What motivated residents of Saudi Arabia to receive the COVID-19 vaccine?

Background: Acceptance of vaccination is a multifactorial issue. The unprecedented speed at which the COVID-19 disease spread globally has meant that people have had to face the idea of receiving novel vaccines for a novel disease. Purpose: Studies conducted earlier in the pandemic had shown high vaccine hesitancy in Saudi Arabia, therefore we wanted to understand the motivating factors for people living in Saudi Arabia with regards to accepting the COVID-19 vaccine, our survey was conducted when the government had already mandated vaccination to enter public spaces. Saudi society is not particularly outspoken and therefore it was of special importance to the authors to explore the motivation behind COVID-19 vaccines. Methods: This is a cross-sectional survey of 802 participants living in Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire was distributed to staff, visitors, and patients in a hospital in Saudi Arabia and via electronic means to the general population. Results: A total of 521 (65%) of the respondents were women, and 281 (35%) were men. A total of 710 (88.5%) were Saudi, and 55 (6.9%) were non-Saudi. The majority of participants (496, 65.7%) stated that they registered for the vaccine as soon as it was available, with 185 (24.5%) stating that they registered when they were mandated to do so and 74 (9.8%) registered only when they felt cases were increasing. Most participants (316, 41%) stated that the main reason for taking the vaccine was one of a self-protective nature, followed by indirect vaccination (240, 31.1%), paternalistic reasons (157, 20.4%) and altruistic reasons (58, 7.5%). Conclusions: With the increased burden on healthcare that is being faced by COVID-19, other resources need to be carefully allocated. This paper may aid the Saudi government in understanding the motivation for the population to take the vaccine and therefore facilitate any future vaccination campaigns to ensure the best utilization of resources.

Long term predictors of breathlessness, exercise intolerance, chronic fatigue and well-being in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A cohort study with 4 months median follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS) is an emerging healthcare burden. We therefore aimed to determine predictors of different functional outcomes after hospital discharge in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: An ambidirectional cohort study was conducted between May and July 2020, in which PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients underwent a standardized telephone assessment between 6 weeks and 6 months post discharge. We excluded patients who died, had a mental illness or failed to respond to two follow-up phone calls. The medical research council (MRC) dyspnea scale, metabolic equivalent of task (MET) score for exercise tolerance, chronic fatigability syndrome (CFS) scale and World Health Organization-five well-being index (WHO-5) for mental health were used to evaluate symptoms at follow-up. RESULTS: 375 patients were contacted and 153 failed to respond. The median timing for the follow-up assessment was 122 days (IQR, 109-158). On multivariate analyses, female gender, pre-existing lung disease, headache at presentation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, critical COVID-19 and post-discharge ER visit were predictors of higher MRC scores at follow-up. Female gender, older age >67 years, arterial hypertension and emergency room (ER) visit were associated with lower MET exercise tolerance scores. Female gender, pre-existing lung disease, and ER visit were associated with higher risk of CFS. Age, dyslipidemia, hypertension, pre-existing lung disease and duration of symptoms were negatively associated with WHO-5 score. CONCLUSIONS: Several risk factors were associated with an increased risk of PACS. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who are at risk for PACS may benefit from a targeted pre-emptive follow-up and rehabilitation programs.

Prevalence and predictors of Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome (PACS) after hospital discharge: A cohort study with 4 months median follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS) is an emerging healthcare burden. The risk factors associated with PACS remain largely unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency of new or persistent symptoms in COVID-19 patients post hospital discharge and identify associated risk factors. METHODS: Our prospective cohort comprised of PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia between May and July 2020. The patients were interviewed through phone calls by trained physicians from 6 weeks up to 6 months post hospital discharge. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models were used to examine for predictors associated with persistence of symptoms and non-return to baseline health. RESULTS: 222 COVID-19 patients responded to follow-up phone interviews after a median of 122 days post discharge. The majority of patients were men (77%) with mean age of 52.47 (± 13.95) years. 56.3% of patients complained of persistent symptoms; 66 (29.7%) experiencing them for >21 days and 64 (28.8%) reporting not having returned to their baseline health. Furthermore, 39 patients (17.6%) reported visiting an emergency room post discharge for COVID-19-related symptoms while 16 (7.2%) had required re-hospitalization. Shortness of breath (40.1%), cough (27.5%) and fatigue (29.7%) were the most frequently reported symptoms at follow-up. After multivariable adjustments, female gender, pre-existing hypertension and length of hospital stay were associated with an increased risk of new or persistent symptoms. Age, pre-existing lung disease and emergency room visits increased the likelihood of not fully recovering from acute COVID-19. Patients who were treated with interferon ß-1b based triple antiviral therapy during hospital stay were less likely to experience new or persistent symptoms and more likely to return to their baseline health. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 survivors continued to suffer from dyspnea, cough and fatigue at 4 months post hospital discharge. Several risk factors could predict which patients are more likely to experience PACS and may benefit from individualized follow-up and rehabilitation programs.

