Browsing by Author "Al-Tawfiq, Jaffar A."
Now showing 1 - 10 of 118
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Adenovirus and RNA-based COVID-19 vaccines’ perceptions and acceptance among healthcare workers in Saudi Arabia: a national survey(BMJ, 2021-06) Temsah, Mohamad-Hani; Barry, Mazin; Aljamaan, Fadi; Alhuzaimi, Abdullah; Al-Eyadhy, Ayman; Saddik, Basema; Alrabiaah, Abdulkarim; Alsohime, Fahad; Alhaboob, Ali; Alhasan, Khalid; Alaraj, Ali; Halwani, Rabih; Alamro, Nurah Maziad; Al-Shahrani, Fatimah S.; Jamal, Amr; Alsubaie, Sarah; Memish, Ziad A.; Al-Tawfiq, Jaffar A.; Medicine, School of MedicineObjectives The aim of this study was to compare the perception, confidence, hesitancy and acceptance rate of various COVID-19 vaccine types among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Saudi Arabia, a nation with Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus experience. Design National cross-sectional, pilot-validated questionnaire. Setting Online, self-administered questionnaire among HCWs. Participants A total of 2007 HCWs working in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia participated; 1512 (75.3%) participants completed the survey and were included in the analysis. Intervention Data were collected through an online survey sent to HCWs during 1–15 November 2020. The main outcome measure was HCW acceptance of COVID-19 candidate vaccines. The associated factors of vaccination acceptance were identified through a logistic regression analysis and via measurement of the level of anxiety, using the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7 scale. Results Among the 1512 HCWs who were included, 62.4% were women, 70.3% were between 21 and 40 years of age, and the majority (62.2%) were from tertiary hospitals. In addition, 59.5% reported knowing about at least one vaccine; 24.4% of the participants were sure about their willingness to receive the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, and 20.9% were willing to receive the RNA BNT162b2 vaccine. However, 18.3% reported that they would refuse to receive the Ad5-vectored vaccine, and 17.9% would refuse the Gam-COVID-Vac vaccine. Factors that influenced the differential readiness of HCWs included their perceptions of the vaccine’s efficiency in preventing the infection (33%), their personal preferences (29%) and the vaccine’s manufacturing country (28.6%). Conclusions Awareness by HCWs of the several COVID-19 candidate vaccines could improve their perceptions and acceptance of vaccination. Reliable sources on vaccine efficiency could improve vaccine uptake, so healthcare authorities should use reliable information to decrease vaccine hesitancy among frontline healthcare providers.Item Anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis(BMC, 2021-10) Alhumaid, Saad; Al Mutair, Abbas; Al Alawi, Zainab; Rabaan, Ali A.; Tirupathi, Raghavendra; Alomari, Mohammed A.; Alshakhes, Aqeel S.; Alshawi, Abeer M.; Ahmed, Gasmelseed Y.; Almusabeh, Hassan M.; Alghareeb, Tariq T.; Alghuwainem, Abdulaziz A.; Alsulaiman, Zainab A.; Alabdulmuhsin, Mohammed A.; AlBuwaidi, Emad A.; Dukhi, Amjad K. Bu; Mufti, Hani N.; Al-Qahtani, Manaf; Dhama, Kuldeep; Al-Tawfiq, Jaffar A.; Al-Omari, Awad; Medicine, School of MedicineBackground 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.Item Antibiotics in the pipeline: a literature review (2017–2020)(Springer, 2021-10-04) Al-Tawfiq, Jaffar A.; Momattin, Hisham; Al-Ali, Anfal Y.; Eljaaly, Khalid; Tirupathi, Raghavendra; Haradwala, Mohamed Bilal; Areti, Swetha; Alhumaid, Saad; Rabaan, Ali A.; Al Mutair, Abbas; Schlagenhauf, Patricia; Medicine, School of MedicineIntroduction Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is an emerging global threat. It increases mortality and morbidity and strains healthcare systems. Health care professionals can counter the rising AMR by promoting antibiotic stewardship and facilitating new drug development. Even with the economic and scientific challenges, it is reassuring that new agents continue to be developed. Methods This review addresses new antibiotics in the pipeline. We conducted a review of the literature including Medline, Clinicaltrials.org, and relevant pharmaceutical companies for approved and in pipeline antibiotics in phase 3 or new drug application (NDA). Results We found a number of new antibiotics and reviewed their current development status, mode of action, spectra of activity, and indications for which they have been approved. The included studies from phase 3 clinical trials were mainly utilized