Estimated cost of treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Saudi Arabia.

The economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global health systems is a major concern. To plan and allocate resources to treat COVID-19 patients and provide insights into the financial sustainability of healthcare systems in fighting the future pandemic, measuring the costs to treat COVID-19 patients is deemed necessary. As such, we conducted a retrospective, real-world observational study to measure the direct medical cost of treating COVID-19 patients at a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia. The analysis was conducted using primary data and a mixed methodology of micro and macro-costing. Between July 2020 and July 2021, 287 patients with confirmed COVID-19 were admitted and their data were analyzed. COVID-19 infection was confirmed by RT-PCR or serologic tests in all the included patients. There were 60 cases of mild to moderate disease, 148 cases of severe disease, and 79 critically ill patients. The cost per case for mild to moderate disease, severe disease, and critically ill was 2003 USD, 14,545 USD, and 20,188 USD, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in the cost between patients with comorbidities and patients without comorbidities (P-value 0.008). Across patients with and without comorbidities, there was a significant difference in the cost of the bed, laboratory work, treatment medications, and non-pharmaceutical equipment. The cost of treating COVID-19 patients is considered a burden for many countries. More studies from different private and governmental hospitals are needed to compare different study findings for better preparation for the current COVID-19 as well as future pandemics.

A comparison of three thromboprophylaxis regimens in critically ill COVID-19 patients: An analysis of real-world data.

Introduction: Thrombotic complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have received considerable attention. Although numerous conflicting findings have compared escalated thromboprophylaxis doses with a standard dose to prevent thrombosis, there is a paucity of literature comparing clinical outcomes in three different anticoagulation dosing regimens. Thus, we investigated the effectiveness and safety profiles of standard, intermediate, and high-anti-coagulation dosing strategies in COVID-19 critically ill patients. Methodology: This retrospective multicenter cohort study of intensive care unit (ICU) patients from the period of April 2020 to August 2021 in four Saudi Arabian centers. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years, diagnosis with severe or critical COVID-19 infection, and receiving prophylactic anticoagulant dose within 24-48 h of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was a composite of thrombotic events, with mortality rate and minor or major bleeding serving as secondary endpoints. We applied survival analyses with a matching weights procedure to control for confounding variables in the three arms. Results: A total of 811 patient records were reviewed, with 551 (standard-dose = 192, intermediate-dose = 180, and high-dose = 179) included in the analysis. After using weights matching, we found that the standard-dose group was not associated with an increase in the composite thrombotic events endpoint when compared to the intermediate-dose group {19.8 vs. 25%; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) =1.46, [95% confidence of interval (CI), 0.94-2.26]} or when compared to high-dose group [19.8 vs. 24%; aHR = 1.22 (95% CI, 0.88-1.72)]. Also, there were no statistically significant differences in overall in-hospital mortality between the standard-dose and the intermediate-dose group [51 vs. 53.4%; aHR = 1.4 (95% CI, 0.88-2.33)] or standard-dose and high-dose group [51 vs. 61.1%; aHR = 1.3 (95% CI, 0.83-2.20)]. Moreover, the risk of major bleeding was comparable in all three groups [standard vs. intermediate: 4.8 vs. 2.8%; aHR = 0.8 (95% CI, 0.23-2.74); standard vs. high: 4.8 vs. 9%; aHR = 2.1 (95% CI, 0.79-5.80)]. However, intermediate-dose and high-dose were both associated with an increase in minor bleeding incidence with aHR = 2.9 (95% CI, 1.26-6.80) and aHR = 3.9 (95% CI, 1.73-8.76), respectively. Conclusion: Among COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU, the three dosing regimens did not significantly affect the composite of thrombotic events and mortality. Compared with the standard-dose regimen, intermediate and high-dosing thromboprophylaxis were associated with a higher risk of minor but not major bleeding. Thus, these data recommend a standard dose as the preferred regimen.

