Late in 2019, several cases of infection with a new strain of coronavirus were reported in China. This new strain was later officially named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by the World Health Organization (WHO). This new virus (SARS-CoV2-) mainly affects the respiratory system and causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The first case of COVID-19 was reported to the WHO on December 31st, 2019, and the virus has spread dramatically in many countries worldwide. On March 11th, 2020, the WHO declared that COVID-19 had affected most of the world, and many deaths were linked to COVID-19. Unfortunately, there is no available treatment for COVID-19, and there is no available vaccine against SARS-CoV-2. Thus, preventive methods are the only way to limit the spread of the virus. Preventive actions have been taken by many countries, such as travel bans, closing borders and working from home. Saudi Arabia was one of the countries that took very early precautionary actions in the belief that these actions are the best way to fight the virus. Therefore, we present the actions that were taken by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to fight the new viral pandemic.

Background: Caffeine containing energy drinks (EDs) are heavily consumed, particularly among young adults. The number of reports of caffeine intoxication from caffeinated EDs and problems related to caffeine dependence and withdrawal is increasing. The objective was to assess the knowledge and perceived beneficial effects of EDs consumers, to assess consumption patterns and determine the adverse effects experienced by different EDs consumer groups residing in Saudi Arabia. Methods: An observational cross-sectional study with data from a randomly selected Saudi population was conducted during the period of January 15th, 2015, to April 15th, 2015, using a pre-tested 43-item questionnaire. The data were obtained and collected using interview questionnaires. Sociodemographic characteristics and data on EDs consumption patterns, the level of awareness among study subjects, and the purported benefits and reported adverse effects of EDs were collected. Frequency, percentage, and arithmetic means were calculated using Chi-square and ANOVA tests, and data with p < 0.05 were considered significant. Results: Of the 816 individuals invited to participate in the study, 783 participants responded and completed interviews, response rate was 96%. Consumers attributed the popularity of EDs to massive advertising media (46.7%) and their stimulating and invigorating effects (37.5%). EDs are consumed by subjects for their effects on fatigue reduction (64.6%), increased alertness and focus (75.8%), and assistance during long driving trips (75.7%). Study subjects reported suffering from adverse effects, including mainly diuresis (53.7%), palpitations (50.7%), insomnia (50.7%). Importantly, an inverse association was identified between knowledge of EDs and consumption rate, and a proportional association was identified between experienced adverse effects and consumption frequency. Lower knowledge scores were identified in daily consumers than in 1–3 times monthly consumers; higher adverse events were experienced by daily consumers than by 1–3 times monthly consumers. The majority of consumers (84.6%) recommended that authorities should regulate EDs consumption. Conclusions: Excessive EDs consumption is associated with an increased risk of experiencing several adverse events, which is commensurate with published studies. Increasing knowledge about EDs and their possible risks could decrease their consumption by the general public.

Background: There is a rapid increase in the number of people with type II diabetes worldwide with many preventable cases. Diabetes control or prevention is partially influenced by the individual’s knowledge, attitude and practice toward the disease. Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the general public knowledge, attitude and practice toward diabetes in the region of Hail, which is located northern of the Saudi capital. Methodology: This is a cross-sectional study conducted during the period of March 2018 until September 2018. We randomly selected participants over the age of 18 years at different locations. Results: A total of 738 participants (428 females and 310 males) with and an age range of 18–61 years and mean age of 35±12 were surveyed. The majority of the participants, regardless of education levels, residence and employment status showed high knowledge of diabetes (82%) and knew that physical activity can positively affect/prevent diabetes. Participant’s age was found to have a significant association with participant’s knowledge of diabetes with the ≥35 year old group knew the different types of diabetes (p<0.001) and knew that high carbohydrate consumption can increase the risk of diabetes (p<0.001), but only the younger group <18 year old’s identified diabetes as a genetic disorder (p<0.001). Conclusion: The high knowledge of the disease and its risk factors were not truly mirrored in the participant’s attitude and practice toward the disease. Therefore, it is quite essential for the local health authorities to implement awareness programs to improve public attitude and practice toward diabetes.

Background: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can boost the systematic inflammatory response in critically ill patients, causing a systemic hyperinflammatory state leading to multiple complications. In COVID-19 patients, the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) is surrounded by controversy regarding their impacts on viral infections. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ICS in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and its clinical outcomes. Method: A multicenter, noninterventional, cohort study for critically ill patients with COVID-19 who received ICS. All patients aged ≥ 18 years old with confirmed COVID-19 and admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) between March 1, 2020 and March 31, 2021 were screened. Eligible patients were classified into two groups based on the use of ICS ± long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) during ICU stay. Propensity score (PS)-matched was used based on patient’s Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, systemic corticosteroids use, and acute kidney injury (AKI) within 24 h of ICU admission. We considered a P-value of < 0.05 statistically significant. Results: A total of 954 patients were eligible; 130 patients were included after PS matching (1:1 ratio). The 30-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval [CI]]: 0.53 [0.31, 0.93], P-value = 0.03) was statistically significant lower in patients who received ICS. Conversely, the in-hospital mortality, ventilator-free days (VFDs), ICU length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS were not statistically significant between the two groups. Conclusion: The use of ICS ± LABA in COVID-19 patients may have survival benefits at 30 days. However, it was not associated with in-hospital mortality benefits nor VFDs.

Oseltamivir has been used as adjunctive therapy in the management of patients with COVID-19. However, the evidence about using oseltamivir in critically ill patients with severe COVID-19 remains scarce. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oseltamivir in critically ill patients with COVID-19. This multicenter, retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Patients were categorized into two groups based on oseltamivir use within 48 hours of ICU admission (Oseltamivir vs. Control). The primary endpoint was viral load clearance. A total of 226 patients were matched into two groups based on their propensity score. The time to COVID-19 viral load clearance was shorter in patients who received oseltamivir (11 vs. 16 days, p = 0.042; beta coefficient: −0.84, 95%CI: (−1.33, 0.34), p = 0.0009). Mechanical ventilation (MV) duration was also shorter in patients who received oseltamivir (6.5 vs. 8.5 days, p = 0.02; beta coefficient: −0.27, 95% CI: [−0.55,0.02], P = 0.06). In addition, patients who received oseltamivir had lower odds of hospital/ventilator-acquired pneumonia (OR:0.49, 95% CI:(0.283,0.861), p = 0.01). On the other hand, there were no significant differences between the groups in the 30-day and in-hospital mortality. Oseltamivir was associated with faster viral clearance and shorter MV duration without safety concerns in critically ill COVID-19 patients.