Short-Term and Long-Term Impact of COVID-19 on Quality of Life and Psychological Outcomes in Saudi Arabia: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study.

Background: Prior research has revealed notable declines in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and substantial psychological impacts among individuals infected with COVID-19. However, there is a noticeable gap in studies addressing the enduring long-term effects of COVID-19 on HRQoL and psychological well-being. Objective: The current study investigated and compared short and long-term effects of COVID-19 on HRQoL and psychological outcomes among the Saudi population. Methods: The Arabic version of the SF-36 questionnaire was used to assess HRQoL while Anxiety and depression were evaluated by the Hamilton Anxiety (HAM-A) and Depression Scales (HDRS). Participants (n=292) were categorized into three groups: the "never-been-infected" group (n=134), the "one-year infected group" (n=43), and the "more than one year infected" group (n=115). Descriptive statistics were presented using numerical values and frequencies. To compare the groups, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used. Results: Most SF-36 domains exhibited lower values while HAM-A and HDRS values were higher in individuals infected during last year compared to those who never infected. Social functioning subscale of the SF-36 showed a significant difference between the groups (F (2.289) = 6.094, p = 0.01) and the effect size was d = 0.95. Pairwise comparison showed a significant reduction in the social functioning component of SF-36 in "one-year group" compared to both groups "never-been-infected" group (mean difference -13.58 (4.40-22.76) p < 0.01) and "more than one year infected" group (mean difference -10.80 (1.44-20.16) p = 0.02). HAM-A and HDRS scores showed mild levels of anxiety (<17 score) and depression (8 to 16 score) in all groups. Conclusion: The influence of COVID-19 on psychological well-being and HRQoL is significant regardless of whether individuals infected with the virus. Overall, the consistent presence of mild anxiety and depression across all groups highlights the need for a holistic approach to mental health.

In Vitro Antiproliferative Apoptosis Induction and Cell Cycle Arrest Potential of Saudi Sidr Honey against Colorectal Cancer.

A range of natural products have been extensively studied for their chemopreventive potential for cancer, including those that inhibit growth and induce apoptosis. Sidr honey derived from the Ziziphus or Lote tree (Ziziphus spina-christi, Ziziphus lotus, or Ziziphus jujuba) is used in a wide range of traditional medicine practices. In the current study, the Saudi Sidr honey was analyzed by means of a GC-MS chromatogram and investigated for its antiproliferative effects on colorectal cancer cells (HCT-116), breast cancer cells (MCF-7), and lung cancer cells (A-549), as well as its apoptosis induction and cell cycle arrest potentials against human colorectal cancer cells (HCT-116). The effects of Saudi Sidr honey on cells were determined using the MTT assay and the clonogenic assay. The induction of apoptosis was studied using Annexin V-FITC flow cytometry analysis. The propidium iodide staining method was used to detect cell cycle arrest via flow cytometry. By means of performing GS-MS and HR-LCMS analysis, 23 different chemical components were identified from Saudi Sidr honey. A dose-response analysis showed that Saudi Sidr honey was more effective against HCT-116 (IC50 = 61.89 ± 1.89 µg/mL) than against MCF-7 (IC50 = 78.79 ± 1.37 µg/mL) and A-549 (IC50 = 94.99 ± 1.44 µg/mL). The antiproliferation activity of Saudi Sidr honey has been found to be linked to the aggregation of cells during the G1 phase, an increase in early and late apoptosis, and necrotic cell death in HCT-116 cells. Considering these promising findings that highlight the potential use of Saudi Sidr honey as an antitumor agent, further research should be carried out with the aim of isolating, characterizing, and evaluating the bioactive compounds involved in Sidr honey's antiproliferative activity to better understand the mechanism of their action.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Investigating the Pain-Relieving Effect of Interferential Current on Musculoskeletal Pain.

BACKGROUND: Interferential current is one of the most common electrotherapeutic modalities used in the treatment of painful conditions. Patients seeking medical help to reduce their musculoskeletal pain can be treated using interferential current. OBJECTIVE: The current review aimed to analyze the recently available information regarding the efficacy of interferential current in alleviating the pain of musculoskeletal origin. METHODS: This study used Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Embase, and EBSCOas as data sources. The initial selection of the studies, thorough assessment of the full articles, and extraction of the necessary study characteristics were carried out by two independent reviewers. Another two independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality of each included trial against 39 criteria. These criteria were integrated from several popular scales. Pain intensity-measured using the visual analog scale, numeric pain rating scale, or McGill Pain Questionnaire-was the outcome of interest. RESULTS: This review included 35 trials of variable methodological quality from which 19 trials were selected for the meta-analysis. In general, interferential current alone versus placebo demonstrated a significant pain-relieving effect. On the other hand, interferential current showed no significant difference when added to standard treatment compared with placebo plus standard treatment or standard treatment alone. Similarly, interferential current showed no significant difference when compared with other single interventions (laser, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, cryotherapy). CONCLUSIONS: Interferential current alone is better than placebo at discharge. However, the low number of studies raises suspicions about this conclusion. Interferential current alone or added to other interventions is not more effective than comparative treatments in relieving musculoskeletal pain.