No abstract

Background In order to impart immunity against SARS COV 2 in the community, the oil rich countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) provided citizens and expatriates with free vaccination. Different types of vaccination brands were utilized for this purpose. The purpose of this study is to determine the efficacy of the different types of vaccinations used. Methods This is an observational analytical case study of one Bahraini family who were vaccinated with 1st, 2nd or no dose. Results Out of 22 double dose recipients of SARS COV2 vaccine, 20 were infected. Those 20 were vaccinated against SARS COV 2 using Sinopharm, the rest (2) were in direct contact with the source but were vaccinated against SARS COV 2 using other type of vaccine. Out of 26 single dose recipients of Sinopharm vaccine, 23 were infected. The other three were not in direct contact with the infected source. Social gathering has been the main source of transmission. The infection has been mild with headache, chest pain. From 20 cases with double dose vaccinations only one had a lung infection and needed hospitalization. Out of 23 cases with single dose vaccinations 10 were hospitalized due to lung infections. All family members who were not vaccinated were infected, three were hospitalized one of which was deceased due to diabetes mellitus complications. Conlcusion Sinopharm provides partial protection against SARS COV 2 infection. That might be due to lack of its potential to detect recent variations in the protein structure of spike(S) protein of virus.

Objective. This study aimed to identify the main determinants of serum leptin levels. Methods. A sample of 113 Saudi adult males (55 diabetic and 58 nondiabetic) was selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria identified below. Blood samples were taken from participants after fasting for 12 hours. For diabetic patients, the insulin dose was given 12 hours before. In general, the study instrument consisted of blood biochemical tests. Metabolic parameters, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), high-density lipoprotein (HDL), cholesterol, and triglyceride (TG), and adipokines, leptin, adiponectin, visfatin, and resistin, were measured. Multivariate model was utilized to identify the relationship between leptin levels and the independent variables. Results. When adjusted for resistin in the diabetic group, the results demonstrated a significant relationship between visfatin, LDL and TG, and leptin levels (p < 0.05). However, when controlled for resistin, the effect of LDL and TG disappeared while that of visfatin stayed in the model. For the nondiabetic group, the results indicated a significant relationship between insulin, BMI, and leptin levels when adjusted for resistin (p < 0.05). However, the effect of insulin disappeared when the model was controlled for resistin. The study results found no relationship between leptin and adiponectin levels in either the diabetic or nondiabetic group and whether adjusted or controlled for resistin. Conclusion. This study provided better understanding of the metabolism of leptin and unveiled the major determinants of leptin levels in diabetic and nondiabetic males. In conclusion, these results show that the association between leptin and metabolic parameters decreases with the progress of disease.

Prostate cancer (PCa) screening remains one of the most controversial topics in clinical and public health. Despite being the second most common cancer in men worldwide, recommendations for screening using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) are unclear. Early detection and the resulting postscreening treatment lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of otherwise indolent cases. In addition, several unwanted harms are associated with PCa screening process. This literature review focuses on the limitations of PSA-specific PCa screening, reasons behind the screening controversy, and the novel biomarkers and advanced innovative methodologies that improve the limitations of traditional screening using PSA. With the verdict of whether or not to screen not yet unanimous, we hope to aid in resolution of the long-standing debate.

End-of-life medical services in the form of Hospice or Palliative care were initiated in the middle of 1900 in order to comfort the dying patients and support their families. There are a lot of similarities and differences between the two services. Many healthcare providers, including physicians, physician assistants, and nurses, are not fully trained or have comprehensive knowledge of these two types of end-of-life medical care. Through this paper, we aim to provide a thorough review of Hospice and Palliative care for internist and primary care physicians both in terms of indications or eligibility criteria; the similarities and differences between the two types of care; factors that disqualify an enrolled patient; and lastly, the role or use of Hospice and palliative care during COVID-19 pandemic.