8 research outputs found

    The impact of childhood atopic dermatitis on quality of life of the paediatric population

    Get PDF
    BackgroundAtopic Dermatitis (AD) is a chronic skin condition characterized by pruritis which presents with xerosis, lichenification, and the eruption of eczematous lesions.AimsTo measure the quality of life in the paediatric population with atopic dermatitis at King Abdulaziz Medical City in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.Methods The assessment tool utilized was the Infants' Dermatitis Quality of Life Index (IDQOL) questionnaire which is validated and available in Arabic. The sample size is 80 participants. Demographics, history of atopy, current treatment, and the percentage of body involved were described as frequencies. Chi-square test was performed to determine if there was a significant difference between gender, age group and the presence of other atopic disease in comparison to percentages of body involved. The analysis of the questionnaire’s items was done by One-way ANOVA to determine where significant impact on quality of life was present.Results There was a significant difference in overall IDQOL score between patient who had asthma with AD and those who did not (p=0.016). Significantly, the higher the percentage of body area affected by AD, the higher IDQOL score (p < 0.0001). No significant difference was identified for the chi-square test. Among questionnaire’s items sleep disturbance was affected the most among patients in relation to increase in distribution of disease along the body (p < 0.0001).ConclusionThe study concluded that the IDQoL among paediatric population with Atopic Dermatitis was significantly impaired, and it showed that the disease severity was proportionally related to the impairment of patients’ quality of life. Therefore, we highly recommend further studies in the same field to be able to generalize the results in the Saudi paediatric population

    Elective Cancer Surgery in COVID-19-Free Surgical Pathways During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An International, Multicenter, Comparative Cohort Study.

    Get PDF
    PURPOSE: As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19-free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19-free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS: Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19-free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19-free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score-matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION: Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19-free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

    Elective cancer surgery in COVID-19-free surgical pathways during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: An international, multicenter, comparative cohort study

    Get PDF
    PURPOSE As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19–free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19–free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19–free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19–free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score–matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19–free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

    Comparison of Different Antiviral Regimens in the Treatment of Patients with Severe COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort

    No full text
    The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes respiratory disorders, with disease severity ranging from asymptomatic to critical manifestations. The current retrospective study compared the efficacies of different antiviral regimens used in patients suffering from severe COVID-19 disease from 19 January 2020 to December 2021 in a single center in Saudi Arabia. In total, 188 patients were enrolled in the current study, including 158 patients treated with different antiviral regimens, and 30 who did not receive any antiviral treatment. Different antiviral regimens, including favipiravir, remdesivir, oseltamivir, favipiravir/remdesivir, and favipiravir/oseltamivir were adopted. The effects of using different antivirals and antibiotics on the survival rate were evaluated, as well as the presence of comorbidities. Among all severely affected patients, 39/188 (20.7%) survived. Both age and comorbidities, including diabetes and hypertension, were significantly correlated with high case fatality following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Remdesivir alone and the combination of favipiravir and remdesivir increased the survival rate. Surprisingly, both imipenem and linezolid helped in the deterioration of disease outcome in the patients. A negative correlation was detected between increased mortality and the use of favipiravir and the use of either imipenem or linezolid. Among the compared antiviral regimens used in the treatment of severe COVID-19, remdesivir was found to be an effective antiviral that reduces COVID-19 case fatality. Antibiotic treatment using imipenem and/or linezolid should be carefully re-evaluated

    Comparison of Different Antiviral Regimens in the Treatment of Patients with Severe COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort

    No full text
    The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes respiratory disorders, with disease severity ranging from asymptomatic to critical manifestations. The current retrospective study compared the efficacies of different antiviral regimens used in patients suffering from severe COVID-19 disease from 19 January 2020 to December 2021 in a single center in Saudi Arabia. In total, 188 patients were enrolled in the current study, including 158 patients treated with different antiviral regimens, and 30 who did not receive any antiviral treatment. Different antiviral regimens, including favipiravir, remdesivir, oseltamivir, favipiravir/remdesivir, and favipiravir/oseltamivir were adopted. The effects of using different antivirals and antibiotics on the survival rate were evaluated, as well as the presence of comorbidities. Among all severely affected patients, 39/188 (20.7%) survived. Both age and comorbidities, including diabetes and hypertension, were significantly correlated with high case fatality following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Remdesivir alone and the combination of favipiravir and remdesivir increased the survival rate. Surprisingly, both imipenem and linezolid helped in the deterioration of disease outcome in the patients. A negative correlation was detected between increased mortality and the use of favipiravir and the use of either imipenem or linezolid. Among the compared antiviral regimens used in the treatment of severe COVID-19, remdesivir was found to be an effective antiviral that reduces COVID-19 case fatality. Antibiotic treatment using imipenem and/or linezolid should be carefully re-evaluated

    Delaying surgery for patients with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection

    Get PDF
    Not availabl

    Preoperative nasopharyngeal swab testing and postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing elective surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Surgical services are preparing to scale up in areas affected by COVID-19. This study aimed to evaluate the association between preoperative SARS-CoV-2 testing and postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing elective cancer surgery. METHODS: This international cohort study included adult patients undergoing elective surgery for cancer in areas affected by SARS-CoV-2 up to 19 April 2020. Patients suspected of SARS-CoV-2 infection before operation were excluded. The primary outcome measure was postoperative pulmonary complications at 30 days after surgery. Preoperative testing strategies were adjusted for confounding using mixed-effects models. RESULTS: Of 8784 patients (432 hospitals, 53 countries), 2303 patients (26.2 per cent) underwent preoperative testing: 1458 (16.6 per cent) had a swab test, 521 (5.9 per cent) CT only, and 324 (3.7 per cent) swab and CT. Pulmonary complications occurred in 3.9 per cent, whereas SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed in 2.6 per cent. After risk adjustment, having at least one negative preoperative nasopharyngeal swab test (adjusted odds ratio 0.68, 95 per cent confidence interval 0.68 to 0.98; P = 0.040) was associated with a lower rate of pulmonary complications. Swab testing was beneficial before major surgery and in areas with a high 14-day SARS-CoV-2 case notification rate, but not before minor surgery or in low-risk areas. To prevent one pulmonary complication, the number needed to swab test before major or minor surgery was 18 and 48 respectively in high-risk areas, and 73 and 387 in low-risk areas. CONCLUSION: Preoperative nasopharyngeal swab testing was beneficial before major surgery and in high SARS-CoV-2 risk areas. There was no proven benefit of swab testing before minor surgery in low-risk areas

    Elective Cancer Surgery in COVID-19–Free Surgical Pathways During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An International, Multicenter, Comparative Cohort Study

    No full text
    corecore