INTRODUCTIONKnee osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common articular disease. Different methods are used to alleviate the symptoms of patients with knee OA, including analgesics, physical therapy, exercise prescription, and intra-articular injections (glucocorticoids, hyaluronic acid [HA], etc). New studies have focused on modern therapeutic methods that stimulate cartilage healing process and improve the damage, including the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as a complex of growth factors. Due to the high incidence of OA and its consequences, we decided to study the long-term effect of intraarticular injection of PRP and HA on clinical outcome and quality of life of patients with knee OA.METHODThis non-placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial involved 160 patients affected by knee OA, grade 1–4 of Kellgren–Lawrence scale. In the PRP group (n = 87), two intra-articular injections at 4-week interval were applied, and in the HA group (n = 73), three doses of intra-articular injection at 1-week interval were applied. All patients were prospectively evaluated before and at 12 months after the treatment by Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and SF-36 questionnaires. The results were analyzed using SPSS 16.1 software (RCT code: IRCT2014012113442N5).RESULTSAt the 12-month follow-up, WOMAC pain score and bodily pain significantly improved in both groups; however, better results were determined in the PRP group compared to the HA group (P < 0.001). Other WOMAC and SF-36 parameters improved only in the PRP group. More improvement (but not statistically significant) was achieved in patients with grade 2 OA in both the groups.CONCLUSIONThis study suggests that PRP injection is more efficacious than HA injection in reducing symptoms and improving quality of life and is a therapeutic option in select patients with knee OA who have not responded to conventional treatment.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has killed many people worldwide since December 2019, and Iran has been among the most affected countries. In this retrospective study, we aimed to determine the prognostic factors associated with mortality in COVID-19 patients by analyzing 396 survived and 63 non-survived patients in Shahid Modarres Hospital, Tehran, Iran, from January 30 th until April 5 th , 2020. As the results, the BMI > 35 (p = 0.0003), lung cancer (p = 0.007), chronic kidney disease (p = 0.002), Immunocompromised condition (p = 0.003), and diabetes (p = 0.018) were more frequently observed in the expired group. The history of statins use was more common in the discharged group (p = 0.002), while there was no significant difference in the drug history of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, aspirin, and/or steroids, and in the past-year influenza vaccination. Multivariable regression demonstrated rising odds of in-hospital death related with age (odds ratio (OR) = 1.055, p = 0.002), levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) (OR = 2.915, p < 0.001), creatinine (OR = 1.740, p = 0.023), lymphocyte count (OR = 0.999, p = 0.008), and magnesium level (OR = 0.032, p < 0.001) on admission. In conclusion, the patients with older age and higher BMI with lymphopenia, hypomagnesemia, elevated CRP and/or raised creatinine on admission are at higher risk of mortality due to the COVID-19 infection, which requires the physicians to use timely and strong therapeutic measures for such patients.

Background Our study compare the short and long-term efficacy of the intra articular injections (IAIs) of hyaluronic acid (HA), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF), and ozone in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods In this randomized clinical trial, 238 patients with mild to moderate knee OA were randomized into 4 groups of IAIs: HA (3 doses weekly), PRP (2 doses with 3 weeks interval), PRGF (2 doses with 3 weeks interval), and Ozone (3 doses weekly). Our outcome measures were the mean changes from baseline (immediately from the first injections) until 2,6, and 12 months post intervention in scores of visual analog scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Lequesne index. Results A total of 200 patients enrolled in the final analysis. The mean age of patients was 56.9 ± 6.3 years, and 69.5% were women. In 2 months follow up, significant improvement of pain, stiffness, and function were seen in all groups compared to the baseline, but the ozone group had the best results (P < 0.05). In 6 month follow up HA, PRP, and PRGF groups demonstrated better therapeutic effects in all scores in comparison with ozone (P < 0.05). At the end of the 12th month, only PRGF and PRP groups had better results versus HA and ozone groups in all scores (P < 0.05). Despite the fact that ozone showed better early results, its effects begin to wear off earlier than other products and ultimately disappear in 12 months. Conclusions Ozone injection had rapid effects and better short-term results after 2 months, but its therapeutic effects did not persist after 6 months and at the 6-month follow up, PRP,PRGF and HA were superior to ozone. Only patients in PRP and PRGF groups improved symptoms persisted for 12 months. Therefore, these products could be the preferable choices for long-term management. Trial registration Registered in the Iranian Center of Clinical Trials (www.irct.ir) in 11/11/2017 with the following code: IRCT2017082013442N17.

ObjectiveTo determine if a hybrid cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programme using the Family-Centered Empowerment Model (FCEM) as compared with standard CR will improve patient quality of life, perceived stress and state anxiety of patients with myocardial infarction (MI).MethodsWe conducted a randomised controlled trial in which patients received either standard home CR or CR using the FCEM strategy. Patient empowerment was measured with FCEM questionnaires preintervention and postintervention for a total of 9 assessments. Quality of life, perceived stress, and state and trait anxiety were assessed using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), the 14-item Perceived Stress, and the 20-item State and 20-item Trait Anxiety questionnaires, respectively.Results70 patients were randomised. Baseline characteristics were similar. Ejection fraction was significantly higher in the intervention group at measurements 2 (p=0.01) and 3 (p=0.001). Exercise tolerance measured as walking distance was significantly improved in the intervention group throughout the study. The quality of life results in the FCEM group showed significant improvement both within the group over time (p<0.0001) and when compared with control (p<0.0001). Similarly, the perceived stress and state anxiety results showed significant improvement both within the FCEM group over time (p<0.0001) and when compared with control (p<0.0001). No significant difference was found either within or between groups for trait anxiety.ConclusionsThe family-centred empowerment model may be an effective hybrid cardiac rehabilitation method for improving the physical and mental health of patients post-MI; however, further study is needed to validate these findings. Clinical Trials.gov identifier NCT02402582.Trial registration numberNCT02402582.

Background The COVID‐19 outbreak has exerted a great deal of psychological pressure on Iranian health workers and the general population. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of pandemic on anxiety and depression in Iranian population. Methods An online cross‐sectional study was conducted for the general public and healthcare workers in Iran using a questionnaire comprised of demographic questions and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Chi‐square test and univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were conducted. Results Of the 2045 participants, 1136 (65.6%) were considered to have moderate and severe anxiety symptoms, and 865 (42.3%) had moderate and severe depression symptoms. The prevalence of anxiety was higher in the females than in the males (OR = 1.4, 95% CI: 1.123‐1.643, P = .002); the prevalence of anxiety was significantly higher in those aged 30‐39 years than in other age‐groups (OR = 1.6, 95% CI: 1.123‐2.320, P = .001); furthermore, the prevalence of anxiety and depression was significantly higher in doctors and nurses compared with other occupations ((OR = 1.9, 95% CI: 1.367‐2.491, P < .001) and (OR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.154‐2.021, P = .003)). In addition, the prevalence of anxiety symptoms in the likely infected COVID‐19 group was higher than in the noninfected COVID‐19 group (OR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.093‐1.654, P = .005). Conclusions Regarding the high prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms, especially among healthcare workers, appropriate psychological/psychiatric intervention necessitates.