Background: Globally, workplace violence toward health care providers is an area of concern. The impact of workplace violence on health care providers is significant. Objectives: The study was conducted to evaluate the prevalence of workplace violence (physical and verbal) among emergency medical services (EMS) workers in Riyadh. Methods: The study used a cross-sectional design that employed a self-administered confidential questionnaire, which was distributed to all emergency medical personnel. A well-structured and validated questionnaire on workplace violence was adopted from the World Health Organization for use in the study. Results: A total of 370 EMS workers responded to the questionnaire. Workplace violence was experienced by 65% of the respondents. Verbal abuse (61%) was the most common type of violence reported. The majority of the attackers were patients' relatives (80%) followed by patients themselves (51%). Respondents younger than 30 reported a higher percentage of violent acts than did older respondents (p = .001, Odds ratio [OR] = 2.5, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = (1.6, 3.9)). Similarly, those who had fewer years of work experience (≤ 10 years) reported a significantly higher percentage of violent incidents than those who had 10 or more years of experience (p = .001, OR = 3.5, 95% CI = 2.1, 5.6). Only 10% of the victims reported the incident to a higher authority. Common reasons for not reporting the violent acts included feeling that it was useless (56%) and that it was not important (52%). Discussion: The study demonstrates prevalent workplace violence among EMS workers, predominantly in the form of verbal abuse. The rate of workplace violence among EMS personnel is comparable with international figures. Less than half of EMS personnel exhibit knowledge regarding the process of violence reporting. However, workers tend not to report the incidents because they often believe that reporting is useless and/or not important. Recommendation: With a high reported rate of workplace violence among EMS personnel, we recommend national preventive measures and encouragement to professionals to report violent events. We also recommend awareness programs for the identified vulnerable group.

Introduction: The immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on biologic therapies is not well studied. The goal of this study was to measure the serological response to BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines in patients with IBD receiving different biologic therapies. Methods: We performed a multi-center prospective study between 1 August 2021 and 15 September 2021. We measured the seropositivity of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (SARS-CoV-2 IgG) and neutralizing antibody concentrations in patients with IBD receiving biologic therapies 4–10 weeks after their second dose or 3–6 weeks after their first dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines. Results: A total of 126 patients were enrolled (mean age, 31 years; 60% male; 71% Crohn’s disease, 29% ulcerative colitis). Of these, 92 patients were vaccinated with the BNT162b2 vaccine (73%) and 34 patients with the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (27%). In patients being treated with infliximab and adalimumab, the proportion of patients who achieved positive anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels after receiving two doses of the vaccine were 44 out of 59 patients (74.5%) and 13 out of 16 patients (81.2%), respectively. In contrast, of those receiving ustekinumab and vedolizumab, the proportion of patients who achieved positive anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels after receiving two doses of the vaccine were 100% and 92.8%, respectively. In patients receiving infliximab and adalimumab, the proportion of patients who had positive anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody levels after two-dose vaccination was 40 out of 59 patients (67.7%) and 14 out 16 patients (87.5%), respectively. On the other hand, the proportion of patients who had positive anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody levels were 12 out of 13 patients (92.3%) and 13 out of 14 patients (92.8%) in patients receiving ustekinumab and vedolizumab, respectively. Conclusions: The majority of patients with IBD who were on infliximab, adalimumab, and vedolizumab seroconverted after two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. All patients on ustekinumab seroconverted after two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. The BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are both likely to be effective after two doses in patients with IBD on biologics. Larger follow-up studies are needed to evaluate if decay of antibodies occurs over time.

Background: Vaccination is a promising strategy to protect vulnerable groups like inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients against COVID-19 and associated severe outcomes. COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials excluded IBD patients taking infliximab with azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine (infliximab combination). Therefore, we sought to evaluate serologic responses to COVID-19 vaccination with the mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2, in patients with IBD receiving infliximab combination therapy compared with healthy participants. Method: This was a multicenter prospective study. Patients with IBD were recruited at the time of attendance at infusion center between 1 August 2021, and 15 September 2021. Our primary outcome were the concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies 4–10 weeks after vaccination with two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine in patients with IBD taking infliximab combination therapy (study group) compared with a healthy participants group (control group). Both study and control groups were matched for age, sex, and time-since-last-vaccine-dose using optimal pair-matching method. Results: In total, 116 participants were recruited in the study, 58 patients in the study group and 58 in the control group. Median (IQR) IgG concentrations were lower in the study group (99 BAU/mL (40, 177)) than the control group (139 BAU/mL (120, 188)) following vaccination (p = 0.0032). Neutralizing antibodies were also lower in the study group compared with the control group (64% (23, 94) vs. 91% (85, 94), p < 0.001). The median IgA levels in the study group were also significantly lower when compared with the control group (6 U/mL (3, 34) vs. 13 U/mL (7, 30), p = 0.0097). In the study group, the percentages of patients who achieved positive IgG, neutralizing antibody and IgA levels were 81%, 75%, and 40%, respectively. In the control group, all participants (100%) had positive IgG and neutralizing antibody levels while 62% had positive IgA levels. Conclusion: In patients with IBD receiving infliximab combination therapy, SARS-CoV2 IgG, IgA, and neutralizing antibody levels after BNT162b2 vaccination were lower compared with healthy participants. However, most patients treated with infliximab combination therapy seroconverted after two doses of the vaccine.