Ketamine analgo-sedation for mechanically ventilated critically ill adults: A rapid practice guideline from the Saudi Critical Care Society and the Scandinavian Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine.

BACKGROUND: This Rapid Practice Guideline (RPG) aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for ketamine analgo-sedation (monotherapy and adjunct) versus non-ketamine sedatives or usual care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients on invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV) and to identify knowledge gaps for future research. METHODS: The RPG panel comprised 23 multinational multidisciplinary panelists, including a patient representative. An up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis constituted the evidence base. The Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, and the evidence-to-decision framework were used to assess the certainty of evidence and to move from evidence to decision/recommendation. The panel provided input on the balance of the desirable and undesirable effects, certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs, resources, equity, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities. RESULTS: Data from 17 randomized clinical trials (n = 898) and nine observational studies (n = 1934) were included. There was considerable uncertainty about the desirable and undesirable effects of ketamine monotherapy for analgo-sedation. The evidence was very low certainty and downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency. Uncertainty or variability in values and preferences were identified. Costs, resources, equity, and acceptability were considered varied. Adjunctive ketamine therapy had no effect on mortality (within 28 days) (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 1.27; low certainty), and may slightly reduce iMV duration (days) (mean difference [MD] -0.05 days; 95% CI -0.07 to -0.03; low certainty), and uncertain effect on the cumulative dose of opioids (mcg/kg/h morphine equivalent) (MD -11.6; 95% CI -20.4 to -2.7; very low certainty). Uncertain desirable effects (cumulative dose of sedatives and vasopressors) and undesirable effects (adverse event rate, delirium, arrhythmia, hepatotoxicity, hypersalivation, use of physical restraints) were also identified. A possibility of important uncertainty or variability in patient-important outcomes led to a balanced effect that favored neither the intervention nor the comparison. Cost, resources, and equity were considered varied. CONCLUSION: The RPG panel provided two conditional recommendations and suggested (1) against using ketamine as monotherapy analgo-sedation in critically ill adults on iMV when other analgo-sedatives are available; and (2) using ketamine as an adjunct to non-ketamine usual care sedatives (e.g., opioids, propofol, dexmedetomidine) or continuing with non-ketamine usual care sedatives alone. Large-scale trials should provide additional evidence.

Ketamine Analgo-sedation for Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Adults: A Rapid Practice Guideline from the Saudi Critical Care Society and the Scandinavian Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine.

BACKGROUND: This Rapid Practice Guideline (RPG) aimed to provide evidence­based recommendations for ketamine analgo-sedation (monotherapy and adjunct) versus non-ketamine sedatives or usual care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients on invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV) and to identify knowledge gaps for future research. METHODS: The RPG panel comprised 23 multinational multidisciplinary panelists, including a patient representative. An up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis constituted the evidence base. The Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, and the evidence-to-decision framework were used to assess the certainty of evidence and to move from evidence to decision/recommendation. The panel provided input on the balance of the desirable and undesirable effects, certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs, resources, equity, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities. RESULTS: Data from 17 randomized clinical trials (n=898) and 9 observational studies (n=1934) were included. There was considerable uncertainty about the desirable and undesirable effects of ketamine monotherapy for analgo-sedation. The evidence was very low certainty and downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency. Uncertainty or variability in values and preferences were identified. Costs, resources, equity, and acceptability were considered varied. Adjunctive ketamine therapy had no effect on mortality (within 28 days) (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 1.27; low certainty), and may slightly reduce iMV duration (days) (mean difference [MD] -0.05 days; 95% CI -0.07 to -0.03; low certainty), and uncertain effect on the cumulative dose of opioids (mcg/kg/h morphine equivalent) (MD -11.6; 95% CI -20.4 to -2.7; very low certainty). Uncertain desirable effects (cumulative dose of sedatives and vasopressors) and undesirable effects (adverse event rate, delirium, arrhythmia, hepatotoxicity, hypersalivation, use of physical restraints) were also identified. A possibility of important uncertainty or variability in patient-important outcomes led to a balanced effect that favored neither the intervention nor the comparison. Cost, resources, and equity were considered varied. CONCLUSION: The RPG panel provided two conditional recommendations and suggested (1) against using ketamine as monotherapy analgo-sedation in critically ill adults on iMV when other analgo-sedatives are available; and (2) using ketamine as an adjunct to non-ketamine usual care sedatives (e.g., opioids, propofol, dexmedetomidine) or continuing with non-ketamine usual care sedatives alone. Large-scale trials should provide additional evidence.

