Introduction: A full-scale simulation exercise is a comprehensive drill designed to replicate a real-world emergency scenario, thereby identifying the strengths and weaknesses in current practices. The overarching goal is to enhance healthcare system resilience through improved protocols, as highlighted in this systematic review tailored for researchers. The study aims specifically to assess the impact of full-scale simulations on enhancing hospital disaster plans. Methodology: Following PRISMA guidelines, this systematic review investigates the impact of full-scale simulation exercises on hospital disaster preparedness. The focus was on hospital staff involved in disaster and emergency preparedness training. The primary intervention was the execution of full-scale simulation exercises, and our research included various study designs, including randomised controlled trials and observational study designs. A comprehensive electronic database search was conducted, spanning PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception until October 9, 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using NIH tools. Results: The literature search yielded 2398 results, with 28 publications finally included in the systematic review. Summarising a broad range of disaster preparedness simulation exercises with a specific focus on full-scale simulation (FSS), the studies consistently demonstrated a positive impact on participants' skills, as well as identifying safety issues in hospital settings. Moreover, they revealed that simulations effectively addressed crucial areas for improvement in disaster response, including communication breakdowns, equipment deficiencies, and flaws in emergency plans. The studies utilised a multidimensional approach to evaluation metrics, encompassing non-technical skills, communication, teamwork, decision-making, and operational readiness. The exercises varied in duration from 30 minutes to multi-day simulations, covering a diverse range of disaster scenarios, such as mass casualties, viral epidemics, large aviation accidents, and terrorist attacks. Conclusion: Full-scale simulation exercises are a preparatory learning tool to test facility and staff readiness for complex emergencies. This systematic review focused on the different exercise scenarios used to address critical aspects of disaster response such as communication breakdowns, equipment deficiencies, and flaws in emergency plans. The scenarios and their duration were varied, and involved a multidimensional approach to evaluation. Such exercises enhance critical thinking and problem-solving skills, increase familiarity with potential emergencies, and build confidence in making judgments in real-world situations. In our opinion, there is a need for further programs that align simulation exercises with community resources for better preparedness in the face of public health disasters.

Meningococcal meningitis (MM), which is caused by the bacterium Neisseria meningitidis, represents a considerable public health concern during the Hajj and Umrah pilgrimages. The mass gathering and close quarters associated with these events create an environment that enhances the transmission of this potentially life-threatening infection. Despite mandatory vaccination policies, concerns persist regarding carriage rates and the potential for outbreaks, which are heightened by several factors. This systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the carriage of Neisseria meningitidis (NM) and its vaccination status among pilgrims. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, focusing on Muslim pilgrims of any nationality who participated in the mass gatherings of Hajj or Umrah in Makkah, Saudi Arabia. We performed a comprehensive search of four electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from their inception to April 2024. Eligible studies reported on N. meningitidis carriage prevalence, serogroups, and vaccination status among Hajj and Umrah pilgrims. The primary outcome measured was the overall carriage prevalence of Neisseria meningitidis, as determined by the time of assessment. Data were synthesized using random-effects models. Out of the 417 studies initially screened, 21 studies (23,552 participants) were included in the systematic review; while the meta-analysis consisted of nine studies. The carriage prevalence of NM before Hajj was 1.6%, increasing to 3.4% after Hajj. Prior to Hajj, the estimate of serogroup A and W was recorded at 0.003 (95% CI [−0.001, 0.006]) and 0.068; (95% CI [−0.14, 0.15]), respectively. Following Hajj, the estimate shifted to 0.001 (95% CI [0.000, 0.002]) for serogroup A and 0.072; 95% CI [0.037, 0.108]) for serogroup W. Vaccination status varied, with gaps among domestic pilgrims, along with the presence of ciprofloxacin resistance in certain strains. Saudi Arabia's commendable and sustained commitment to proactive prevention strategies during Hajj and Umrah has reduced Neisseria meningitis cases. Nonetheless, carriage variability and rising antimicrobial resistance of Neisseria meningitidis highlight the need for enhanced surveillance and alternative prophylaxis strategies for high-risk populations. The findings of this study remain inconclusive due to significant heterogeneity and underscore the need for comprehensive and well-structured primary studies to gather strong evidence.

