The current reproduction number of COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia: is the disease controlled?

The infectiousness of COVID-19 is high among the susceptible population, making the calculation of the reproduction number (R) an essential step to implement preventive measures. We aim to estimate COVID-19 transmission to determine if the disease is successfully controlled or extra measured should be adopted to attain this goal. The daily incidence data of COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia from March 2nd, 2020, to April 4th, 2021, were obtained from the continuously updated Saudi Ministry of Health COVID-19 repository. To get accurate estimation of the situation over the last 4 months (from December 1st, 2020, to April 4th, 2021), we calculated the weekly (every 7 days) R starting from March 2nd, 2020, and till the last week of the available data. The calculated values of R were represented as median, first quantile (Q1), and third quantile (Q3). As early as the first week of December 2020, the median R was 0.81 (0.80-0.83) which means that each existing infected case would transmit infection to only one person. This was followed by fluctuations over the next few weeks around R value of 1, reaching its highest level of 1.45 (1.42-1.47) between December 31st, 2020, and January 6th, 2021. This was followed by a relatively steady decline over the following weeks, with some till mid-March where the R values started to slightly rise again. Social distancing, protective precautions, avoiding abuse of the partial lifting, expanding the screening process, and other Saudi measures sound to be successful and should be replicated in similar communities. This measure should be continued till the vaccination process is completed, to reduce the number of contacts and to avoid uncontrolled transmission of the disease.

Efficacy and safety of doravirine in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

This research aims to study the safety and efficacy of doravirine in the treatment of HIV-1 (human immunodeficiency virus) patients. We conducted an electronic search in eight databases for the inclusion of eligible studies. We have only included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that study the safety and efficacy of doravirine in the treatment of HIV-1 adult patients. Six papers were included in this meta-analysis. For network (direct and indirect) estimates, the doravirine 100 mg treatment strategy found to have the highest efficacy (P score = 0.786) followed by doravirine 25 mg (P score = 0.684), efavirenz 600 mg (P score = 0.574), doravirine 200 mg (P score = 0.532), 100 mg ritonavir and plus 800 mg darunavir (P score = 0.416), and placebo (P score = 0.009), respectively. Regarding drug-related AE, the placebo group found to have the highest safety profile with the least AE rates (P score = 0.927) followed by doravirine 100 mg (P score = 0.720), 100 mg ritonavir and plus 800 mg darunavir (P score = 0.717), doravirine 25 mg (P score = 0.336), doravirine 200 mg (P score = 0.258), and efavirenz 600 mg (P score = 0.043), respectively. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference between DOR 100 mg in comparison with 100 mg ritonavir and plus 800 mg darunavir (OR = 1.14; 95% CI = 0.23-5.74), DOR 25 mg (OR = 0.37; 95% CI = 0.06-2.34), DOR 200 mg (OR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.17-4.59), or efavirenz 600 mg (OR = 0.58; 95% CI = 0.17-1.98). Moreover, the pairwise (direct only) comparisons did not show a significant difference between doravirine (all doses) and other treatment groups. Doravirine could be counted as an efficacious, safe, and well-tolerated treatment option that is preferable to other regimens for the initial therapy of individuals with HIV-1 infection.