Artificial intelligence in respiratory care: Current scenario and future perspective.

BACKGROUND: This narrative review aims to explore the current state and future perspective of artificial intelligence (AI) in respiratory care. The objective is to provide insights into the potential impact of AI in this field. METHODS: A comprehensive analysis of relevant literature and research studies was conducted to examine the applications of AI in respiratory care and identify areas of advancement. The analysis included studies on remote monitoring, early detection, smart ventilation systems, and collaborative decision-making. RESULTS: The obtained results highlight the transformative potential of AI in respiratory care. AI algorithms have shown promising capabilities in enabling tailored treatment plans based on patient-specific data. Remote monitoring using AI-powered devices allows for real-time feedback to health-care providers, enhancing patient care. AI algorithms have also demonstrated the ability to detect respiratory conditions at an early stage, leading to timely interventions and improved outcomes. Moreover, AI can optimize mechanical ventilation through continuous monitoring, enhancing patient comfort and reducing complications. Collaborative AI systems have the potential to augment the expertise of health-care professionals, leading to more accurate diagnoses and effective treatment strategies. CONCLUSION: By improving diagnosis, AI has the potential to revolutionize respiratory care, treatment planning, and patient monitoring. While challenges and ethical considerations remain, the transformative impact of AI in this domain cannot be overstated. By leveraging the advancements and insights from this narrative review, health-care professionals and researchers can continue to harness the power of AI to improve patient outcomes and enhance respiratory care practices. IMPROVEMENTS: Based on the findings, future research should focus on refining AI algorithms to enhance their accuracy, reliability, and interpretability. In addition, attention should be given to addressing ethical considerations, ensuring data privacy, and establishing regulatory frameworks to govern the responsible implementation of AI in respiratory care.

Unleashing the power of artificial intelligence for diagnosing and treating infectious diseases: A comprehensive review.

Infectious diseases present a global challenge, requiring accurate diagnosis, effective treatments, and preventive measures. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool for analysing complex molecular data and improving the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of infectious diseases. Computer-aided detection (CAD) using convolutional neural networks (CNN) has gained prominence for diagnosing tuberculosis (TB) and other infectious diseases such as COVID-19, HIV, and viral pneumonia. The review discusses the challenges and limitations associated with AI in this field and explores various machine-learning models and AI-based approaches. Artificial neural networks (ANN), recurrent neural networks (RNN), support vector machines (SVM), multilayer neural networks (MLNN), CNN, long short-term memory (LSTM), and random forests (RF) are among the models discussed. The review emphasizes the potential of AI to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of infectious diseases, highlighting the need for further research and development in this area.

Utilization of Telemedicine during COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia: A Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: The outbreak of the novel Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has influenced all aspects of life and significantly impacted healthcare services. It has collectively necessitated the use of telemedicine in providing healthcare. Through this study, we aim to report the statistics on telemedicine utilization and satisfaction across the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia during COVID-19. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study to report the utilization and patient satisfaction with telemedicine services across Saudi Arabia. The data was collected retrospectively from March 2020 to July 2020 on 22,620 patients who used telemedicine services for consultations, medicine refills, and home healthcare visits during COVID-19. RESULTS: The patients received a quick response to their calls within a mean (± SD) waiting time of 2.54 (± 6.8) minutes corresponding to a median (IQR) of 0 (0-1) minutes. Home healthcare services were presented within a median (IQR) time of 20.16 (4.64 - 42.28) hours, and patients received medication at home with a median (IQR) time of 18.8 (12.15 - 36.1) hours. Conversations over the phone varied for a median (IQR) time of 5 (3-7) minutes. The highest number of telemedicine calls were for family medicine consultations, i.e., 6729 (29.7%), and the lowest was for infectious diseases 04 (0.1%), followed by cardiology consultations, i.e., 635 (2.8%). A total of 13,154 (58.15) rated their overall satisfaction, of which 11,684 (88.82%) found telemedicine services satisfactory. CONCLUSION: The utilization of telemedicine across Saudi Arabia results have shown telemedicine to be a satisfactory service for convenient and safe communication between patients and their healthcare providers. It can thus be established as a smart and indissoluble service across the kingdom. However, there is a need to raise awareness of insurance coverage for such services to make them more feasible and accessible to the public.

