Purpose: To translate long form, interview-administered International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) from English to Persian and evaluate its validity, reliability and reproducibility.Methods: A forward-backward translation procedure was followed to develop the Persian version of the IPAQ. A total of 218 respondents (53.7% women, aged 22-76 yr) completed the Persian version in Tehran, Iran. To examine the test-retest reliability, 48 healthy volunteers completed the IPAQ twice during a 7-day period. . The PA indicators derived from the IPAQ were assessed for reliability and were compared with aerobic fitness and body mass index (BMI) for construct validity. Results:In general, the questionnaire was received well and all domains met the minimum reliability standards (intra-class correlation [ICC]> 0.7), except for Leisure-time physical activity (PA). Aerobic fitness showed a weak positive correlation with all of the PA results derived from the IPAQ. A significant correlation was observed between the IPAQ data for total PA and both aerobic fitness (r=0.33, P<0.001) and BMI (r=0.26, P<0.001). Performing a known group comparison analysis, the results indicated that the questionnaire was discriminated well between the subgroups of the study samples expected to be different in their physical activity. Conclusions:The Persian version of the long form, interviewadministered IPAQ had an acceptable reliability and validity for assessing total PA in our Iranian sample of individuals. It may be a useful instrument for generating internationally comparable data on PA.

AimWe have recently determined the optimal cut-off of the homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance for the diagnosis of insulin resistance (IR) and metabolic syndrome (MetS) in non-diabetic residents of Tehran, the capital of Iran. The aim of the present study is to establish the optimal cut-off at the national level in the Iranian population with and without diabetes.MethodsData of the third National Surveillance of Risk Factors of Non-Communicable Diseases, available for 3,071 adult Iranian individuals aging 25-64 years were analyzed. MetS was defined according to the Adult Treatment Panel III (ATPIII) and International Diabetes Federation (IDF) criteria. HOMA-IR cut-offs from the 50th to the 95th percentile were calculated and sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood ratio for MetS diagnosis were determined. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of HOMA-IR for MetS diagnosis were depicted, and the optimal cut-offs were determined by two different methods: Youden index, and the shortest distance from the top left corner of the curve.ResultsThe area under the curve (AUC) (95%CI) was 0.650 (0.631-0.670) for IDF-defined MetS and 0.683 (0.664-0.703) with the ATPIII definition. The optimal HOMA-IR cut-off for the diagnosis of IDF- and ATPIII-defined MetS in non-diabetic individuals was 1.775 (sensitivity: 57.3%, specificity: 65.3%, with ATPIII; sensitivity: 55.9%, specificity: 64.7%, with IDF). The optimal cut-offs in diabetic individuals were 3.875 (sensitivity: 49.7%, specificity: 69.6%) and 4.325 (sensitivity: 45.4%, specificity: 69.0%) for ATPIII- and IDF-defined MetS, respectively.ConclusionWe determined the optimal HOMA-IR cut-off points for the diagnosis of MetS in the Iranian population with and without diabetes.

No abstract

Objectives: The authors performed a prospective, double-blinded, randomized trial with emergency department (ED) patients requiring procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) for repair of deep traumatic lacerations and reduction of bone fractures, to compare the ketamine ⁄ propofol (ketofol) combination with the midazolam ⁄ fentanyl (MF) combination.Methods: Sixty-two patients scheduled for PSA who presented between January 2009 and June 2009 were enrolled prospectively. Thirty-one were randomly assigned to the ketofol group, and 31 were assigned to the MF group.Results: The median starting doses were 0.75 mg ⁄ kg of both ketamine and propofol (interquartile range [IQR] = 0.75 to 1.5 mg ⁄ kg), 0.04 mg ⁄ kg midazolam (IQR = 0.04 to 0.06 mg ⁄ kg), and 2 lg ⁄ kg fentanyl (IQR = 2 to 3 lg ⁄ kg). There were no significant differences in sedation time between the groups. There were no differences in physician satisfaction (p = 0.065). Perceived pain in the ketofol group, as measured by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), was significantly lower than in the MF group (median ketofol = 0, IQR = 0-1 vs. median MF = 3, IQR = 1-6; p < 0.001). Only one patient in each group required bag-mask ventilation, and neither of them were intubated. Conclusions:The ketamine ⁄ propofol combination provides adequate sedation and analgesia for painful procedures and appears to be a safe and useful technique in the ED.

No abstract

Background The role of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) has been addressed in some studies related to the current coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with possible higher severity and mortality in patients with hypertension. A triple-blind randomized controlled trial was designed to evaluate the effects of these medications on the COVID-19 progression. Methods Patients were enrolled in this trial between April and September 2020. They were randomized in two groups. The former dosage of ACEis/ARBs was continued in one group while in another group, the ACEis/ARBs were replaced by amlodipine ± carvedilol according to the dose equivalents. The primary outcomes were length of stay in hospitals and intensive care units. Other outcomes include mechanical ventilation, non-invasive ventilation, readmission, and COVID-19 symptoms after discharge. Results We randomized 64 patients with COVID-19 into two groups. Most patients were aged 66-80 and 46-65 years-old, 33 (51.6%) and 27 (42.2%), respectively. The study groups were nearly similar in baseline vital signs and characteristics. In addition, there was no significant difference in terms of recorded systolic and diastolic blood pressure measurements between groups. Furthermore, we did not find a significant difference between the days of intensive care unit or ward admission, the discharge rate, or readmission rates between the two groups. Conclusions This randomized triple-blind multi-centric clinical trial did not show any deleterious effects of ACEi/ARB medications in hypertensive COVID-19 patients.

No abstract

Background There is an ongoing controversy about harms and benefits of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in hypertensive patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Given the unresolved debate, we investigated the association of ARBs with in-hospital outcomes of these patients. Methods In this retrospective observational study, we studied patients with COVID-19 who referred to Sina Hospital in Tehran, Iran, from February 20 to May 29, 2020. Patients with either positive real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase-chain-reaction test of swab specimens, or high clinical suspicion according to the World Health Organization's interim guidance were included. We followed-up patients for incurring death, severe COVID-19, and in-hospital complications. Results We evaluated 681 patients with COVID-19 of whom 37 patients were excluded due to incomplete medical records and 8 patients who used ACEIs which left 636 patients in the analysis. In this cohort, 108 (17.0%) patients expired and 407 (64.0%) patients incurred severe COVID-19. Of 254 (39.9%) patients with hypertension, 122 (48.0%) patients were receiving an ARB. After adjustment for possible confounders, we found no independent association between taking ARBs and in-hospital outcomes except for acute kidney injury (AKI), in patients with confirmed or clinically suspected COVID-19, either hypertensive or not-hypertensive. We found that discontinuation of ARBs during hospitalization was associated with a greater risk of mortality, invasive ventilation, and AKI (All P˂0.002). Conclusions We found that taking ARBs by patients with hypertension and confirmed or clinically suspected COVID-19 is not associated with poorer in-hospital outcomes after adjustment for possible confounders.