for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, and pneumonia acquired in the healthcare settings. The number of these agents is limited against high priority organisms. The identified antibiotics were based mainly on previously known molecules or pre-existing antimicrobial agents. Conclusion There are a limited number of antibiotics against high priority organisms such as multi-drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. New antimicrobial agents directed against the top priority organisms as classified by the World Health Organization are urgently needed.Item Antiretroviral therapy, CD4, viral load, and disease stage in HIV patients in Saudi Arabia: a 2001–2013 cross-sectional study(JIDC, 2015-07) Memish, Ziad A.; Al-Tawfiq, Jaffar A.; Filemban, Sanaa M.; Qutb, Sayed; Fodail, Abdullah; Ali, Batol; Darweeish, May; Department of Medicine, IU School of MedicineIntroduction: The incidence of HIV/AIDS is increasing worldwide and in the Middle East. In this study, we analyzed the use of antiretroviral therapy (ART), the patterns of CD4 and viral load (VL), and stage of presentation. Methodology: Laboratory variables, ART use, and CD4 count were obtained and analyzed retrospectively. Results: A total of 997 cases from eight HIV/AIDS care providers were included. Of the total cases, 274 (28.3%) had a CD4 count of < 200 cells/mm3, and 413 (42.3%) had a viral load of > 5 log10. Of the total cases, 50% were on highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), and the majority of cases were asymptomatic (70%). Of those patients on ART, 247 (39.5%) took tenofovir/emtricitabine combined with either efavirenz (147; 14.7%) or lopinavir/ritonavir (100; 10%), and 158 (15.8%) were on lamivudine and zidovudine with either efavirenz (32; 3.2%) or lopinavir/ritonavir (126; 12.6%). Other combinations were used in 70 (7%) patients. The mean (± standard deviation) of baseline CD4 and viral load were 401 cells/mm3 (322 cells/mm3) and 4.6 log1010 (1.3 log10), respectively. At diagnosis, 72% of patients were asymptomatic; 50% had AIDS and 20% had CD4 count < 350. Conclusions: ART use was in line with international guidelines, but the number of patients receiving ART was lower than expected. Large proportions of cases presented late with AIDS at diagnosis or had CD4 < 350. Further data is needed to evaluate the medical care of patients with HIV/AIDS in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.Item Asymptomatic coronavirus infection: MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19)(Elsevier, 2020-05) Al-Tawfiq, Jaffar A.; Medicine, School of MedicineItem Benchmarking of antibiotic usage: An adjustment to reflect antibiotic stewardship program outcome in a hospital in Saudi Arabia(Elsevier, 2017) Momattin, Hisham; Al-Ali, Anfal Y.; Mohammed, Khurram; Al-Tawfiq, Jaffar A.; Medicine, School of MedicineAntimicrobial stewardship program aims to reduce antibiotic use. Periodic measurement and monitoring of antibiotic use and comparison within the institution as well as with other organizations are important indicators. We analyzed antibiotic usage in a general hospital in Saudi Arabia. Antibiotic data were collected retrospectively for 2011 and from 2013 to 2015, and only adult patients (>15 year of age) were included in the study. Data were presented as days of therapy (DOT) and defined daily dose (DDD). DDD was adjusted per 100 bed-days and according to the case mix index (CMI). The total DDD was 37,557 in 2013, 36,550 in 2014 and 38,738 in 2015. The DDD per 100 patient-days was 90.7–94.5. There was a discordant findings of antibiotic measurements based on the DDD compared to DOT, and DDD/100 bed-days compared to DOT/100 bed-days. There was a negative correlation between CMI and DDD per 100 bed days (r −0.696), but a positive correlation of CMI with DOT (r +0.93). Adjusted DDD/100 bed-days showed decrease in the usage of antibiotics, reflecting activities of the antibiotic stewardship program. The increase in DOT/100 bed-days may indicate the favorable utilization of combination therapy. Antibiotic usage needs to be adjusted per 100 bed-days and correlated with CMI for better reflection of optimal antibiotic utilization, activities of the antibiotic stewardship program, and to allow benchmarking.Item The calm before the storm: clinical observations of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) patients(Taylor & Francis, 2018) Al-Tawfiq, Jaffar A.; Hinedi, Kareem; Medicine, School of MedicineBackground: Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infection emerged in 2012. The majority of cases