Tocilizumab Outcomes in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients Admitted to the ICU and the Role of Non-Tocilizumab COVID-19-Specific Medical Therapeutics.

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab is a monoclonal antibody proposed to manage cytokine release syndrome (CRS) associated with severe COVID-19. Previously published reports have shown that tocilizumab may improve the clinical outcomes of critically ill patients admitted to the ICU. However, no precise data about the role of other medical therapeutics concurrently used for COVID-19 on this outcome have been published. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the overall outcome of critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU who received tocilizumab with the outcome of matched patients who did not receive tocilizumab while controlling for other confounders, including medical therapeutics for critically ill patients admitted to ICUs. METHODS: A prospective, observational, multicenter cohort study was conducted among critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU of 14 hospitals in Saudi Arabia between 1 March 2020, and October 31, 2020. Propensity-score matching was utilized to compare patients who received tocilizumab to patients who did not. In addition, the log-rank test was used to compare the 28 day hospital survival of patients who received tocilizumab with those who did not. Then, a multivariate logistic regression analysis of the matched groups was performed to evaluate the impact of the remaining concurrent medical therapeutics that could not be excluded via matching 28 day hospital survival rates. The primary outcome measure was patients' overall 28 day hospital survival, and the secondary outcomes were ICU length of stay and ICU survival to hospital discharge. RESULTS: A total of 1470 unmatched patients were included, of whom 426 received tocilizumab. The total number of propensity-matched patients was 1278. Overall, 28 day hospital survival revealed a significant difference between the unmatched non-tocilizumab group (586; 56.1%) and the tocilizumab group (269; 63.1%) (p-value = 0.016), and this difference increased even more in the propensity-matched analysis between the non-tocilizumab group (466.7; 54.6%) and the tocilizumab group (269; 63.1%) (p-value = 0.005). The matching model successfully matched the two groups' common medical therapeutics used to treat COVID-19. Two medical therapeutics remained significantly different, favoring the tocilizumab group. A multivariate logistic regression was performed for the 28 day hospital survival in the propensity-matched patients. It showed that neither steroids (OR: 1.07 (95% CI: 0.75-1.53)) (p = 0.697) nor favipiravir (OR: 1.08 (95% CI: 0.61-1.9)) (p = 0.799) remained as a predictor for an increase in 28 day survival. CONCLUSION: The tocilizumab treatment in critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU improved the overall 28 day hospital survival, which might not be influenced by the concurrent use of other COVID-19 medical therapeutics, although further research is needed to confirm this.

Potential Strategies to Control the Risk of Antifungal Resistance in Humans: A Comprehensive Review.

Fungal infections are becoming one of the main causes of morbidity and mortality in people with weakened immune systems. Mycoses are becoming more common, despite greater knowledge and better treatment methods, due to the regular emergence of resistance to the antifungal medications used in clinical settings. Antifungal therapy is the mainstay of patient management for acute and chronic mycoses. However, the limited availability of antifungal drug classes limits the range of available treatments. Additionally, several drawbacks to treating mycoses include unfavourable side effects, a limited activity spectrum, a paucity of targets, and fungal resistance, all of which continue to be significant issues in developing antifungal drugs. The emergence of antifungal drug resistance has eliminated accessible drug classes as treatment choices, which significantly compromises the clinical management of fungal illnesses. In some situations, the emergence of strains resistant to many antifungal medications is a major concern. Although new medications have been developed to address this issue, antifungal drug resistance has grown more pronounced, particularly in patients who need long-term care or are undergoing antifungal prophylaxis. Moreover, the mechanisms that cause resistance must be well understood, including modifications in drug target affinities and abundances, along with biofilms and efflux pumps that diminish intracellular drug levels, to find novel antifungal drugs and drug targets. In this review, different classes of antifungal agents, and their resistance mechanisms, have been discussed. The latter part of the review focuses on the strategies by which we can overcome this serious issue of antifungal resistance in humans.

