Real-time RT-PCR is considered the gold standard confirmatory test for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, many scientists disagree, and it is essential to understand that several factors and variables can cause a false-negative test. In this context, cycle threshold (Ct) values are being utilized to diagnose or predict SARS-CoV-2 infection. This practice has a significant clinical utility as Ct values can be correlated with the viral load. In addition, Ct values have a strong correlation with multiple haematological and biochemical markers. However, it is essential to consider that Ct values might be affected by pre-analytic, analytic, and post-analytical variables such as collection technique, specimen type, sampling time, viral kinetics, transport and storage conditions, nucleic acid extraction, viral RNA load, primer designing, real-time PCR efficiency, and Ct value determination method. Therefore, understanding the interpretation of Ct values and other influential factors could play a crucial role in interpreting viral load and disease severity. In several clinical studies consisting of small or large sample sizes, several discrepancies exist regarding a significant positive correlation between the Ct value and disease severity in COVID-19. In this context, a revised review of the literature has been conducted to fill the knowledge gaps regarding the correlations between Ct values and severity/fatality rates of patients with COVID-19. Various databases such as PubMed, Science Direct, Medline, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched up to April 2021 by using keywords including “RT-PCR or viral load”, “SARS-CoV-2 and RT-PCR”, “Ct value and viral load”, “Ct value or COVID-19”. Research articles were extracted and selected independently by the authors and included in the present review based on their relevance to the study. The current narrative review explores the correlation of Ct values with mortality, disease progression, severity, and infectivity. We also discuss the factors that can affect these values, such as collection technique, type of swab, sampling method, etc.

Worldwide, hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) are continuously rising within healthcare settings, leading to high mortality and morbidity rates. Many hospitals have reported the spread of carbapenemases globally, specifically within the E. coli and K. pneumoniae species. This study was aimed at analyzing the state of hospital-acquired, carbapenem-resistant E. coli and K. pneumoniae in the United Kingdom between 2009 and 2021. Moreover, the study analyzed the most efficacious approaches to patient management for controlling the carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) spread. Initially, 1094 articles were identified as relevant for screening, and among them, 49 papers were eligible for full-text screening, with a total of 14 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. The information was recorded from published articles through PubMed, the Web of Science, Scopus, Science Direct, and the Cochrane library and was used to search for hospital-acquired carbapenem-resistant E. coli and K pneumoniae in the UK between 2009 and 2021, in order to evaluate the spread of CRE in hospitals. The total number of carbapenem-resistant E. coli was 1083 and this was 2053 for carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae in more than 63 UK hospitals. KPC was the dominant carbapenemase produced by K. pneumoniae. The results showed that the treatment options considered depended on the type of carbapenemase produced; K. pneumoniae showed more resistance to a treatment options, i.e., Colistin, than the other carbapenemase. The current state of the UK is at minimal risk for a CRE outbreak; however, appropriate treatment and infection control measures are highly required to prevent this CRE spread at the regional and global levels. The present study findings have an important message for physicians, healthcare workers, and policymakers about hospital-acquired carbapenem-resistant E. coli and K. pneumoniae spread and approaches to patient management.

A significant opportunistic pathogen, Acinetobacter baumannii (A. baumannii) has evolved mechanisms of resistance to a wide variety of antimicrobials, including carbapenems. In this article, we assessed the prevalence, risk factors, antimicrobial sensitivity, and resistance mechanisms among A. baumannii in several locations in Saudi Arabia. Hospital-acquired infections caused by A. baumannii were prevalent in the country due to a variety of reasons, such as the high number of critically ill patients, the frequency of gastrointestinal colonization, and the widespread use of antimicrobial medications. There has been an increase in the frequency of A. baumannii strains that are resistant to several antimicrobials, including carbapenems. Hospitals are a breeding ground for multidrug-resistant A. baumannii due to the widespread use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, the potential for patient-to-patient transmission of the bacteria, the high risk of infection during invasive intensive care unit procedures, and the high frequency with which diabetic and cancer patients in hospitals undergo invasive diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Combinations of colistin and tigecycline with carbapenems or other antibiotics remain the best treatment option and are relatively safe to treat patients with multidrug resistance (MDR) A. baumannii infections, despite the rising incidence of resistance to these drugs observed in many hospitals. The prevalence of multidrug-resistant A. baumannii in Saudi hospitals calls for in-depth research into the underlying molecular mechanisms of multidrug resistance. In addition, a better understanding of A. baumannii resistance patterns and the establishment of a treatment protocol to reduce the infection burden in Saudi Arabia could benefit from the implementation of a local antibiogram database in tandem with a national antimicrobial stewardship and infection prevention program.

Background: Antimicrobial resistance has highlighted the need for effective infectious disease strategies. Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) may reduce antibiotic resistance, adverse reactions, and treatment failures. This systematic review examines ASPs in Saudi Arabia, assessing their efficacy, challenges, and outcomes to improve antimicrobial use and patient care. Methods: Searches were carried out in the Ovid, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection databases for studies published from 2007 to July 2024, in Saudi Arabia, following the PRISMA guidelines. Studies that assessed ASPs’ implementation, effectiveness, and outcomes in hospital settings were included. Results: Out of the 6080 titles identified, 14 studies met the inclusion criteria, covering different regions of the country, including Riyadh, Jeddah, Dhahran, Makkah, Al-Kharj, and a multi-regional study in Qassim and Riyadh. Various interventions were implemented by the ASPs, such as educational programs, audit and feedback, switching from intravenous to oral administration, and enhanced policies. These interventions collectively led to a decrease in the overall antimicrobial consumption and cost, and a reduction in cases with multidrug-resistant bacteria. Conclusions: The findings of this review highlight the positive impact of ASPs in Saudi Arabia. However, addressing challenges such as data limitations and training gaps is essential to enhance their effectiveness. Expanding education and refining implementation strategies are crucial for ensuring their long-term success.

Introduction: Tobacco consumption is a significant public health concern and a worldwide avoidable contributor to mortality. Various alternatives have been developed to either support cessation or mitigate the impact of new tobacco products entering the market in order to address the issue. One...

The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak has caused massive damage to the global healthcare system and economy. To compete with the SARS-COV-2 pandemic, several vaccines have been proposed to immunize the population. The present study aimed to investigate the adverse effects following the three doses of COVID-19 vaccination, Pfizer (BioNTech), (Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 CoV-19), and Moderna among the adult population in the Eastern province of Saudi Arabia. In this study, the total number of participants were 426, among them 277 (65%) were females and 149 (35%) were males. An online survey using Google forms in the English language and translated into the Arabic language was used to record the information. The questionnaire was distributed to participants who received either Pfizer-BioNTech, Oxford-AstraZeneca or Moderna vaccines. The general characteristics of participants were obtained, alongside an evaluation of the vaccination’s adverse effects. The results revealed that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines caused significantly less adverse effects than Oxford–AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) and Moderna (p < 0.001), and females experienced more adverse effects after vaccination compared to males. Injection site pain was the most common adverse event among the participants (60.6%), followed by fatigue, headache, and pain (43.9%), muscle and joint pain (32.4%), increased body temperature and shivering (24.2%). In addition, the group of individuals under the age of sixty was more likely to experience side effects than the participants with other age groups. All three vaccines, Pfizer-BioNTech, Oxford–AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 CoV-19) and Moderna, cause post-vaccinal adverse effects; however, Moderna and Oxford–AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) causes adverse effects more frequently than the Pfizer-BioNTech.