Outcomes of biological therapy in patients with severe asthma with chronic rhinosinusitis in Saudi Arabia: patients with nasal polyps versus those without nasal polyps.

BACKGROUND: This study's purposes were to evaluate the impact of biological therapies on outcomes in patients with severe asthma (SA) and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and to compare these effects among those with NP (CRSwNP) versus those without NP (CRSsNP) in the "real-world" setting in Saudi Arabian patients. METHODS: From March to September 2022, a retrospective observational cohort study was undertaken at the severe asthma clinics of the Armed Forces Hospital-Southern Region (AFHSR) and King Khalid University Hospital, Abha, Saudi Arabia, to delineate the effects of dupilumab therapy. Outcomes were assessed, including clinical outcomes, FEV1, and laboratory findings before and one year after dupilumab. Post-therapy effects were compared between CRSwNP and CRSsNP. RESULTS: Fifty subjects were enrolled, with a mean age of 46.56. There were 27 (54%) females and 23(46%) males. Significant improvements in clinical parameters (frequency of asthma exacerbations and hospitalizations, the use of OCs, anosmia, SNOTT-22, and the ACT), FEV1, and laboratory ones (serum IgE and eosinophilic count) were observed 6 and 12 months after using dupilumab (p < 0.001), respectively. However, after 12 months of dupilumab therapy, there were no significant differences between those with and without NP with regards to clinical (anosmia, ACT, and OCs use), laboratory (eosinophilic count, serum IgE level) parameters, and FEV1%. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CRS experienced significant improvements in clinical, FEV1, and laboratory outcomes after dupilumab therapy. However, these improvements were not maintained when comparing CRSwNP with CRSsNP. There were no significant differences between those with and without NP regarding ACT and OCs use or laboratory (eosinophilic count, serum IgE level) parameters. Further prospective multicenter studies are warranted.

Impact of biological therapies on laboratory outcomes and FEV1 in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma with chronic rhinosinusitis: a real-life study from Saudi Arabia.

                                                                 Abstract Background: Few studies have addressed the effects of biological therapies on laboratory outcomes and changes in FEV1 in patients with severe asthma (SA) and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). We aimed to study the effect of three biological therapies on laboratory outcomes and FEV1 in Saudi Arabian patients with SA and CRS. METHODS: From March to September 2022, a retrospective observational cohort study was undertaken at the severe asthma clinics of the Armed Forces Hospital-Southern Region (AFHSR) and King Khalid University Hospital, Abha, Saudi Arabia, to delineate the effects of 3 biological therapies (benralizumab, dupilumab, and omalizumab) in adults with SA and concomitant CRS in terms of FEV1 and laboratory parameters (serum IgE and eosinophilic counts). RESULTS: Eighty patients were enrolled, with a mean age of 46.68. There were 45 (56%) females and 35 (44%) males. There were significant improvements in FEV1 and laboratory parameters (serum IgE and eosinophilic counts) after 6 &12 months of biological therapies compared to pre-biological therapies (p<0.001, each). The response was different among different biological therapies. The improvements in FEV1, serum IgE, and eosinophilic counts were manifest with benralizumab and dupilumab but not with omalizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Results from the first study from two large Saudi Arabian tertiary centers for patients with severe asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis agree with and support those of worldwide real-life ones. One-year follow-up of patients with SA and CRS showed the effectiveness of benralizumab and dupilumab, but not omalizumab, regarding FEV1, serum IgE, and eosinophilic counts. Further prospective multicenter studies are warranted.

Impact of viral co-infection on clinical outcomes and mortality of COVID-19 patients: a study from Saudi Arabia.

Background: In COVID-19 patients undetected co-infections may have severe clinical implications associated with prolonged hospitalization, ICU admission, and mortality. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the impact of viral coinfections on the outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in a large tertiary Saudi Arabian Hospital. Methods: A total of 178 adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 who were hospitalized at the Armed Forces Hospital Southern Region (AFHSR), Saudi Arabia, from March 1st to June 30th 2022, were enrolled. Real-time PCR for the detection of viral co­infections was carried out. Cases (SARS-CoV-2 with viral coinfections) and control (SARS-CoV-2 mono-infection) groups were compared. Results: 12/178 (7%) of enrolled COVID-19 patients had viral coinfections. 82/178 (46%) of patients were males. 58% of patients had comorbidities. During the study period, 4/12 (33%) and 21/166 (13%) cases and control patients died, p=0.047, respectively. Duration of hospitalization was the only significant independent factor associated with SARS-CoV-2 coinfections, OR 1.140, 95% CI 1.020-1.274, p=0.021. Conclusions: The findings of this study from a large tertiary Saudi Arabian Center revealed a prevalence of 7% for SARS-CoV-2 viral coinfections. SARS-CoV-2 coinfected patients had a significantly prolonged duration of hospitalization and higher mortality than those with SARS-CoV-2 alone. Future studies are needed.

Utility of the 4C ISARIC mortality score in hospitalized COVID-19 patients at a large tertiary Saudi Arabian center.

Background: The International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) 4C mortality score has been used before as a valuable tool for predicting mortality in COVID-19 patients. We aimed to address the utility of the 4C score in a well-defined Saudi population with COVID-19 admitted to a large tertiary referral hospital in Saudi Arabia. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted that included all adults COVID­19 patients admitted to the Armed Forces Hospital Southern Region (AFHSR), between January 2021 and September 2022. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve depicted the diagnostic performance of the 4C Score for mortality prediction. Results: A total of 1,853 patients were enrolled. The ROC curve of the 4C score had an area under the curve of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.702-0.758), p<0.001. The sensitivity and specificity with scores >8 were 80% and 58%, respectively, the positive and negative predictive values were 28% and 93%, respectively. Three hundred and sixteen (17.1%), 638 (34.4%), 814 (43.9%), and 85 (4.6%) patients had low, intermediate, high, and very high values, respectively. There were significant differences between survivors and non-survivors with regard to all variables used in the calculation of the 4C score. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that all components of the 4C score, except gender and O2 saturation, were independent significant predictors of mortality. Conclusions: Our data support previous international and Saudi studies that the 4C mortality score is a reliable tool with good sensitivity and specificity in the mortality prediction of COVID-19 patients. All components of the 4C score, except gender and O2 saturation, were independent significant predictors of mortality. Within the 4C score, odds ratios increased proportionately with an increase in the score value. Future multi-center prospective studies are warranted.