Long-term outcomes of patients with COVID-19 treated with helmet noninvasive ventilation or usual respiratory support: follow-up study of the Helmet-COVID randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether helmet noninvasive ventilation compared to usual respiratory support reduces 180-day mortality and improves health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: This is a pre-planned follow-up study of the Helmet-COVID trial. In this multicenter, randomized clinical trial, adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (n = 320) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were randomized to receive helmet noninvasive ventilation or usual respiratory support. The modified intention-to-treat population consisted of all enrolled patients except three who were lost at follow-up. The study outcomes were 180-day mortality, EuroQoL (EQ)-5D-5L index values, and EQ-visual analog scale (EQ-VAS). In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, non-survivors were assigned a value of 0 for EQ-5D-5L and EQ-VAS. RESULTS: Within 180 days, 63/159 patients (39.6%) died in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared to 65/158 patients (41.1%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference - 1.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] - 12.3, 9.3, p = 0.78). In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, patients in the helmet noninvasive ventilation and the usual respiratory support groups did not differ in EQ-5D-5L index values (median 0.68 [IQR 0.00, 1.00], compared to 0.67 [IQR 0.00, 1.00], median difference 0.00 [95% CI - 0.32, 0.32; p = 0.91]) or EQ-VAS scores (median 70 [IQR 0, 93], compared to 70 [IQR 0, 90], median difference 0.00 (95% CI - 31.92, 31.92; p = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: Helmet noninvasive ventilation did not reduce 180-day mortality or improve HRQoL compared to usual respiratory support among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia.

Outcome of Transplant Recipients Infected with Omicron BA.1 and BA.2: A Single-Center Retrospective Study in Saudi Arabia.

The outcome of transplant recipients is variable depending on the study population, vaccination status and COVID-19 variants. Our aim was to study the impact of Omicron subvariants on the mortality of transplant recipients. We reviewed the results of SARS-CoV-2 whole genome sequence of random isolates collected from 29 December 2021 until 17 May 2022 in King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research center, Jeddah (KFSHRC-J), Saudi Arabia performed as hospital genomic surveillance program for COVID-19 variants. We included 25 transplant patients infected with confirmed Omicron variants.17 (68%) and 8 (32%) patients had Omicron BA.1 and BA.2, respectively. 12 (68%) patients had renal transplants. Only 36% of patients received three doses of COVID-19 vaccines. 23 (92%) patients required hospitalization. 20 (80%) patients survived and 6 (25%) required intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Among ICU patients, 66.7% were more than 50 years, 50% had two to three comorbidities and 5 out of 6 (83%) died. The mortality of transplant patients infected with Omicron variants in our cohort was higher than other centers as a limited number of patients received booster vaccines. Optimizing booster vaccination is the most efficient method to improve the mortality of COVID-19 in transplant recipients recognizing the inefficacy of monoclonal antibodies in the presence of SARS-CoV-2 emerging variants. We did not show a difference in mortality in transplant patients infected with Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 knowing the limitation of our sample size.

New-onset and relapsed liver diseases following COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Liver diseases post-COVID-19 vaccination is extremely rare but can occur. A growing body of evidence has indicated that portal vein thrombosis, autoimmune hepatitis, raised liver enzymes and liver injuries, etc., may be potential consequence of COVID-19 vaccines. OBJECTIVES: To describe the results of a systematic review for new-onset and relapsed liver disease following COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: For this systematic review, we searched Proquest, Medline, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, Wiley online library, Scopus and Nature through the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses PRISMA guideline for studies on the incidence of new onset or relapsed liver diseases post-COVID-19 vaccination, published from December 1, 2020 to July 31, 2022, with English language restriction. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-five cases from one hundred and eighteen articles were included in the qualitative synthesis of this systematic review. Autoimmune hepatitis (138 cases) was the most frequent pathology observed post-COVID-19 vaccination, followed by portal vein thrombosis (52 cases), raised liver enzymes (26 cases) and liver injury (21 cases). Other cases include splanchnic vein thrombosis, acute cellular rejection of the liver, jaundice, hepatomegaly, acute hepatic failure and hepatic porphyria. Mortality was reported in any of the included cases for acute hepatic failure (n = 4, 50%), portal vein thrombosis (n = 25, 48.1%), splanchnic vein thrombosis (n = 6, 42.8%), jaundice (n = 1, 12.5%), raised liver enzymes (n = 2, 7.7%), and autoimmune hepatitis (n = 3, 2.2%). Most patients were easily treated without any serious complications, recovered and did not require long-term hepatic therapy. CONCLUSION: Reported evidence of liver diseases post-COIVD-19 vaccination should not discourage vaccination against this worldwide pandemic. The number of reported cases is relatively very small in relation to the hundreds of millions of vaccinations that have occurred and the protective benefits offered by COVID-19 vaccination far outweigh the risks.

