Longevity of Immunoglobulin-G Antibody Response Against Nucleocapsid Protein Against SARS-CoV-2 Among Healthcare Workers.

Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused the latest pandemic and the most significant challenge in public health worldwide. Studying the longevity of naturally developed antibodies is highly important clinically and epidemiologically. This paper assesses the longevity of antibodies developed against nucleocapsid protein amongst our health-care workers. Methods: This longitudinal cohort study was conducted at a tertiary hospital, Saudi Arabia. Anti-SARSsCoV-2 antibodies were tested among health-care workers at three-point intervals (baseline, eight weeks, and 16 weeks). Results: Of the 648 participants, 112 (17.2%) tested positive for Coronavirus (COVID-19) by PCR before the study. Of all participants, 87 (13.4%) tested positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, including 17 (2.6%) participants who never tested positive for COVID-19 using rt-PCR. Out of the 87 positive IgG participants at baseline, only 12 (13.7%) had remained positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies by the end of the study. The IgG titer showed a significant reduction in values over time, where the median time for the confirmed positive rt-PCR subgroup from infection to the last positive antibody test was 70 (95% CI: 33.4-106.5) days. Conclusion: Health-care workers are at high risk of exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and contracting an asymptomatic infection is not unlikely. Developing and sustaining natural immunity differs from one person to another, while the rate of positive IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 wanes over time. Clinicaltrialsgov Identifier: NCT04469647, July 14, 2020.

A Cohort Study of Seroprevalence of Antibodies Against SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Healthcare Workers at a Tertiary Hospital in Saudi Arabia.

Background: The nature of the healthcare workers' jobs standing at the frontline against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) puts them at a higher risk of unknowingly contracting the disease and potentially contributing to the spread. This study aims to assess the overall positive seroconversion prevalence of SARS-CoV-2. Methods: This is a longitudinal cohort study of healthcare workers at Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare (JHAH). JHAH is a tertiary hospital located in Dhahran serving patients in several districts in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. Participants were recruited between June and December 2020. Each participant had a serology blood test and completed the World Health Organization's risk factor assessment questionnaire. Results: This study included 682 participants working in JHAH, representing 15.7% of our population. Out of the 682 participants, 15.2% had a positive SARS-CoV-2 rt-PCR before taking part in the study. However, only 87 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, a prevalence of 12.7% of all participants. Out of the 87 positives for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, 17 participants never tested positive for COVID-19 rt-PCR, a prevalence of 2.9%. Moreover, not properly using alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water after the risk of body fluid exposure and wearing personal protective equipment when indicated were found to be statistically significant to having a positive SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay. Conclusion: Positive seroconversion rate was considerably low during the first wave of COVID-19 amongst JHAH's healthcare workers and similar to other healthcare organizations in Saudi Arabia. Seropositivity correlated significantly with following infection prevention and control recommendations. Clinicaltrialsgov Identifier: NCT04469647.

Comparing the use of Arabic decision aid to usual care. A multicenter randomized controlled trial for Arabic speaking metastatic colorectal cancer patients in Saudi Arabia.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of decision aids (DAs) for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients in the Arabic language. METHODS: A multi-centered randomized control trial was used to evaluate the effect of Arabic DA use with usual care for mCRC patients compared to usual care alone. Patients were recruited from 4 main oncology centers in Saudi Arabia: King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh; King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh; King Saud Medical City, Riyadh; and King Fahd Specialist Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia, between March 2016 and  October 2018. The final follow up was in April 2019. The study measured patient understanding of prognosis, treatment options, and the level of the patient's anxiety. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients were included in the analysis; 51 in the intervention group. A small proportion of both (DA with usual care and usual care) understood that mCRC was incurable (8% and 5%) of the 2 groups, respectively. There was no significant difference between groups in anxiety level; however, a time effect both initially and after one month was significantly higher than at 6 month. CONCLUSION: The study shows that a higher level of patient's baseline understanding lowered anxiety levels over time.  Decision aids group presented low levels of anxiety over time than those provided the usual care. We recommend  using Arabic DA in the oncology centers dealing with mCRC patients, aiming to empower patients in decision making.

Detailed disclosure to Saudi Arabian patients on risks related to an invasive procedure.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the effect of providing a detailed description of coronary angiography risks on obtaining informed consent from Saudi Arabian patients. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial was conducted at King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia from August 2006 to June 2007. Patients were randomized to either an information sheet containing brief information on procedure-related risks (brief sheet), or full disclosure of risks (detailed sheet). Both groups completed a brief questionnaire following exposure to either sheet. Primary endpoint was refusal to consent to coronary angiography. Secondary endpoints were anxiety following exposure to the detailed sheet and appropriateness of the amount of risk disclosure contained in both information sheets. RESULTS: One hundred and six Saudi patients were enrolled, 6 patients were later excluded. Mean age was 58 years; 45 patients (45%) were illiterate. Fifty-three patients were randomized to the brief sheet, and 47 to the detailed sheet. Only one patient (1.8%) given the brief sheet refused consent, compared to 5 patients (10.6%) given the detailed sheet (p=0.06, 95% confidence interval 1.2 to 2.8). Ninety-four patients responding to the questionnaire felt that the information given was enough, including all of the patients randomized to the brief sheet. Twenty-two patients randomized to the detailed sheet indicated increased anxiety after hearing procedure-related risks. CONCLUSION: We found no significant difference in consent status between the detailed and brief disclosure of procedure-related risk groups. Most patients did not require detailed risk disclosure.