Effectiveness of therapeutic heparin versus prophylactic heparin on death, mechanical ventilation, or intensive care unit admission in moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital: RAPID randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of therapeutic heparin compared with prophylactic heparin among moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital wards. DESIGN: Randomised controlled, adaptive, open label clinical trial. SETTING: 28 hospitals in Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and US. PARTICIPANTS: 465 adults admitted to hospital wards with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels were recruited between 29 May 2020 and 12 April 2021 and were randomly assigned to therapeutic dose heparin (n=228) or prophylactic dose heparin (n=237). INTERVENTIONS: Therapeutic dose or prophylactic dose heparin (low molecular weight or unfractionated heparin), to be continued until hospital discharge, day 28, or death. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or admission to an intensive care unit, assessed up to 28 days. The secondary outcomes included all cause death, the composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation, and venous thromboembolism. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. Outcomes were blindly adjudicated. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 60 years; 264 (56.8%) were men and the mean body mass index was 30.3 kg/m2. At 28 days, the primary composite outcome had occurred in 37/228 patients (16.2%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 52/237 (21.9%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.10; P=0.12). Deaths occurred in four patients (1.8%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 18 patients (7.6%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.22, 0.07 to 0.65; P=0.006). The composite of all cause death or any mechanical ventilation occurred in 23 patients (10.1%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and 38 (16.0%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.59, 0.34 to 1.02; P=0.06). Venous thromboembolism occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and six (2.5%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.34, 0.07 to 1.71; P=0.19). Major bleeding occurred in two patients (0.9%) assigned to therapeutic heparin and four (1.7%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (0.52, 0.09 to 2.85; P=0.69). CONCLUSIONS: In moderately ill patients with covid-19 and increased D-dimer levels admitted to hospital wards, therapeutic heparin was not significantly associated with a reduction in the primary outcome but the odds of death at 28 days was decreased. The risk of major bleeding appeared low in this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04362085.

Heparin for Moderately Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Heparin, in addition to its anticoagulant properties, has anti-inflammatory and potential anti-viral effects, and may improve endothelial function in patients with Covid-19. Early initiation of therapeutic heparin could decrease the thrombo-inflammatory process, and reduce the risk of critical illness or death. METHODS: We randomly assigned moderately ill hospitalized ward patients admitted for Covid-19 with elevated D-dimer level to therapeutic or prophylactic heparin. The primary outcome was a composite of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, non-invasive mechanical ventilation or ICU admission. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: At 28 days, the primary composite outcome occurred in 37 of 228 patients (16.2%) assigned to therapeutic heparin, and 52 of 237 patients (21.9%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 1.10; p=0.12). Four patients (1.8%) assigned to therapeutic heparin died compared with 18 patients (7.6%) assigned to prophylactic heparin (odds ratio, 0.22; 95%-CI, 0.07 to 0.65). The composite of all-cause mortality or any mechanical ventilation occurred in 23 (10.1%) in the therapeutic heparin group and 38 (16.0%) in the prophylactic heparin group (odds ratio, 0.59; 95%-CI, 0.34 to 1.02). Major bleeding occurred in 2 patients (0.9%) with therapeutic heparin and 4 patients (1.7%) with prophylactic heparin (odds ratio, 0.52; 95%-CI, 0.09 to 2.85). CONCLUSIONS: In moderately ill ward patients with Covid-19 and elevated D-dimer level, therapeutic heparin did not significantly reduce the primary outcome but decreased the odds of death at 28 days. Trial registration numbers: NCT04362085 ; NCT04444700.