Effect of Helmet Noninvasive Ventilation vs Usual Respiratory Support on Mortality Among Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Due to COVID-19: The HELMET-COVID Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Helmet noninvasive ventilation has been used in patients with COVID-19 with the premise that helmet interface is more effective than mask interface in delivering prolonged treatments with high positive airway pressure, but data about its effectiveness are limited. Objective: To evaluate whether helmet noninvasive ventilation compared with usual respiratory support reduces mortality in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a multicenter, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial that was conducted in 8 sites in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait between February 8, 2021, and November 16, 2021. Adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (n = 320) due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were included. The final follow-up date for the primary outcome was December 14, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive helmet noninvasive ventilation (n = 159) or usual respiratory support (n = 161), which included mask noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen, and standard oxygen. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. There were 12 prespecified secondary outcomes, including endotracheal intubation, barotrauma, skin pressure injury, and serious adverse events. Results: Among 322 patients who were randomized, 320 were included in the primary analysis, all of whom completed the trial. Median age was 58 years, and 187 were men (58.4%). Within 28 days, 43 of 159 patients (27.0%) died in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared with 42 of 161 (26.1%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference, 1.0% [95% CI, -8.7% to 10.6%]; relative risk, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.72-1.49]; P = .85). Within 28 days, 75 of 159 patients (47.2%) required endotracheal intubation in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group compared with 81 of 161 (50.3%) in the usual respiratory support group (risk difference, -3.1% [95% CI, -14.1% to 7.8%]; relative risk, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.75-1.17]). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in any of the prespecified secondary end points. Barotrauma occurred in 30 of 159 patients (18.9%) in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 25 of 161 (15.5%) in the usual respiratory support group. Skin pressure injury occurred in 5 of 159 patients (3.1%) in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 10 of 161 (6.2%) in the usual respiratory support group. There were 2 serious adverse events in the helmet noninvasive ventilation group and 1 in the usual respiratory support group. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study suggest that helmet noninvasive ventilation did not significantly reduce 28-day mortality compared with usual respiratory support among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. However, interpretation of the findings is limited by imprecision in the effect estimate, which does not exclude potentially clinically important benefit or harm. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04477668.

Colorectal cancer in patients with SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) are more likely to develop severe course of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and experience increased risk of mortality compared to SARS-CoV-2 patients without CRC. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in CRC patients and analyse the demographic parameters, clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes in CRC patients with COVID-19 illness. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Proquest, Medline, Embase, Pubmed, CINAHL, Wiley online library, Scopus and Nature for studies on the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in CRC patients, published from December 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021, with English language restriction. Effect sizes of prevalence were pooled with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Sub-group analyses were performed to minimize heterogeneity. Binary logistic regression model was used to explore the effect of various demographic and clinical characteristics on patient's final treatment outcome (survival or death). RESULTS: Of the 472 papers that were identified, 69 articles were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis (41 cohort, 16 case-report, 9 case-series, 2 cross-sectional, and 1 case-control studies). Studies involving 3362 CRC patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (all patients were adults) were analyzed. The overall pooled proportions of CRC patients who had laboratory-confirmed community-acquired and hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infections were 8.1% (95% CI 6.1 to 10.1, n = 1308, 24 studies, I2 98%, p = 0.66), and 1.5% (95% CI 1.1 to 1.9, n = 472, 27 studies, I2 94%, p < 0.01). The median patient age ranged from 51.6 years to 80 years across studies. The majority of the patients were male (n = 2243, 66.7%) and belonged to White (Caucasian) (n = 262, 7.8%), Hispanic (n = 156, 4.6%) and Asian (n = 153, 4.4%) ethnicity. The main source of SARS-CoV-2 infection in CRC patients was community-acquired (n = 2882, 85.7%; p = 0.014). Most of those SARS-CoV-2 patients had stage III CRC (n = 725, 21.6%; p = 0.036) and were treated mainly with surgical resections (n = 304, 9%) and chemotherapies (n = 187, 5.6%), p = 0.008. The odd ratios of death were significantly high in patients with old age (≥ 60 years) (OR 1.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.96; p < 0.001), male gender (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.41-0.47; p < 0.001) CRC stage III (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.02-1.05; p = 0.041), CRC stage IV (OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.17-1.2; p = 0.009), recent active treatment with chemotherapies (OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.5-0.66; p = 0.023) or surgical resections (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.8-0.73; p = 0.016) and admission to ICU (OR 1.88, 95% CI 0.85-1.12; p < 0.001) compared to those who survived. CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 infection in CRC patient is not uncommon and results in a mortality rate of 26.2%. Key determinants that lead to increased mortality in CRC patients infected with COVID-19 include older age (≥ 60 years old); male gender; Asian and Hispanic ethnicity; if SARS-CoV-2 was acquired from hospital source; advanced CRC (stage III and IV); if patient received chemotherapies or surgical treatment; and if patient was admitted to ICU, ventilated or experienced ARDS.

