Explore the vast range of titles available.

Arterial and venous thrombotic events in COVID-19 cause significant morbidity and mortality among patients. Although international guidelines agree on the need for anticoagulation, it is unclear whether full-dose heparin anticoagulation confers additional benefits over prophylactic-dose anticoagulation. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of heparin full-dose anticoagulation in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients. We searched Pubmed/Medline, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov, medRxiv.org and Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials dated up to April 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing full-dose heparin anticoagulation to prophylactic-dose anticoagulation or standard treatment in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients were included in our pooled analysis. The primary endpoint was the rate of major thrombotic events and the co-primary endpoint was the rate of major bleeding events. We identified 4 studies, all of them multicenter, randomizing 2926 patients. Major thrombotic events were 23/1524 (1.5%) in full-dose heparin anticoagulation versus 57/1402 (4.0%) in prophylactic-dose [relative risk (RR) 0.39; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25–0.62; p˂0.01; I2 = 0%]. Clinical relevant bleeding events occurred in 1.7% (26/1524) among patients treated with heparin full anticoagulation dose compared to 1.1% (15/1403) in prophylactic-dose group (RR 1.60; 95% CI 0.85–3.03; p = 0.15; I2 = 20%). Mortality was 6.6% (101/1524) versus 8.6% (121/1402) (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.33–1.19; p = 0.15). In this meta-analysis of high quality multicenter randomized trials, full-dose anticoagulation with heparin was associated with lower rate of major thrombotic events without differences in bleeding risk and mortality in hospitalized non critically ill COVID-19 patients.Study registration PROSPERO, review no. CRD42022301874.

Chronic pain (CP) is a condition that looms over the global social and health scenarios. After many years without having national data, an extensive overview of this disorder in Italy has been published in the first Rapporto Censis Grünenthal (Censis Grünenthal Pain Report ) . It confirms that 19.8% of the Italian adult population suffers from moderate or severe CP, and the vast majority of patients (86.2%) are not aware of the existence of pain management (PM) centers. Starting with the Rapporto Censis Grünenthal data analysis by the representatives of three Italian pain scientific societies, several unmet needs were highlighted for which affordable, innovative, and technological strategies were proposed. These solutions focused on interventions in three strategic areas: (1) information, education, and awareness about CP among patients and physicians; (2) organization of pain center networks to adequately cover the national territory, promoting a multimodal‐interdisciplinary approach; and (3) use of currently available novel technologies to foster access to treatment. For this purpose, the authors suggested feasible solutions, such as promoting public educational campaigns to raise awareness of the existence of pain centers and the right to receive a proper PM, as indicated in Italy by the pioneering law 38/2010. Regarding organizational gaps, the authors highlighted the possibility of drawing on international models to improve pain centers with completely dedicated staff and community‐based pain services while supporting the development of specialized procedural PM standards. Concerning technologies, investments in telehealth and digital tools would improve access to therapies throughout the territory, enabling efficient clinical assessment and helping deliver the most suitable treatments. Overall, greater awareness of the impact of CP and a better allocation of resources are needed to improve patient quality of life, thereby reducing costs for the healthcare system.

The Job Demand-Control-Support (JDCS) model postulates that patterns of job demand, job control, and social support lead to eight job types that are associated with well-being and health. This study employed latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify JDCS profiles among Italian hospital workers (n = 1464) and examined the predictive roles of role clarity and negative relationships at work on profile membership. Furthermore, adopting a network perspective, this study explored the interrelationships among JDCS factors within each identified profile. The LPA results revealed four profiles: isolated prisoner, moderate strain, low strain, and participatory leader. In addition, role clarity increased the likelihood of being included in the low-strain, moderate-strain, and participatory leader profiles. In contrast, negative relationships at work increased the risk of being included in the isolated prisoner profile. Finally, the results of network analysis revealed that networks differed across profiles in terms of density (interconnections between nodes) and edge strength (magnitude of relationships between nodes). Our study extends previous JDCS research by highlighting that researchers should consider empirically identified profiles rather than theoretically defined subgroups. The implications for stress theory, future research, and practice are also discussed.

Fibromyalgia (FM) as Fibromyalgia and Electromagnetic Sensitivity (IEI-EMF) are a chronic and systemic syndrome. The main symptom is represented by strong and widespread pain in the musculoskeletal system. The exact causes that lead to the development of FM and IEI-EMF are still unknown. Interestingly, the proximity to electrical and electromagnetic devices seems to trigger and/or amplify the symptoms. We investigated the blood plasma metabolome in IEI-EMF and healthy subjects using 1 H NMR spectroscopy coupled with multivariate statistical analysis. All the individuals were subjected to tests for the evaluation of psychological and physical features. No significant differences between IEI-EMF and controls relative to personality aspects, Locus of Control, and anxiety were found. Multivariate statistical analysis on the metabolites identified by NMR analysis allowed the identification of a distinct metabolic profile between IEI-EMF and healthy subjects. IEI-EMF were characterized by higher levels of glycine and pyroglutamate, and lower levels of 2-hydroxyisocaproate, choline, glutamine, and isoleucine compared to healthy subjects. These metabolites are involved in several metabolic pathways mainly related to oxidative stress defense, pain mechanisms, and muscle metabolism. The results here obtained highlight possible physiopathological mechanisms in IEI-EMF patients to be better defined.

