ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend shifting physician-led care (PLC) for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) to more effective multidisciplinary health care (MHC). However, few researchers have studied its real-life implementation in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, we aimed to assess the implementation and compare the outcomes of an MDC diabetes management program (DMP) among T2DM patients to a PLC at a general hospital after one year of follow-up in a real-world practice setting. METHODS: We conducted this comparative patient files review study by analyzing medical records of all T2DM patients at two private care centers. Both were compared for their effectiveness in achieving two outcomes: the glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) <7% and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-c) <70 mg/dl at the end of the first year. Additionally, we assessed the implementation of the DMP. RESULTS: Eight hundred thirty-four medical records were reviewed, 537 from DMP, and 279 from the PLC center. The personal health coordination was almost complete (97.8%) in the DMP, but the implementation was incomplete regarding nutrition (65.7%), dental exam (64.8%), and foot care (58.3%). Both care groups were matched for age (p = 0.056), gender (p = 0.085), duration of diabetes (p = 0.217), and basal glycemic control (p = 0.171). The DMP showed a significant net decrease in HbA1c (-0.5 [IQR 1.47%] vs -0.2 [IQR 3.05%], p = 0.0001) and LDL-c (-10 [IQR 50] vs -5 [IQR 60.5] mg/dl, p = 0.004) compared to PLC. A higher percentage of patients achieved glycemic control in the DMP than in the PLC (49.4% vs 38.7%, p = 0.038). However, both programs demonstrated similar outcomes in lipid control (28.7% vs. 30%, p = 0.695). CONCLUSION: Despite some gaps in implementation, one year of DMP showed better glycemic control among T2DM patients compared to PLC. Both programs were comparable in terms of lipid control. Further studies identifying the gaps in care implementation could improve sustainability, future replication, and generalizability of similar programs to other healthcare systems in Saudi Arabia.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Numerous studies on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination safety have been conducted in Saudi Arabia. Even though there is less evidence comparing the side effects of different vaccines and a few of them studied the side effects of mixing different platforms of vaccines. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the type and severity of adverse effects following COVID-19 vaccination based on the type and platform of received vaccine and to determine factors that contribute to the occurrence of these side effects. METHODS: This cross-sectional comparative study was conducted in Saudi Arabia from January to the end of February 2022 among COVID-19 vaccine recipients through an online survey. Based on the type of vaccines received, we categorized our participants into two groups - those who received two doses of either the Pfizer or the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines, and those who received mixed vaccination regimen (one dose of Pfizer and one dose of AstraZeneca). RESULTS: The study included 1,340 participants, of which 56.3% received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine while (7%) received two doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, and 8.8% received mixed vaccines (one dose of the Pfizer vaccine and one dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine). Pain at the injection site was the most frequent local symptom (37.9%) followed by swelling±redness (27.6%). The local adverse reactions were nearly equal in AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines, whereas these were significantly lower in those who received mixed doses (p<0.001). Fever was significantly higher in mixed vaccination regimens compared to other types (p<0.001). The male gender who received the Pfizer vaccine were at higher risk of developing an adverse reaction following vaccination. Unusual side effects (sleep disorders, menstrual irregularities, and symptoms suggestive of diabetic neuropathy) were also reported. CONCLUSION: The results suggest the overall safety of Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines as well as the mixed vaccination protocol. A heterologous regimen was associated with fewer side effects compared to homologous vaccines. Further studies are needed to assess the long-term side effects.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori infection is prevalent among Saudi adults and has been linked to gastric cancer and other tumor-like conditions. We aimed to explore the pathological characteristics of endoscopic gastric biopsies among symptomatic adult Saudi patients and their relation to H. pylori infection. RESULTS: Among 151 gastric biopsies, gastritis was detected in 97 (64.2%) cases, chronic active gastritis in 26 patients (17.2%), duodenitis in 20 (13.2%) patients, and total metaplasia in 14 (9.3%) patients. H. pylori was detected in 83 cases (55%), with a recurrence or reinfection rate of 9.8%. The patients with H. pylori infection were considerably young (median age: 34 (IQR: 15) vs. 35.5 (IQR: 11), p = 0.024) and had a low frequency of epigastric pain (78.3% vs. 91.2%, p = 0.031), reflux/regurgitation (7.2% vs. 20.6%, p = 0.016), and dysphagia (4.85% vs. 14.7%, p = 0.037). However, they exhibited a higher incidence of chronic active gastritis (96.2% vs. 3.8%, p < 0.001) and intestinal metaplasia (85.7% vs. 14.3%, p = 0.015). Young age (OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 1.02-1.16, p = 0.011) and H. pylori infection (OR = 30.85, 95% CI = 3.26-291.60, p = 0.003) were identified as a positive predictor of intestinal metaplasia while heartburn (OR = 0.08, 95% CI = 0.01-0.58, p = 0.012) was a negative predictor. CONCLUSION: H. pylori infection is prevalent among Saudi adults experiencing upper gastrointestinal symptoms and is associated with intestinal metaplasia. Infection rate and intestinal metaplasia were higher in patients with milder symptoms. Therefore, screening for H. pylori is highly recommended for Saudi individuals with upper gastrointestinal symptoms. Old age and H. pylori infection were identified as positive predictors of intestinal metaplasia, emphasizing the importance of early detection and management of H. pylori infection in the Saudi population.