De-isolation of vaccinated COVID-19 health care workers using rapid antigen detection test.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 de-isolation guidelines of health care workers (HCW) were formulated based on evidence describing the duration of infectious viral shedding of the wild SARS-CoV-2 virus. During the periods of COVID-19 vaccination and variants, a test-based approach was recommended to end isolation of HCW, based on emerging data describing the viral kinetics of COVID-19 variants. While Rapid antigen detection tests (RADT) are increasingly used in the diagnosis of COVID-19, their use is limited in de-isolation. METHODS: We described the use of RADT in the de-isolation of COVID-19 vaccinated HCW with mild infection who were asymptomatic on day 7 post diagnosis in a single center retrospective cohort study during the Omicron surge. RESULTS: Of the 480 HCWs, 173 (36%) had positive RADT. The positivity rate of RADT was not different in HCW who received two doses versus three doses of vaccine (34.4% versus 40.3%, p = 0.239). CONCLUSIONS: A symptom based, test-based approach using RADT is a useful tool in the de-isolation of HCW, with mild disease, in the era of Omicron. Further studies are required to evaluate the role of RADT in de-isolation of patients with severe COVID-19 disease.

Machine learning decision tree algorithm role for predicting mortality in critically ill adult COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and is currently a major cause of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions globally. The role of machine learning in the ICU is evolving but currently limited to diagnostic and prognostic values. A decision tree (DT) algorithm is a simple and intuitive machine learning method that provides sequential nonlinear analysis of variables. It is simple and might be a valuable tool for bedside physicians during COVID-19 to predict ICU outcomes and help in critical decision-making like end-of-life decisions and bed allocation in the event of limited ICU bed capacities. Herein, we utilized a machine learning DT algorithm to describe the association of a predefined set of variables and 28-day ICU outcome in adult COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. We highlight the value of utilizing a machine learning DT algorithm in the ICU at the time of a COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This was a prospective and multicenter cohort study involving 14 hospitals in Saudi Arabia. We included critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU between March 1, 2020, and October 31, 2020. The predictors of 28-day ICU mortality were identified using two predictive models: conventional logistic regression and DT analyses. RESULTS: There were 1468 critically ill COVID-19 patients included in the study. The 28-day ICU mortality was 540 (36.8 %), and the 90-day mortality was 600 (40.9 %). The DT algorithm identified five variables that were integrated into the algorithm to predict 28-day ICU outcomes: need for intubation, need for vasopressors, age, gender, and PaO2/FiO2 ratio. CONCLUSION: DT is a simple tool that might be utilized in the ICU to identify critically ill COVID-19 patients who are at high risk of 28-day ICU mortality. However, further studies and external validation are still required.

