The article's abstract is no available.

Background:Development of a manual or well-defined criterion for prioritizing the topics of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) will help validate and organize this process evermore. This study was conducted to design an applicable manual that would prioritize the CPG topics for family physicians.Methods:This study was a multi-stage method using a qualitative approach that was conducted for the manual developing. The manual development process took place in four steps, as follows: Literature review, interviews with ten experts, preparing a list of criteria and determining its appropriateness by applying the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness method, and development of the final draft of the manual and pilot study.Results:Interview transcripts went under content analysis and were classified into eight main groups, 12 subgroups, and 85 themes. A comprehensive list consisting of fifty preliminary criteria were extracted. After summarizing and classifying the criteria, 12 appropriate criteria were evaluated using the RAND appropriateness method. Eventually, based on the literature review and our own results of the interview analysis, a manual consisting of five main sections and one clause on ethics was developed. Later, a pilot study was conducted on ten family physician topics, and prioritized by nine experts.Conclusions:The manual can be eyed as a tool ensuring the quality of the process of prioritizing CPG topics for family physicians, as it takes into account the issues involved in priority-setting. Selecting informed stakeholders for rating the criteria and ranking the topics was an issue that was greatly emphasized by the experts. Eventually, the application of this manual can be the first step toward systematizing the process of prioritizing CPG topics in the country.

ImportanceThe protein-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines FINLAY-FR-2 (Soberana 02) and FINLAY-FR-1A (Soberana Plus) showed good safety and immunogenicity in phase 1 and 2 trials, but the clinical efficacy of the vaccine remains unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of a 2-dose regimen of FINLAY-FR-2 (cohort 1) and a 3-dose regimen of FINLAY-FR-2 with FINLAY-FR-1A (cohort 2) in Iranian adults.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial was conducted at 6 cities in cohort 1 and 2 cities in cohort 2. Participants included individuals aged 18 to 80 years without uncontrolled comorbidities, coagulation disorders, pregnancy or breastfeeding, recent immunoglobulin or immunosuppressive therapy, and clinical presentation or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 on enrollment. The study was conducted from April 26 to September 25, 2021.InterventionsIn cohort 1, 2 doses of FINLAY-FR-2 (n = 13 857) or placebo (n = 3462) were administered 28 days apart. In cohort 2, 2 doses of FINLAY-FR-2 plus 1 dose of FINLAY-FR-1A (n = 4340) or 3 placebo doses (n = 1081) were administered 28 days apart. Vaccinations were administered via intramuscular injection.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was polymerase chain reaction–confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 infection at least 14 days after vaccination completion. Other outcomes were adverse events and severe COVID-19. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed.ResultsIn cohort 1 a total 17 319 individuals received 2 doses and in cohort 2 5521 received 3 doses of the vaccine or placebo. Cohort 1 comprised 60.1% men in the vaccine group and 59.1% men in the placebo group; cohort 2 included 59.8% men in the vaccine group and 59.9% in the placebo group. The mean (SD) age was 39.3 (11.9) years in cohort 1 and 39.7 (12.0) years in cohort 2, with no significant difference between the vaccine and placebo groups. The median follow-up time in cohort 1 was 100 (IQR, 96-106) days and, in cohort 2, 142 (137-148) days. In cohort 1, 461 (3.2%) cases of COVID-19 occurred in the vaccine group and 221 (6.1%) in the placebo group (vaccine efficacy: 49.7%; 95% CI, 40.8%-57.3%) vs 75 (1.6%) and 51 (4.3%) in cohort 2 (vaccine efficacy: 64.9%; 95% CI, 49.7%-59.5%). The incidence of serious adverse events was lower than 0.1%, with no vaccine-related deaths.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of the efficacy and safety of FINLAY-FR-2 and FINLAY-FR-1A, 2 doses of FINLAY-FR-2 plus the third dose of FINLAY-FR-1A showed acceptable vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 as well as COVID-19–related severe infections. Vaccination was generally safe and well tolerated. Therefore, Soberana may have utility as an option for mass vaccination of the population, especially in resource-limited settings, because of its storage condition and affordable price.Trial Registrationisrctn.org Identifier: IRCT20210303050558N1

Objective: Q fever is a main zoonotic disease around the world. This disease is common in the Eastern Mediterranean region, so we conducted for the first time a systematic review and meta-analysis between humans and animals and ticks in the Eastern Mediterranean region.Methods: Major national and international databases were searched from 2000 up to 2021. We extracted the prevalence of Q fever in a blood sample in animal, milk sample in animal, tick, and human as the main outcome. We reported the prevalence of seropositivity and molecular positivity as point and 95% confidence intervals.Results: In this review, 112 papers were identified. The overall seroprevalence Q fever was 22.4% (95% CI 19.8-25.1). The pooled prevalence of Q fever in tick was 17.5% (95% CI -1.3-36.4). The prevalence was 25.5%( 95% CI 16.1-34.9) in human. The prevalence of Q fever in animal blood samples such as goat,

BackgroundSince 1991 many studies evaluated the link between cardiovascular diseases and osteoporosis, two age-related conditions, but the main common pathologic pathway has not been determined yet. The histological similarity between arterial calcified plaque and bone matrix and involvement of similar cells and mediators provide a special field of research. Therefore in the present study, we aimed to evaluate the relationship between coronary artery calcium score (CACS) as a surrogate marker of atherosclerosis and bone mediators and parameters in postmenopausal women.MethodsEleven postmenopausal women who had CACS higher than 80 were enrolled into the study and underwent bone densitometry. In addition, their serum and urine samples were taken for measuring osteoprotegerin, osteocalcin, and β cross laps. Patients' 10-year probability of fracture was calculated by the World Health Organization fracture-risk assessment tool (FRAX).ResultsThe regression analysis of our results showed the association between CACS and OC (std β=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.47-72.27, P=0.027), femoral bone density (std β=−0.6, 95% CI -6864.34-14.27, P=0.05) and T-score (std β=−0.6, 95% CI −773.08-1.28, P=0.05) which remained significant after adjustment for age, weight, years since menopause and body mass index. No association was found between CACS and osteoprotegerin, spinal bone density and FRAX score.ConclusionsIn conclusion, this pilot study with small sample size showed the potential association between CACS and osteocalcin, femoral bone density and T-score. However, the relationship between CACS and osteoprotegerin, receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand, FRAX score and other bone parameters remain to be clarified in larger sample size studies.