Is a Higher Body Mass Index a Risk Factor for Developing Antiphospholipid Antibody Syndrome?

BACKGROUND:  Antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) are antibodies directed against components of the cell membrane and can be associated with clinical features or be asymptomatic in 1-5% of the population. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to investigate the frequency of aPL positivity based on body mass index (BMI). METHODS:  This is a retrospective analysis of all aPL testing done in a tertiary center between 2010 and 2020. The difference between patients with BMI <25, BMI 25-30, and BMI>30 is calculated using chi-square or Fisher's exact test as appropriate for categorical variables and a two-sample t-test for numerical variables. Unadjusted then multivariable logistic regression models were conducted to evaluate the effect of BMI on aPL positivity adjusting for age, thrombosis history, pregnancy complications history, and presence of autoimmune disease. Sex was included as an effect modifier. RESULTS:  Among 312 patients, the outcome (any positive aPL) was detected in 26 (20.8%), 13 (13.0%), and 16 (18.4%) patients with BMI groups: BMI <25, BMI 25-30, and BMI > 30, respectively. A multivariable logistic regression showed that those with BMI 25-30 had a lower risk of aPL positivity when compared to patients with BMI <25 (OR of 0.55 CI 0.25 - 1.14, p=0.116), and patients with BMI >30 also carried a lower risk compared with patients with BMI<25 (OR of 0.76, 95% CI 0.36 - 1.56, p=0.46); these results were not statistically significant. INTERPRETATION:  The results suggest that a higher BMI was not a risk factor for aPL positivity. A better understanding of the complex interactions between antiphospholipid antibodies and obesity should be further investigated.

Optimal positive airway pressure requirement and polysomnography indices of obstructive sleep apnea severity in the Saudi population.

CONTEXT: Positive airway pressure (PAP) is the first-line therapy for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Overnight PAP titration for determining optimal PAP requirements is expensive and often inconvenient. Prediction of optimal PAP requirements from diagnostic polysomnography via mathematical equations is possible but variable across populations. AIMS: We aimed to (1) determine the optimal PAP requirement, (2) determine differences in optimal PAP requirements across OSA severity groups, (3) determine the relationship between optimal PAP requirement and diagnostic polysomnography measurements of OSA severity, and (4) develop a pilot equation to predict the optimal PAP requirement from diagnostic polysomnography in a sample from the Saudi population. METHODS: We analyzed records pertaining to adult OSA patients (n = 215; 63% of males) who underwent standardized diagnostic and titration polysomnography in our sleep laboratory between 2015 and 2019. Demographic, anthropometric, and clinical information were also collected for the analysis. Inferential statistics were performed for comparisons between diagnostic and titration studies and between OSA severity groups. Regression analyses were also performed to determine the potential predictors of optimal PAP requirements. Data were presented as the mean (± standard deviation) or median (25th-75th quartiles) according to normality. RESULTS: The median optimal PAP requirement was 13 (9-17) cmH2O. The optimal PAP requirement was significantly greater for male versus female participants (14 [10-17] vs. 12 [8-16] cmH2O) and for participants with severe OSA (16 [12-20] cmH2O, n = 119) versus those with moderate (11 [8-14] cmH2O, n = 63) or mild (9 [7-12] cmH2O, n = 33) OSA. When combined, nadir oxygen saturation, oxygen desaturation index, and arousal index could be used to predict the optimal PAP requirement (R 2= 0.39, F = 34.0, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The optimal PAP requirement in the Saudi population is relatively high and directly correlated with OSA severity. Diagnostic polysomnography measurements of OSA severity predicted the optimal PAP requirement in this sample. Prospective validation is warranted.

Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccine and Associated Factors Among Pregnant Women in Saudi Arabia.

Background: Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) vaccination has been established as preventing severe and mortal COVID-19. Vaccination is critical strategy in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic, to restrict infections and reduce disease severity. Vaccination coverage will be more extensive if we can better identify vaccination barriers in the population, especially among vulnerable groups, of which one is pregnant women. The aim of this study was to determine the level of acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination and detect the factors that influence vaccine acceptance among pregnant women in Saudi Arabia. Methods: This was a cross-sectional, web-based study conducted in Western, Eastern, North, South, and Central Regions in Saudi Arabia between July and September 2021 among pregnant women, using multi-stage sampling. All pregnant women above 18 years were invited to participate in the study. Pregnant under 18 years of age and those with a contraindication to receiving COVID-19 vaccination were excluded. Binomial logistic regression (univariate and multivariate) was used to identify the influencing factors on vaccination acceptance. Results: Among the 5307 pregnant women, the acceptance level of COVID-19 vaccine was 68%. In the multivariate regression model analysis, the most common predictors of acceptance were living in North Region (P = 0.001, OR = 1.9), living in South Region (P = 0.000, OR = 3.06), and living in Central Region (P = 0.035, OR = 1.42) in comparison to living in Western Region. Gestational week (P = 0.018, OR=0.98), income more than 8000 SR (P = 0.000, OR = 0.51), education level (primary, secondary, and university; P = 0.002, 0.008, and 0.010, respectively), having had gestational diabetes mellitus (P = 0.013, OR = 1.86), being vaccinated with influenza vaccine during present pregnancy (P = 0.000, OR = 4.55, OR = 1.81), being vaccinated with tetanus vaccine during present pregnancy (P = 0.039), and believing that the COVID-19 vaccine could harm their baby (P = 0.000, OR = 0.12). Conclusion: Our study reported high acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination. The major two reasons for refusal were concerns about a lack of data on COVID-19 vaccination safety and the possibility of harming the fetus. Continued public health efforts, such as educational television programs and awareness campaigns about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine for pregnant women, are required to raise awareness. More studies of COVID-19 vaccine safety in pregnant women would assist in overcoming these obstacles and encourage pregnant women to be vaccinated.