COVID-19 breakthrough infections in rheumatic diseases patients after vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatic diseases patients receiving Rituximab had severe COVID-19 disease. Although they had impaired humoral immune responses following COVID-19 vaccine, they had preserved cellular immune responses. Waning of COVID-19 antibody responses was observed within six months post vaccination among immunocompromised patients. Recent reports showed fatal outcome of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections among vaccinated high-risk rheumatic diseases patients receiving Rituximab. SAR-CoV-2 serological tests were not performed. OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine humoral responses and breakthrough infections among low risk fully vaccinated rheumatic patients during the Delta Variant Era. METHODS: A case series of 19 fully vaccinated patients with rheumatic diseases were followed to determine post vaccine SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titers and to monitor the development of breakthrough infections up to eight months post vaccine at our tertiary care center in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia from 1st April until 30th November 2021. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 49 years old. 10% of patients were receiving Rituximab. 73% of patients had positive SARS-CoV-2 serological testing post second vaccine. Two mild breakthrough COVID-19 infections were diagnosed six months post second dose of vaccine. Patients were less than 65 years, did not receive Rituximab, did not have interstitial lung diseases and had positive post vaccine serological testing. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated high SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies seroprevalence and self-limiting breakthrough infections in low risk rheumatic diseases patients during the Delta Era. Future studies are needed to study the outcome of rheumatic diseases patients in the Era of Omicron in view of viral immune escape responses.

Active viral shedding in a vaccinated hospitalized patient infected with the delta variant (B.1.617.2) of SARS-CoV-2 and challenges of de-isolation.

In the era of SARS-CoV-2 variants and COVID-19 vaccination, the duration of infectious viral shedding and isolation in post vaccine breakthrough infections is challenging and depends on disease severity. The current study described a case of SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant pneumonia requiring hospitalization. The patient received two doses of BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines, and he had positive SARS-CoV-2 viral cultures 12 days post symptom onset. The time between the second dose of vaccine and the breakthrough infection was 6 months. While immunosuppression is a known risk factor for prolonged infectious viral shedding, age and time between vaccination and breakthrough infection are important risk factors that warrant further studies.

SARS-CoV-2 genomes from Saudi Arabia implicate nucleocapsid mutations in host response and increased viral load.

Monitoring SARS-CoV-2 spread and evolution through genome sequencing is essential in handling the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we sequenced 892 SARS-CoV-2 genomes collected from patients in Saudi Arabia from March to August 2020. We show that two consecutive mutations (R203K/G204R) in the nucleocapsid (N) protein are associated with higher viral loads in COVID-19 patients. Our comparative biochemical analysis reveals that the mutant N protein displays enhanced viral RNA binding and differential interaction with key host proteins. We found increased interaction of GSK3A kinase simultaneously with hyper-phosphorylation of the adjacent serine site (S206) in the mutant N protein. Furthermore, the host cell transcriptome analysis suggests that the mutant N protein produces dysregulated interferon response genes. Here, we provide crucial information in linking the R203K/G204R mutations in the N protein to modulations of host-virus interactions and underline the potential of the nucleocapsid protein as a drug target during infection.

A 20-year retrospective clinical analysis of Candida infections in tertiary centre: Single-center experience.

INTRODUCTION: Fungal infections have risen exponentially in the last decade. In fact, candidiasis has become the most frequent type of hospital acquired infection especially in patients receiving treatment for chronic and terminal illnesses in a hospital. A retrospective analysis for a period of twenty year was undertaken to analyze the incidence rate of candidiasis, especially of Candida species, patients treated in a tertiary care center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical data was collected from samples of patients who were receiving tertiary care were presenting with clinically suspected fungal infections. Direct microscopy with 10% potassium hydroxide was done to visualize the presence of fungal elements, and Gram staining was done for any suspected yeast infection. The samples were inoculated on Sabouraud's Dextrose Agar and kept at 22 °C. RESULTS: A total of 1256 samples with presumed fungal etiology were included in the study. The maximum number of fungal infections were present in elderly (70-79 years age). Females (53.8%) were more affected (45.5%). 21% isolates were identified as yeast but belonged to non-Candida fungi. Among Candida species, Candida albicans was the most dominant species (58.3%) followed by Candida glabrata (6.4%). The year-round data of fungal cases showed that the highest incident of Candida albicans infection were in January with a mean value of 3.80, while the lowest infections were reported in June, with prevalence of 2.32 of C. albicans. The twenty-year data analysis showed that the years 2001 and 2000 showed the highest incidents of C. albicans, with a mean prevalence of 7.50 and 6.83, respectively. Specimen vs fungal prevalence data showed that 38% of the C. albicans were isolated from body aspirate specimens, followed by 26% from swab specimens. CONCLUSION: The high prevalence of Candida spp. in the present study suggests increased susceptibility of patients with critical or chronic illnesses to fungal infections.

