Introduction:In Saudi Arabia, where malaria is not endemic, the incidence is very low. However, malaria transmission cases have been reported, mainly in Asir and Jazan provinces along the Southwestern border with Yemen. Imported cases also have been reported. The aims of this study were to determine the prevalence of malaria in blood donors in a tertiary care hospital in the central area of Saudi Arabia and to assess the effectiveness of malaria screening methods used by transfusion services in Prince Sultan Military Medical City. Methods:This study was conducted on 180,000 people who donated blood during 2006-2015. All blood smears from blood donors were screened for malaria infection using Giemsa staining, low power and high power microscopic examinations, and using oil immersion lens. The data were analyzed and reported in descriptive statistics and prevalence. Results:From the total of 180,000 blood donors who were screened for malaria, 156,000 (87%) and 23.400 (13%) were Saudi Arabia citizens and non-Saudi residents, respectively. The mean age of the blood donors was 32 (ranging from 18 to 65), 97% and 3% were male and female, respectively. Using our current method for malaria screening, the prevalence of malaria in the study population was zero. Conclusion:The current methods of malaria screening in blood donors is not suitable for screening low-level parasiotemia. Adding the immunoassay and molecular screening methods is suggested.
Introduction and Background: Blood donation is vital supportive therapy for patients who are in need of blood transfusion and a beneficial procedure that saves patient's life. The study aims to access the knowledge attitude and practice among the military employees working in National Guard Riyadh Saudi Arabia about blood donation in order to motivate military employees to donate blood. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with military employees working in Ministry of National Guard, Riyadh. A self-administered structured questionnaire was used to collect the information about knowledge, attitude and practice of the participants about blood donation. Convenience sampling technique was used to identify 264 officers and soldiers Informed consent was taken from all who agree to be part of the study. Data was entered in excel first and later transferred to SPSS for analysis. Results: Response rate was 272(84.3 %). Regarding the knowledge about blood donation 220(82%) knew the location of nearest blood bank, and 69(26%) knew the minimum interval between two times blood donations. Almost two third participants agreed that blood donation is a healthy practice. Most of them 205(77%) had donated blood sometime in their life. A day off from work was considered as good motivation factor by 229(86%). Conclusion: In conclusion the overall attitude and practices about blood donation of soldiers and officers was good. The knowledge about blood donation was relatively low.
Advances in pediatric cancer treatment and dramatic improvement in long-term survival have made health-related quality of life (HRQOL) a priority. This study describes the HRQOL of Saudi children on cancer treatment, given the paucity of data on the subject. Parents of children undergoing cancer treatment between the ages of 2 and 12 years enrolled to answer the Arabic version of the parent proxy report PedsQL™ 3.0 cancer module. The module items were reverse-scored to a linear scale from 0 to 100, in which higher scores indicated a better HRQOL. Of the 95 study participants, 61 (64.2%) were hematological malignancies and 34 (35.8%) solid malignancies. The mean score of our sample's total HRQOL was 72.3, which is in line with the results of similar studies worldwide. The lowest scores were observed for procedural anxiety (60.14), perceived physical appearance (67.37), and treatment anxiety (67.58), while the highest were for communication (80.21), nausea (78.32), and cognitive problems (78.32). Significant associations were reported between the patients aged younger than 5 years and procedural anxiety, those aged 5 years or older and perceived physical appearance, and frequent hospital visits and worry. Healthcare professionals should consider the poor HRQOL sub-scales and their associated risks to improve treatment outcomes.
In January 2020, the WHO declared the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak as a public health emergency of international concern. Due to the rapid spread of 2019-nCoV, all countries started preventive and precautionary measures to prevent COVID-19 infection spread. These measures limited the population mobility and services provided, which subsequently Impact of on children with cancer and cancer care delivery in the many health centers in Saudi Arabia. We did a cross-sectional study to assess the impact of this outbreak on children with cancer concerning all aspects of life including medical services provided, the specific precautions to prevent spread in cancer patients, mental, psychological effects, and its effect on the quality of life. We collected 204 responses during a survey that assessed the impact on the treatment of cancer children at a tertiary institution during the COVID-19 pandemic. The majority of patients were receiving ongoing chemotherapy for leukemia/lymphoma. The majority of these patients (60.5%) reported a delay in treatment received due to hospital cancellation of appointments due to the pandemic. Although the majority of patients in our cohort complained of delayed treatment, fortunately, none of the delays led to fatalities. In the context of global lockdowns and physical distancing to help flatten the COVID-19 curve, telemedicine has proved fundamental to keeping patients and their healthcare providers connected and safe. Children also faced multiple other difficulties such as psychosocial issues during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our long-term goals are to develop new programs that will enable children with cancer to emerge successfully during a pandemic.
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long- term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
Background: Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods: This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings: Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16-30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77-0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50-0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80-0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54-0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation: Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services.