The ongoing pandemic of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global health concern. It has affected more than 5 million patients worldwide and resulted in an alarming number of deaths globally. While clinical characteristics have been reported elsewhere, data from our region is scarce. We investigated the clinical characteristics of mild to moderate cases of COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia. This is a descriptive, cross-sectional study. Data of 401 confirmed COVID-19 patients were collected from 22 April 2020 to 21 May 2020 at five tertiary care hospitals in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The patients were divided into four groups according to age, Group 1: 0–60 years; and their clinical symptoms were compared. The median (IQR) age in years was 10.5 (1.5−16) in group I, 34 (29−41) in group II, 53 (51−56) in group III, and 66 (61−76) in group IV. Most patients were male (80%, n = 322) and of Arabian or Asian descent. The median length of stay in the hospital was 10 (8–17) days (range 3–42 days). The most common symptoms were cough (53.6%), fever (36.2%), fatigue (26.4%), dyspnea (21.9%), and sore throat (21.9%). Hypertension was the most common underlying comorbidity (14.7%), followed by obesity (11.5%), and diabetes (10%). Hypertensive patients were less likely to present with shortness of breath, cough, sputum, diarrhea, and fever. There was no significant difference in the symptoms among different age groups and comorbidities were mostly seen in the older age group. Interestingly, hypertensive patients were found to have milder symptoms and a shorter length of stay. Further larger collaborative national studies are required to effectively understand clinical characteristics in our part of the world to efficiently manage and control the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Background: Population-based studies from several countries have constantly shown excessively high rates of medication errors and avoidable deaths. An efficient medication error reporting system is the backbone of reliable practice and a measure of progress towards achieving safety. Improvement efforts and system changes of medication error reporting systems should be targeted towards reductions in the likelihood of injury to future patients. However, the aim of this review is to provide a summary of medication errors reporting culture, incidence reporting systems, creating effective reporting methods, analysis of medication error reports, and recommendations to improve medication errors reporting systems. Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, Ovid, EBSCOhost, EMBASE, and ProQuest) were examined from 1 January 1998 to 30 June 2020. 180 articles were found and 60 papers were ultimately included in the review. Data were mined by two reviewers and verified by two other reviewers. The search yielded 684 articles, which were then reduced to 60 after the deletion of duplicates via vetting of titles, abstracts, and full-text papers. Results: Studies were principally from the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Limited studies were from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Korea, Japan, Greece, France, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Detection, measurement, and analysis of medication errors require an active rather than a passive approach. Efforts are needed to encourage medication error reporting, including involving staff in opportunities for improvement and the determination of root cause(s). The National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention taxonomy is a classification system to describe and analyze the details around individual medication error events. Conclusion: A successful medication error reporting program should be safe for the reporter, result in constructive and useful recommendations and effective changes while being inclusive of everyone and supported with required resources. Health organizations need to adopt an effectual reporting environment for the medication use process in order to advance into a sounder practice.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) emerged from China in December 2019 and has presented as a substantial and serious threat to global health. We aimed to describe the clinical, epidemiological, and laboratory findings of patients in Saudi Arabia infected with SARS-CoV-2 to direct us in helping prevent and treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) across Saudi Arabia and around the world. Materials and methods: Clinical, epidemiological, laboratory, and radiological characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of pediatric and adult patients in five hospitals in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, were surveyed in this study. Results: 401 patients (mean age 38.16 ± 13.43 years) were identified to be SARS-CoV-2 positive and 80% of cases were male. 160 patients had moderate severity and 241 were mild in severity. The most common signs and symptoms at presentation were cough, fever, fatigue, and shortness of breath. Neutrophil and lymphocyte counts, aspartate aminotransferase, C-reactive protein, and ferritin were higher in the COVID-19 moderate severity patient group. Mild severity patients spent a shorter duration hospitalized and had slightly higher percentages of abnormal CT scans and X-ray imaging. Conclusions: This study provides an understanding of the features of non-ICU COVID-19 patients in Saudi Arabia. Further national collaborative studies are needed to streamline screening and treatment procedures for COVID-19.

Background. Pregnancy is one of the major risk factors for the development of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Objective. To elucidate the circumstances surrounding pregnancy‐induced deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), assess potential factors triggering thrombosis (e.g., thrombophilia, obesity, age, parity, and family history), initial and long‐term management, and assess recurrence rate and mortality for VTE in pregnant Saudi women. Methods. A retrospective chart review of 180 patients with objectively confirmed VTE (DVT, PE, or both) that occurred during pregnancy, or the postpartum period was conducted. All patients who experienced episodes of objectively confirmed VTE were included. Results. Overall, 180 patients were included. Further, 60% (n = 109) and 40% (n = 71) of the VTE cases occurred during the postpartum and antenatal periods, respectively. Cesarean section was the most prevalent risk factor among study participants (n = 86 (47.8%)), followed by obesity (n = 73 (40.6%)). The most common clinical presentations were lower leg pain (57.2%) and lower limb swelling (54.4%). VTE recurrences were observed in approximately 11% of the participants, and maternal mortality occurred in 2 (1.1%) cases. Conclusion. Pregnancy was the most common provoking factor for VTE in our study. Pregnant women should undergo formal, written assessments of risk factors for VTE at the first visit and delivery. Larger studies with a randomized design, and control groups are required to confirm the current findings.

(Background) Lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/RTV) is a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) antiviral combination that has been considered for the treatment of COVID-19 disease. (Aim) This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of LPV/RTV in COVID-19 patients in the published research. (Methods) A protocol was developed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Articles were selected for review from 8 electronic databases. This review evaluated the effects of LPV/RTV alone or in combination with standard care ± interferons/antiviral treatments compared to other therapies, regarding duration of hospital stay, risk of progressing to invasive mechanical, time to virological cure and body temperature normalization, cough relief, radiological progression, mortality and safety. (Results) A consensus was reached to select 32 articles for full-text screening; only 14 articles comprising 9036 patients were included in this study; and eight of these were included for meta-analysis. Most of these studies did not report positive clinical outcomes with LPV/RTV treatment. In terms of virological cure, three studies reported less time in days to achieve a virological cure for LPV/RTV arm relative to no antiviral treatment (−0.81 day; 95% confidence interval (CI), −4.44 to 2.81; p = 0.007, I² = 80%). However, the overall effect was not significant (p = 0.66). When comparing the LPV/RTV arm to umifenovir arm, a favorable affect was observed for umifenovir arm, but not statically significant (p = 0.09). In terms of time to body normalization and cough relief, no favorable effects of LPV/RTV versus umifenovir were observed. The largest trials (RECOVERY and SOLIDARITY) have shown that LPV/RTV failed to reduce mortality, initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation or hospitalization duration. Adverse events were reported most frequently for LPV/RTV (n = 84) relative to other antivirals and no antiviral treatments. (Conclusions) This review did not reveal any significant advantage in efficacy of LPV/RTV for the treatment of COVID-19 over standard care, no antivirals or other antiviral treatments. This result might not reflect the actual evidence.