Outcome of SARS-CoV-2 variant breakthrough infection in fully immunized solid organ transplant recipients.

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in solid organ transplant recipients is associated with suboptimal immune response and risk for breakthrough infection. It is not known whether they are at risk of severe post-vaccine breakthrough infections in the presence of SARSCoV-2 variant of concern. We describe a case series of four fully vaccinated solid organ transplant recipients who developed SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern breakthrough infections. Three patients received BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and one patient received ChAdOx1 (AZD12220) COVID-19 vaccines. The patients were infected with SARS-CoV-2 variants circulating in Saudi Arabia. Two patients were infected with Alpha variant and had severe pneumonia requiring intensive care admission and ventilatory support and subsequently died. The other two patients recovered; one patient was infected with Beta variant required low supplemental oxygen via nasal flow and the other patient was infected with Delta variant and required high supplemental oxygen nasal flow. Younger patients had a better outcome than older patients. Future large studies are required to confirm our observations and to compare the different vaccine efficacy among solid organ transplants in the era of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern.

Anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Currently there is no systematic review and meta-analysis of the global incidence rates of anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the general adult population. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the incidence rates of anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions after COVID-19 vaccines and describe the demographic and clinical characteristics, triggers, presenting signs and symptoms, treatment and clinical course of confirmed cases. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [PRISMA] statement was followed. METHODS: Electronic databases (Proquest, Medline, Embase, Pubmed, CINAHL, Wiley online library, and Nature) were searched from 1 December 2020 to 31 May 2021 in the English language using the following keywords alone or in combination: anaphylaxis, non-anaphylaxis, anaphylactic reaction, nonanaphylactic reaction, anaphylactic/anaphylactoid shock, hypersensitivity, allergy reaction, allergic reaction, immunology reaction, immunologic reaction, angioedema, loss of consciousness, generalized erythema, urticaria, urticarial rash, cyanosis, grunting, stridor, tachypnoea, wheezing, tachycardia, abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and tryptase. We included studies in adults of all ages in all healthcare settings. Effect sizes of prevalence were pooled with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). To minimize heterogeneity, we performed sub-group analyses. RESULTS: Of the 1,734 papers that were identified, 26 articles were included in the systematic review (8 case report, 5 cohort, 4 case series, 2 randomized controlled trial and 1 randomized cross-sectional studies) and 14 articles (1 cohort, 2 case series, 1 randomized controlled trial and 1 randomized cross-sectional studies) were included in meta-analysis. Studies involving 26,337,421 vaccine recipients [Pfizer-BioNTech (n = 14,505,399) and Moderna (n = 11,831,488)] were analyzed. The overall pooled prevalence estimate of anaphylaxis to both vaccines was 5.0 (95% CI 2.9 to 7.2, I2 = 81%, p = < 0.0001), while the overall pooled prevalence estimate of nonanaphylactic reactions to both vaccines was 53.9 (95% CI 0.0 to 116.1, I2 = 99%, p = < 0.0001). Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech resulted in higher anaphylactic reactions compared to Moderna (8.0, 95% CI 0.0 to 11.3, I2 = 85% versus 2.8, 95% CI 0.0 to 5.7, I2 = 59%). However, lower incidence of nonanaphylactic reactions was associated with Pfizer-BioNTech compared to Moderna (43.9, 95% CI 0.0 to 131.9, I2 = 99% versus 63.8, 95% CI 0.0 to 151.8, I2 = 98%). The funnel plots for possible publication bias for the pooled effect sizes to determine the incidence of anaphylaxis and nonanaphylactic reactions associated with mRNA COVID-19 immunization based on mRNA vaccine type appeared asymmetrical on visual inspection, and Egger's tests confirmed asymmetry by producing p values < 0.05. Across the included studies, the most commonly identified risk factors for anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were female sex and personal history of atopy. The key triggers to anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions identified in these studies included foods, medications, stinging insects or jellyfish, contrast media, cosmetics and detergents, household products, and latex. Previous history of anaphylaxis; and comorbidities such as asthma, allergic rhinitis, atopic and contact eczema/dermatitis and psoriasis and cholinergic urticaria were also found to be important. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-associated anaphylaxis is very low; and nonanaphylactic reactions occur at higher rate, however, cutaneous reactions are largely self-limited. Both anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions should not discourage vaccination.