Favipiravir is an oral antiviral, that might treat COVID-19 by enhancing viral eradication, particularly in patients with mild-to-moderate disease. Yet, the findings on the use of favipiravir in critically ill patients with COVID-19 are inconsistent. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of favipiravir in critically ill patients with COVID-19. A multicenter retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) was conducted from March 2020 to July 2021. Patients were categorized based on favipiravir use (control vs. favipiravir). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and complications during the stay. After propensity score (PS) matching (1:1 ratio), 146 patients were included in the final analysis. A higher in-hospital and 30-day mortality were observed in patients receiving favipiravir compared to the control group at crude analysis (65.3% vs. 43.8%; P-value=0.009 and 56.3% vs. 40.3; P-value=0.06, respectively); however, no differences were observed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis (HR 1.17; 95% CI 0.73, 1.87; P-value =0.51 and HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.53, 1.39; P-value=0.53, respectively). Conversely, the MV duration and ICU LOS were longer in patients who received favipiravir than the control group (β coefficient 0.51; CI 0.09, 0.92; P-value = 0.02, β coefficient 0.41; CI 0.17, 0.64; P-value = 0.0006, respectively). Complications during the stay were comparable between the two groups. The use of favipiravir in critically ill patients with COVID-19 did not demonstrate a reduction in mortality; instead, it was linked with longer MV duration and ICU stay. This finding suggests limiting favipiravir use to infections where it is more effective, other than COVID-19. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) patients are exposed to a 7.5 times higher risk of hypoglycemia while fasting during Ramadan. Relevant diabetes guidelines prioritize the use of SGLT2 inhibitors over other classes. There is a great need to enrich data on their safe and effective use by fasting patients at greater risk of hypoglycemia. Therefore, this study aims to assess the safety and tolerability of Empagliflozin in T2DM Muslim patients during Ramadan. A prospective cohort study was conducted for adult Muslim T2DM patients. Patients who met the inclusion criteria were categorized into two sub-cohorts based on Empagliflozin use during Ramadan (Control versus Empagliflozin). The primary outcomes were the incidence of hypoglycemia symptoms and confirmed hypoglycemia. Other outcomes were secondary. All patients were followed up to eight weeks post-Ramadan. A propensity score (PS) matching and Risk Ratio (RR) were used to report the outcomes. Among 1104 patients with T2DM who were screened, 220 patients were included, and Empagliflozin was given to 89 patients as an add-on to OHDs. After matching with PS (1:1 ratio), the two groups were comparable. The use of other OHDs, such as sulfonylurea, DPP4 inhibitors, and Biguanides, was not statistically different between the two groups. The risk of hypoglycemia symptoms during Ramadan was lower in patients who received Empagliflozin than in the control group (RR 0.48 CI 0.26, 0.89; p-value = 0.02). Additionally, the risk of confirmed hypoglycemia was not statistically significant between the two groups (RR 1.09 CI 0.37, 3.22; p-value = 0.89). Empagliflozin use during Ramadan fasting was associated with a lower risk of hypoglycemia symptoms and higher tolerability. Further randomized control trials are required to confirm these findings.

Background: Cesarean section (CS) has been linked to a number of negative effects, such as pain, anxiety, and sleeping problems. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the safety and efficacy of preoperative melatonin on postoperative outcomes in pregnant women who were scheduled for elective CS. Methods: We systemically searched 4 electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) from inception until 10 March 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing melatonin and placebo for postoperative outcomes in CS patients. For risk of bias assessment, we used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Continuous variables were pooled as mean difference (MD), and categorical variables were pooled as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: We included 7 studies with a total of 754 pregnant women scheduled for CS. The melatonin group had a lower pain score (MD = −1.23, 95% CI [−1.94, −0.51], p < 0.001) and longer time to first analgesic request (MD = 60.41 min, 95% CI [45.47, 75.36], p < 0.001) than the placebo group. No difference was found regarding hemoglobin levels, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, total blood loss, or adverse events. Conclusions: Preoperative melatonin may reduce postoperative pain in CS patients without side effects. This research offers a safe and affordable pain management method for this population, which has clinical consequences. Further research is needed to validate these findings and determine the best melatonin dosage and timing.