Zainab Alalawi

Zainab Alalawi


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

7Years (2020-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
3 June 2021 in Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Saad AlhumaidSaad Alhumaid
Saad Alhumaid
AMAbbas Al Mutair
Abbas Al Mutair
ZAZainab Alalawi
Zainab Alalawi
MAMurtadha Alsuliman
Murtadha Alsuliman
GAGasmelseed Ahmed
Gasmelseed Ahmed
AAAwad Al-Omari
Awad Al-Omari
Background: Knowledge of infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures among healthcare workers (HCWs) is crucial for effective IPC. Compliance with IPC measures has critical implications for HCWs safety, patient protection and the care environment.Aims: To discuss the body of available literature regarding HCWs' knowledge of IPC and highlight potential factors that may influence compliance to IPC precautions.Design: A systematic review. A protocol was developed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis [PRISMA] statement.Data sources: Electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Proquest, Wiley online library, Medline, and Nature) were searched from 1 January 2006 to 31 January 2021 in the English language using the following keywords alone or in combination:knowledge, awareness, healthcare workers, infection, compliance, comply, control, prevention, factors. 3417 papers were identified and 30 papers were included in the review.Results: Overall, the level of HCW knowledge of IPC appears to be adequate, good, and/or high concerning standard precautions, hand hygiene, and care pertaining to urinary catheters. Acceptable levels of knowledge were also detected in regards to IPC measures for specific diseases including TB, MRSA, MERS-CoV, COVID-19 and Ebola. However, gaps were identified in several HCWs' knowledge concerning occupational vaccinations, the modes of transmission of infectious diseases, and the risk of infection from needle stick and sharps injuries. Several factors for noncompliance surrounding IPC guidelines are discussed, as are recommendations for improving adherence to those guidelines.Conclusion: Embracing a multifaceted approach towards improving IPC-intervention strategies is highly suggested. The goal being to improve compliance among HCWs with IPC measures is necessary.

Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Saad AlhumaidSaad Alhumaid
Saad Alhumaid
AMAbbas Al Mutair
Abbas Al Mutair
ZAZainab Alalawi
Zainab Alalawi
NANaif Alhmeed
Naif Alhmeed
Abdul Rehman Zia ZaidiAbdul Rehman Zia Zaidi
Abdul Rehman Zia Zaidi
Mansour TobaiqyMansour Tobaiqy
Mansour Tobaiqy
(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.