This review seeks to establish, through the recent available literature, the prevalence of therapeutic intensification delay and its sequences in poorly controlled Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) patients. The strategy identified studies exploring the clinical inertia and its associated factors in the treatment of patients with T2DM. A total of 25 studies meeting the pre-established quality criteria were included in this review. These studies were conducted between 2004 and 2021 and represented 575,067 patients diagnosed with T2DM. Trusted electronic bibliographic databases, including Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, were used to collect studies by utilizing a comprehensive set of search terms to identify Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms. Most o the studies included in this review showed clinical inertia rates over 50% of T2DM patients. In the USA, clinical inertia ranged from 35.4% to 85.8%. In the UK, clinical inertia ranged from 22.1% to 69.1%. In Spain, clinical inertia ranged from 18.1% to 60%. In Canada, Brazil, and Thailand, clinical inertia was reported as 65.8%, 68%, and 68.4%, respectively. The highest clinical inertia was reported in the USA (85.8%). A significant number of patients with T2DM suffered from poor glycemic control for quite a long time before treatment intensification with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) or insulin. Barriers to treatment intensification exist at the provider, patient, and system levels. There are deficiencies pointed out by this review at specialized centers in terms of clinical inertia in the management of T2DM including in developed countries. This review shows that the earlier intensification in the T2DM treatment is appropriate to address issues around therapeutic inertia.

Objectives: This study aims to assess COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, uptake, and hesitancy among parents and caregivers of children in Saudi Arabia during the initial rollout of pediatric COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: An electronic survey was used to collect data from participants who visited a COVID-19 vaccine center. The survey included demographic data, COVID-19 vaccine status among participants and their children, and reasons for vaccine acceptance or rejection. The Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS) tool was also employed to assess vaccine hesitancy and attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine and routine childhood vaccination. Multivariate binary regression analysis was used to identify predictors of actual COVID-19 vaccine uptake among children. Results: Of the 873 respondents included in the analysis, 61.5% were parents and 38.5% were other caregivers. Of the participants, 96.9% had received the COVID-19 vaccine. Six hundred and ninety-four participants accepted the vaccine for their children, with the main reasons being an endorsement by the Saudi Ministry of Health (60%) and the importance of going back to school (55%). One hundred and seventy-nine participants would not vaccinate their children, with the most common reasons being fear of adverse effects (49%) and inadequate data about vaccine safety (48%). Factors such as age, COVID-19 vaccination status, self-rated family commitment level, attitudes toward routine children’s vaccines, and participants’ generalized anxiety disorder (GAD7) score did not significantly correlate with children’s COVID-19 vaccination status. Parents were less likely to vaccinate their children compared to other caregivers, and participants with a higher socioeconomic status were more likely to vaccinate their children. Conclusion: Vaccine acceptance and uptake were high during the initial pediatric COVID-19 vaccination rollout in Saudi Arabia. Still, the ongoing endorsement of the Ministry of Health and healthcare authorities should continue to advocate for better vaccine uptake in children.

Purpose: Smartphone addiction is prevalent among medical students, and there is a concern that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic fueled a rise in smartphone addiction. Earlier studies suggest a link between excessive smartphone usage and negative outcomes such as depression, stress, and reduced academic achievement. However, there is a dearth of both local studies in Saudi Arabia and studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic exploring the prevalence of smartphone addiction and its association with academic performance, depression, and perceived stress, which is the purpose of the current study. Methods: In 2021, a cross-sectional research project took place among medical students at King Saud University and the Vision Colleges located in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. An online self-administered questionnaire consisting of demographic variables, grade point average (GPA), the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), the Perceived Stress Scale-4 (PSS-4), and the Smartphone Addiction Scale—Short Version (SAS-SV) was deployed. Results: Three hundred and fifteen students participated. Around 47.9% of students reported smartphone addiction, and the mean SAS-SV score was 32.31 ± 12.01 points. Both PHQ-9 and PSS-4 scores showed a significant positive correlation with the SAS-SV score (r = 0.216, p < 0.001 and r = 247, p < 0.001, respectively), while GPA did not (r = −0.027, p = 0.639). An adjusted analysis showed that the PSS-4 score was positively associated with the SAS-SV score (odds ratio (OR) = 1.206, p < 0.001), while the PHQ-9 score was not (OR = 102, p = 0.285). Conclusions: Smartphone addiction is prevalent among medical students and associated with perceived stress. Additional research is required to gain a deeper comprehension of this issue and to assess the success of intervention initiatives aimed at encouraging healthy smartphone usage, particularly in times of crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Limited reports addressing physicians’ understanding of the various low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets/statin intensity required for treating the various dyslipidemia patient populations in Saudi Arabia are available. Therefore, the current study assessed the perceptions and beliefs of practicing clinicians in Saudi Arabia regarding the current practice for management of dyslipidemia and potential perceived barriers to adherence to lipid guidelines encountered in their regular clinical practice. Knowledge of different clinical practices and beliefs could have a positive impact on improving the quality of future care provided by physicians. A survey questionnaire was designed to assess physicians’ familiarity, usage, and adherence to seven different international guidelines and used to evaluate the management of dyslipidemia, practice of patient treatment, and perceived obstacles to adhering to lipid guidelines related to specific patients, doctors, and practice issues. A total of 467 physicians were recruited for the study: (1) 57.2% were primary care physicians (PCPs) and (2) 42.8% were specialists. About 90.8% of them followed lipid guidelines of which the most common set were based on those by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association. The most utilized risk assessment tool was the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk calculator. About 60% of the physicians set an LDL-C target for their patients based on a combination of patients’ risk factors and lipid profiles. In all, 42.1% of the physicians chose not to change existing therapy among patients with dyslipidemia to attain a non-high-density lipoprotein goal with controlled LDL-C level. Atorvastatin accounted for the greatest percentage of primary and secondary prevention choices (71.9% and 69.6%, respectively). Rosuvastatin was mostly preferred by physicians for patients with familial hypercholesterolemia. About two-thirds of the physicians (77.9%) prescribed statins to diabetic patients aged 40–75 years. Statin intolerance was encountered by 62.9% of the physicians in ≤ 10% of patients by 62.9%. Therapeutic strategies included switching to an alternative statin (40.1%) followed by reducing the statin dose (35.3%). Ezetimibe was prescribed by most physicians (77.9%) as an add-on to statin if the LDL-C target was not achieved. Fibrate was most preferred by physicians (62.7%) for hypertriglyceremia treatment followed by statins (28.7% of the physicians). Sixty-six percent reported not using proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 serine protease inhibitors in their clinical practice due to unavailability at their institute (51.8%), high costs (26.3%), and/or lack of knowledge (20.6%). Perceived barriers to guideline adherence identified by physicians were lack of familiarity and knowledge of the guidelines, patient non-adherence, medication costs, and lack of timely follow-up appointments and educational tools. Multiple similarities and differences were observed after comparisons were made between specialists and PCPs in terms of guideline preference, clinical practice, and perceived barriers. Different perceptions and attitudes among physicians in Saudi Arabia were found due to variable recommendations by international lipid guidelines. Perceived barriers that included the patient, physician, and practice were identified by physicians at multiple levels. Multiple challenges and different action gaps were observed when comparing specialists to PCPs. It is recommended that standardized practices be followed by clinicians in Saudi Arabia, and actions to address the outlined barriers are essential for optimizing health outcomes and ASCVD prevention.