Tocilizumab effectiveness in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (T-MVC-19 Study): a multicenter real-world evidence.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of tocilizumab in mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective multicenter study included adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from nasopharyngeal swab, and requiring invasive mechanical ventilation during admission. Survival analyses with inverse propensity score treatment weighting (IPTW) and propensity score matching (PSM) were conducted. To account for immortal bias, we used Cox proportional modeling with time-dependent covariance. Competing risk analysis was performed for the extubation endpoint. RESULTS: A total of 556 (tocilizumab = 193, control = 363) patients were included. Males constituted the majority of the participants (69.2% in tocilizumab arm,74.1% in control arm). Tocilizumab was not associated with a reduction in mortality with hazard ratio [(HR) = 0.82,95% confidence interval (95%CI): 0.62-1.10] in the Inverse propensity score weighting (IPTW) analysis and (HR = 0.86,95% CI: 0.64-1.16) in the PSM analysis. However, tocilizumab was associated with an increased rate of extubation (33.6%) compared to the control arm (11.9%); subdistributional hazards (SHR) = 3.1, 95% CI: 1.86-5.16). CONCLUSIONS: Although tocilizumab was not found to be effective in reducing mortality, extubation rate while on mechanical ventilation was higher among tocilizumab treated group.

Safety and Efficacy of Daptomycin in Neonates with Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci: Case Series Analysis.

There has been an increase in the prevalence of gram-positive bacteremia in neonates in the last two decades. However, as a consequence of better care, there has been an increase in the survival of premature neonates. Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) is the most prevalent bacteria, responsible for up to 60% of late-onset sepsis (LOS). Daptomycin, a lipopeptide antimicrobial agent, is active against CoNS. This was an observational, retrospective case series study carried out in the Pediatric Hospital of King Saud Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The medical records of 21 neonates, aged 0-28 days, who were treated in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) with intravenous daptomycin as monotherapy or combination therapy for at least 4 days for proven gram-positive infection between June 2019 to July 2020, were included. The median gestational and chronological age were 27 weeks and 5 days, respectively. The most frequent diagnosis in neonates was infective endocarditis (42.9%). Of the 21 patients who received daptomycin therapy, 13 (62%) recovered and 8 died. The clinical cure rate was higher in Staphylococcus hominis (100%) and in patients who received 6 mg/kg/dose twice daily (62.5%). The mean of aspartate aminotransferase significantly elevated after starting daptomycin (p = 0.048). However, no muscular or neurological toxicity of daptomycin was documented in any of the cases. Overall, daptomycin was well tolerated, even with long-term treatment.

Role of Daucus carota in Enhancing Antiulcer Profile of Pantoprazole in Experimental Animals.

The carrot plant (Daucus carota) and its components are traditionally reported for the management of gastric ulcers. This study was performed to evaluate the role of carrot when administered concurrently with a conventional antiulcer treatment, pantoprazole, in alleviating gastric and duodenal ulcers in female experimental animals. The study involved standard animal models to determine the ulcer preventive effect using pylorus ligation, ethanol, and stress induced acute gastric ulcer models and duodenal ulcer models involving cysteamine. Acetic acid-induced chronic gastric ulcer and indomethacin-induced gastric ulcer models were used to evaluate the ulcer healing effect. Carrot fruit (500 mg/kg) and its co-administration with pantoprazole produced significant protection in an ethanol- and stress-induced acute gastric ulcer and cysteamine-induced duodenal ulcer. The healing of the acetic acid-induced chronic gastric ulcer was also augmented with this combination. Both total proteins and mucin contents were significantly increased in indomethacin-induced gastric ulcers. Similarly, in pylorus ligation, the pepsin content of gastric juice, total acidity, and free acidity were reduced. Overall, both ulcer preventive effects and ulcer healing properties of the pantoprazole were significantly enhanced in animals who received the co-administration of carrot fruit (500 mg/kg).