The World Health Organization (WHO) announced COVID-19, a novel coronavirus outbreak, as a pandemic in 2020. In the month of February 2020, the disease began to spread through the Middle East. The first case of COVID-19 in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was identified in March 2020, and it is now one of the region’s most affected countries. Analyzing the disease’s propagation pattern may aid in the development of pandemic-fighting strategies. This study aims to analyze the trend of COVID-19’s spread, its recovery, and mortality in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Two to three major cities from the 13 provinces of the country were chosen, and the rate of infection recovery was recorded from the first month until the number of confirmed cases showed a decline. The data published on the official Ministry of Health website were recorded on an Excel sheet, graphically represented as figures to indicate the pattern of spread. According to the study’s findings, COVID-19 positive cases were discovered in the majority of provinces as early as March 2020. The province of Makkah had the largest number of COVID-19 positive cases (30.7%), followed by Riyadh (23%). The province of Al Jowf had the lowest number of COVID-19 cases (0.3%). Tabuk province had the highest rate of recovery (97.8%), followed by the Northern Border Province (96.7%). Makkah province had the highest mortality rate (2.6%), followed by Al Jawf province (2.4%). The peak case–fatality ratio was recorded in August and September. The highest number of tests to detect the COVID-19 was performed in the month of July, and the highest percentage of positive cases was detected in June (19.55%). All the provinces from the month of September 2020 showed a progressive decline in the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases. According to this study, COVID-19 infection was found in the majority of Saudi Arabian provinces in March 2020, with a peak in June–July 2020. Considering the climatic and demographic characteristics of the region, specific modalities need to be adopted in collaboration with international guidelines to defeat the COVID-19 pandemic.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction The advent of new disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), such as monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), resulted in significant changes in the treatment guidelines for Multiple sclerosis (MS) and improvement in the clinical outcomes. However, mAbs, such as rituximab, natalizumab, and ocrelizumab, are expensive with variable effectiveness rates. Thus, the present study aimed to compare the direct medical cost and consequences (e.g., clinical relapse, disability progression, and new MRI lesions) between rituximab and natalizumab in managing relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in Saudi Arabia. Also, the study aimed to explore the cost and consequence of ocrelizumab in managing RRMS as a second-choice treatment. Methods The electronic medical records (EMRs) of patients with RRMS were retrospectively reviewed to retrieve the patients’ baseline characteristics and disease progression from two tertiary care centers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Biologic–naïve patients treated with rituximab or natalizumab or those switched to ocrelizumab and treated for at least six months were included in the study. The effectiveness rate was defined as no evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3) (i.e., absence of new T2 or T1 gadolinium (Gd) lesions as demonstrated by the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), disability progression, and clinical relapses), while the direct medical costs were estimated based on the utilization of healthcare resources. In addition, bootstrapping with 10,000 replications and inverse probability weighting based on propensity score were conducted. Results Ninety–three patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis (natalizumab (n = 50), rituximab (n = 26), ocrelizumab (n = 17)). Most of the patients were otherwise healthy (81.72%), under 35 years of age (76.34%), females (61.29%), and on the same mAb for more than one year (83.87%). The mean effectiveness rates for natalizumab, rituximab, and ocrelizumab were 72.00%, 76.92%, and 58.83%, respectively. Natalizumab mean incremental cost compared to rituximab was $35,383 (95% CI: $25,401.09– $49,717.92), and its mean effectiveness rate was 4.92% lower than rituximab (95% CI: -30–27.5) with 59.41% confidence level that rituximab will be dominant. Conclusions Rituximab seems to be more effective and is less costly than natalizumab in the management of RRMS. Ocrelizumab does not seem to slow the rates of disease progression among patients previously treated with natalizumab.

This research aims to identify the level of awareness (knowledge, behavior and practices) of workers in the field of health care towards the occupational hazards surrounding them in hospitals in the Jazan region in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a study to measure awareness of the use of (KAP), and also aims to know the impact of training at the level of awareness. The descriptive analytical survey method and the quazi experimental approach were used through the pre and post exam for its suitability for this research. The study was conducted on a sample size of 326 participants’categories are (doctors, nursing, and laboratory specialists) and the experimental group to conduct the training was on Damad and Al-Umais Hospitals The results of the study showed that the level of knowledge was good before the training program and the axes of attitude, practices and training were not satisfactory in the total group before the program. After the training program, the levels of all axes increased with arithmetic averages, some of which reached 100%, which confirms the need to intensify training programs for workers and this is what The researcher recommended it in addition to the need to have a department responsible for monitoring and developing measures to protect against occupational exposures and raise awareness among workers.