Background: Metabolic syndrome is present in a subset of individuals harboring a constellation of metabolic risk factors that heightens their likelihood of developing coronary artery disease. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) manifests through the incremental accumulation of fat within liver cells in the absence of secondary causes. NAFLD has long been recognized as the hepatic manifestation of metabolic syndrome. Our study seeks to ascertain the prevalence of metabolic syndrome among NAFLD patients at King Khalid University Hospital and to explore the factors associated with metabolic syndrome.Method and design: We conducted a retrospective study targeting 1,173 patients diagnosed with NAFLD at King Khalid University Hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from March 2020 to March 2021. NAFLD diagnosis was made based on ultrasonographic evidence of a fatty liver, excluding other liver ailments and alcohol intake. Metabolic syndrome was defined according to the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP/ATP III) criteria, which require at least three of five metabolic risk factors to be present. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square tests for categorical variables and independent t-tests for continuous variables, with a significance level set at p < 0.05.Results: Out of 1173 NAFLD participants evaluated, 38.2% met the NCEP/ATPIII criteria for metabolic syndrome. Additionally, 23.8% had at least one metabolic syndrome component coinciding with their ultrasonographically confirmed NAFLD diagnosis. The incidence of NAFLD was not linked to gender. Married individuals constituted a higher percentage (42.8%) of the NAFLD cohort. Elevated blood glucose and triglyceride levels, along with reduced HDL levels, were predominantly observed among the metabolic syndrome components in NAFLD patients.Conclusion: A significant portion of the NAFLD patient population was concurrently affected by metabolic syndrome. There exists a marked interrelationship between NAFLD and the components of metabolic syndrome. Regular metabolic disorder screenings are recommended for this patient group.

Background and Aim: Long-term metformin use in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) patients is associated with Vitamin B12 deficiency. This study aims to evaluate physicians’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding Vitamin B12 screening and supplementation in this context. Methods: A survey was administered to physicians across various specialties in government hospitals and primary care centers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from January 2019 to January 2020. The survey assessed their knowledge, attitudes, and practices concerning Vitamin B12 deficiency screening and supplementation. Results: Of the 402 participating physicians, 94.0% (378 respondents) demonstrated sufficient knowledge about Vitamin B12 deficiency. However, 26.1% believed that Vitamin B12 supplementation does not necessitate screening. 55.7% did not prescribe Vitamin B12 prophylactically, 41.5% omitted neurological examinations in patients presenting with neuropathy, and 22.4% were unaware of the recommended Vitamin B12 supplement dose. Only 49.8% routinely screened for Vitamin B12 deficiency in symptomatic patients. Physicians with more extended years of experience showed significantly better knowledge about Vitamin B12 screening and supplementation (p< 0.001). Conclusion: While most physicians were knowledgeable about Vitamin B12 deficiency and supplementation, a substantial gap in translating this knowledge into practice was observed. There is a critical need for institutional oversight to ensure adherence to American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines for Vitamin B12 screening and supplementation in T2DM patients on long-term metformin therapy.