the vaccine (OR: 1.3). The main concerns about the vaccine were “COVID-19 vaccines are not tested enough on people”, “drug companies are interested in COVID-19 vaccine sales only”, and “COVID-19 vaccines have serious adverse effects”. Awareness programs and vaccination campaigns should consider people’s concerns and correct their misinformation

Knowledge, beliefs, and acceptability of people toward new COVID-19 vaccines: a pilot study

A cross-section pilot study was done to determine the knowledge and belief toward new COVID-19 vaccines among a small sample size group of people. A new Vaccine Acceptability Questionnaire (VAQ) consists of 31 questions that were concerned about three elements: underlying factors, knowledge, and beliefs. The study included 96 people from the different regions of Saudi Arabia who had accepted to participate in this pilot study. Around 31% of the included people had low to very low acceptability toward COVID-19 vaccines; however, the other 69% had moderate to high acceptability. The new simple designed questionnaire (VAQ) could be effective in assessing knowledge, beliefs, and acceptability toward COVID-19 vaccination among a specific group of population

Validation of the Arabic version of the Short Form Leed's Dyspepsia Index (SF-LDQ) amongst patients with type II diabetes

Since an unambiguous clinical definition of dyspepsia does not currently exist, the diagnosis is made on the basis of symptoms. For this purpose, a tool which is valid, reliable and convenient to use is needed that can accurately assess both frequency and severity of dyspepsia. Short-Form Leeds Dyspepsia Questionnaire meets all of these requirements and thus, has to be validated in native languages before it can be used to diagnose dyspepsia. We conducted a cross-sectional study at King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz University Hospital (KAAUH) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Adult patients with type II diabetes were recruited in the study after giving informed consent. A total of 245 patients were recruited in the study; 95 (38.8%) were males, while 149 (61.1%) were females. We found that 27.3% (n = 67) of the participants had dyspepsia according to the SF-LDQ Arabic version compared to 24.1% (n = 59) by physician's diagnosis. The Area Under the Curve was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.81–0.9). At a cut-off value of 7/32, the tool has a sensitivity of 69.49% and a specificity of 83.24%. In conclusion, The Short-Form Leeds Dyspepsia Questionnaire was found to be valid for assessment of frequency and severity of dyspepsia among Arab diabetes Type 2 patients

Demographic Characteristics and Status of Vaccinated Individuals with a History of COVID-19 Infection Pre- or Post-Vaccination: A Descriptive Study of a Nationally Representative Sample in Saudi Arabia

Background: Saudi Arabia expedited the approval of some COVID-19 vaccines and launched mass vaccination campaigns. The aim of this study was to describe the demographics of vaccinated COVID-19 cases and compare the mortality rates of COVID-19 cases who were infected post-vaccination in Saudi Arabia. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study. We retrieved data for COVID-19 cases who were infected pre- or post-vaccination and had received at least one injection of the Oxford–AstraZeneca or Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine from 4 December 2020 to 15 October 2021. Results: The number of patients who were infected and had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine was 281,744. Approximately 45% of subjects were infected post-vaccination, and 75% of subjects had received the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine. Only 0.342% of the patients who were infected post-vaccination died, and 447 patients were admitted to ICUs. Most of the patients who were infected with COVID-19 post-vaccination and were admitted to ICUs (69.84%) had received only one dose of the vaccine (p < 0.0001). The mean time to infection for patients who had received one and two doses of the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine were 27 and 8 days longer than their counterparts who had received one and two doses of Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine, respectively. No difference in the odds of mortality between the Pfizer–BioNTech and Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccines was found (OR = 1.121, 95% CI = [0.907–1.386], p-value = 0.291). Patients who had received two doses of the vaccine had significantly lower odds of mortality compared to those who had received one dose (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Vaccines are vital in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of this study show no difference between the Pfizer–BioNTech and Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccines in the rate of mortality. However, the number of vaccine doses was significantly associated with a lower risk of mortality. Future studies should examine the effectiveness of different COVID-19 vaccines using real-world data and more robust designs