Background: Since declaration of COVID-19 as a pandemic; researchers are trying to find out the clues for determining spread and transmission of the disease. Although viral load had been used for assessing severity, progress and transmissibility of the disease, yet, little is known about all factors associated with its changes. This study aims to explore the association of initial viral load among COVID-19 patients with sociodemographic characteristics and travel history. Subjects and Methods: Through a record based retrospective study, laboratory confirmed cases in the period from 7th March to 31st May 2020 were included in the study (n=381); The dependent variable was the recorded viral load measured in Ct count; while the dependent variables included socio-demographic characteristics of the patients and travel history. Data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social sciences (SPSS) version 21. Student t test and ANOVA test were used and P value less <0.05 was considered as a level of significance. Results: Out of all respondents (n=381), there was dominance of male cases (74.0%) over females (26.0%). The great majority (83.5%) were primarily classified as being cases, while the rest were contacts (16.5%). Most of them were symptomatic (82.9%); mainly cough (44.4%), fever (41.2%), sore throat (22.0%) and runny nose (13.1%). Fifteen percent of the respondents reported that they had travelled abroad before coming back to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and discovered as positive for COVID-19.The mean vial load was higher in males (26.2±5.55), older cases (26.5±5.39), Saudis (26.4±5.58) and health care workers (26.9±6.32), nevertheless, these differences are not statistically significant p>0.05.There was no statistically significant difference in the viral load between symptomatic and asymptomatic cases (26.0±5.48 vs 26.6±5.63) p>0.5. Nevertheless, viral load was significantly lower among those who had fever (25.2±5.70) and dyspnea (26.4±5.46) and those who reported that they did not travel abroad (29.1±4.97) p<0.05. Conclusion and Recommendations: The current findings add more evidence to the assumption that it is likely that asymptomatic pre-symptomatic and symptomatic transmission is occurring and there is no difference between them in viral load whether they present as cases or contacts; therefore, the repeated assessment of viral load could be more valuable and informative for assessing progress of the COVID-19 on individual level rather than comparison between positive cases. Therefore, it is highly recommended to conduct further researches based on the changes of viral load along the course of the disease and find out the role of the demographic and clinical determinants on these changes.

Aim: To assess the psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic and estimate the prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress on individuals during institutional quarantined in 2020 and reassess a year later to compare outcomes and investigates different associated factors. Study Design: An analytical cross-sectional and a follow-up study Place and Duration of Study: An institutional COVID-19 quarantine center, in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, between May 2020 and July 2021 Methodology: A sample of 138 participants were recruited. After obtaining the participants demographics date and consent, an electronic questionnaire was distributed to assess participants psychological well-being using the 42-item depression, anxiety, and stress scales (DASS) twice, at the end of quarantine period and one year later, to compare outcomes and associated factors. Results: Out of all the sample (n=138), male represented 64.5% while female accounted for 35.5%. Half the participants (50.7%) were married comparing to 40.6% single and bachelor’s or higher degrees holders accounted for 61.6% while 26.8% had high school degree. The psychological health was assessed for all participants twice, resulting with prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress during quarantine period of 34%, 33%, and 22% respectively and a decreased prevalence a year late (20%, 13%, and 9, respectively). The differences between the two psychological assessments were significant (depression: P = .02, anxiety: P< .001, stress: P = .005). Educational level was associated with stress at time of quarantine (P = .03). Marital status and employment status were significantly associated with participants depression levels a year after quarantine (P = .03, P = .04, respectively). Conclusion and Recommendations: The psychological well-being of quarantined participants was negatively impacted during this unlikable experience. Numerous demographic factors were significantly associated with the undesirable effects. We propose implementing a psychological assessment program in future quarantine centers to prevent further mental health impacts.