occurred in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the disease carries a high case fatality rate. Methods: We present three MERS-CoV cases and highlight the salient clinical features and laboratory, and radiographic characteristics. Results: Although all nasopharyngeal samples were negative, MERS CoV infection was confirmed by reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction of the E gene (UpE) and open reading frame (ORF1b) on sputum samples. The Ct value of the ORF1 gene was 24.8–29.11. One patient had been on immune suppressive agent and two patients had diabetes mellitus. The average length of hospital stay was 10.6 days. Two patients received ribavirin and IFN-a2b in addition to supportive management. The clinical course for these patients started with a febrile period lasting five days, a reduction in fever was coinciding with increased respiratory rate and oxygen requirements. All patients were discharged home. None of the 50 contacts tested positive for MERS-CoV. Conclusion:Resolution of the fever was accompanied by an increase in oxygen requirements and respiratory rate also lasting several days. This was followed by resolution of all symptoms and return to normal.Item Can Influenza Vaccine Modify COVID-19 Clinical Course?(Elsevier, 2020-09) Eldanasory, Omar Abdelhay; Rabaan, Ali A.; Al-Tawfiq, Jaffar A.; Medicine, School of MedicineItem A Case Series of Severe Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients Treated with Tocilizumab and Glucocorticoids: A Report from Saudi Arabian Hospital(Atlantis Press, 2021-01-22) Al Bahrani, Salma Yassin; Al-Tawfiq, Jaffar A.; Alshaer, Abdulaziz R.; Shilash, Amal; Alswefy, Khalid; Al-Zayer, Razan Salamah; Abouelela, Amr Mohamed; Medicine, School of MedicineBackground: The clinical spectrum of COVID-19 is variable and ranges from asymptomatic, mildly symptomatic, moderately severe and severe disease. A small proportion might develop severe disease and may have cytokine storm. One of the therapeutic options to treat such cases is Tocilizumab (TCZ). In this study, we present cases of severe COVID-19 treated with TCZ and glucocorticoids and discuss the treatment responses. Methods: This is a retrospective observational study of severe COVID-19 cases treated with TCZ and glucocorticoids. The case series examined the characteristics and outcome of those patients. Results: This study included 40 Severe Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) confirmed patients who received TCZ and glucocorticoids. The mean age of the included patients was 57.55 (±Standard deviation 12.86) years. There were 34 (85%) males, 19 (47.5%) were obese (BMI >30), 13 (32.5%) over weight, and five (12.5%) normal weight. The mean days from positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test to admission was 1.641 (±3.2) days. Of the patients, 18 (45%) had diabetes mellitus, 14 (35%) had hypertension. The mean days from hospital admission to ICU was 1.8 (±2.6), 20 (50%) required mechanical ventilation, 39 (97.5%) had received prone position, seven (17.5%) had renal replacement therapy, 13 (32.5%) required inotropes, four (10%) had plasmapheresis, one (2.5%) had intravenous immunoglobulin, all patients received steroid therapy, and the majority 31 (77.5%) did not receive any anti-viral therapy. Of all the patients, six (15%) died, 28 (70%) were discharged and six (15%) were still in hospital. Conclusion: The overall mortality rate was lower than those cited in meta-analysis. As our understanding of the COVID-19 continues, the approach and therapeutics are also evolving.Item Changes in healthcare managing COVID and non-COVID-19 patients during the pandemic: striking the balance(Elsevier, 2020-07-18) Al-Tawfiq, Jaffar A.; Al-Yami, Saeed S.; Rigamonti, Daniele; Department of Medicine, IU School of MedicineFollowing the emergence of the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic, healthcare organizations began concentrating on the preparation for and management of the surge of COVID-19 cases while trying to protect the healthcare workers and other patients from getting COVID-19. Changing the way people work requires innovative approaches and questioning some long-held medical practices. There are multiple factors contributing to the apparent reduced utilization of healthcare services to non–COVID-19 patients. The current world crisis is highlighting the need of re-engineering the way we deliver inpatient and outpatient health care, including bolstering social support, in order to be prepared when the next calamity will present itself.