As sex-gender differences have been described in the responses of patients to certain medications, we hypothesized that the responses to medications recommended for neuropathic pain may differ between men and women. We conducted a literature review to identify articles reporting potential sex-gender differences in the efficacy and safety of these medications. Only a limited number of studies investigated potential sex-gender differences. Our results show that women seem to achieve higher blood concentrations than men during treatment with amitriptyline, nortriptyline, duloxetine, venlafaxine, and pregabalin. Compared to men, higher rates of women develop side effects during treatment with gabapentin, lidocaine, and tramadol. Globally, the sex-gender differences would suggest initially administering smaller doses of these medications to women with neuropathic pain compared to those administered to men. However, most of these differences have been revealed by studies focused on the treatment of other diseases (e.g., depression). Studies focused on neuropathic pain have overlooked potential sex-gender differences in patient responses to medications. Despite the fact that up to 60% of patients with neuropathic pain fail to achieve an adequate response to medications, the potential role of sex-gender differences in the efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy has not adequately been investigated. Targeted studies should be implemented to facilitate personalized treatments for neuropathic pain.

Introduction: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) with neuropathic components poses a therapeutic challenge due to the limited efficacy and tolerability of conventional pharmacologic options. Botanical extracts such as Acmella oleracea and Boswellia serrata have demonstrated anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties. This study aimed to explore the role of a food supplement containing a standard formulation of these extracts as an adjunct to standard care in patients with CLBP. Methods: In this prospective, multicenter, observational, real-world, cohort study, 103 patients with CLBP and neuropathic pain received a standardized A. oleracea and B. serrata extract for 8 weeks as an add-on to ongoing therapy. Neuropathic pain was assessed using the painDETECT (PD-Q) and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). General pain intensity (NRS), disability (ODI), quality of life (SF-12), concomitant analgesic use, and safety were also monitored at baseline, and at Weeks 2, 4, and 8. Results: PD-Q scores significantly decreased by 13.4% at Week 2, 25.5% at Week 4, and 37.1% at Week 8 and NPSI scores decreased by 15.8%, 24.4%, and 36.9%, respectively (all p < 0.0001 vs. baseline). NRS pain intensity improved by 28.0% by Week 8 (p < 0.0001). ODI scores reduced by 20.8% (p < 0.0001) and SF-12 scores improved by 4.1% (p < 0.001) compared to baseline. Use of NSAIDs and gabapentinoids decreased by 23.7%, and 22.2%, respectively (p < 0.05). No serious adverse events occurred; mild and transient effects were reported in 8.7% of patients. Conclusions: The A. oleracea and B. serrata extract as adjunctive therapy resulted in significant improvements in neuropathic pain, functional disability, and reduced medication use, with good tolerability. While these findings suggest a potential role for this botanical combination in managing CLBP with neuropathic components, the absence of a control group limits causal inference. Randomized controlled trials are needed to establish efficacy and confirm these preliminary observations.

Cardioprotective properties of volatile agents and of remote ischemic preconditioning have survival effects in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to confirm the beneficial effects of these strategies on survival in cardiac surgery, to evaluate which is the best strategy and if these strategies have additive or competitive effects. Pertinent studies were independently searched in BioMedCentral, MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register (updated November 2013). A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. Four groups of patients were compared: total intravenous anesthesia (with or without remote ischemic preconditioning) and an anesthesia plan including volatile agents (with or without remote ischemic preconditioning). Mortality was the main investigated outcome. We identified 55 randomized trials published between 1991 and 2013 and including 6,921 patients undergoing cardiac surgery. The use of volatile agents (posterior mean of odds ratio = 0.50, 95% CrI 0.28-0.91) and the combination of volatile agents with remote preconditioning (posterior mean of odds ratio = 0.15, 95% CrI 0.04-0.55) were associated with a reduction in mortality when compared to total intravenous anesthesia. Posterior distribution of the probability of each treatment to be the best one, showed that the association of volatile anesthetic and remote ischemic preconditioning is the best treatment to improve short- and long-term survival after cardiac surgery, suggesting an additive effect of these two strategies. In patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the use of volatile anesthetics and the combination of volatile agents with remote preconditioning reduce mortality when compared to TIVA and have additive effects. It is necessary to confirm these results with large, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded trials comparing these different strategies in cardiac and non-cardiac surgery, to establish which volatile agent is more protective than the others and how to best apply remote ischemic preconditioning.

Background International COVID-19 guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for non-critically ill inpatients to prevent thrombotic complications. It is still debated whether full-dose thromboprophylaxis reduces all-cause mortality. The main aim of this updated systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effect of full-dose heparin-based thromboprophylaxis on survival in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients. Methods A systematic review was performed across Pubmed/Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials, Clinicaltrials.gov, and medRxiv.org from inception to November 2022. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing full-dose heparin-based anticoagulation to prophylactic or intermediate dose anticoagulation or standard treatment in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was applied. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up available. Results We identified 6 multicenter RCTs involving 3297 patients from 13 countries across 4 continents. The rate of all-cause mortality was 6.2% (103/1662) in the full-dose group vs 7.7% (126/1635) in the prophylactic or intermediate dose group (Risk Ratio [RR] = 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.59–0.98; P  = 0.037). The probabilities of any mortality difference and of NNT ≤ 100 were estimated at 98.2% and 84.5%, respectively. The risk of bias was low for all included RCTs and the strength of the evidence was “moderate.” Conclusion Our meta-analysis of high-quality multicenter RCTs suggests that full-dose anticoagulation with heparin or low molecular weight heparin reduces all-cause mortality in hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients. Study registration : PROSPERO, review no. CRD42022348993. Graphical Abstract

Background Work–family conflict (WFC) is a crucial problem in nursing because of the demanding conditions of the job, such as strenuous shifts, physical and emotional workload, and intense patient involvement. Using a multilevel approach, this study investigated the moderating role of collective affective commitment as a protective resource in the relationship between WFC and emotional exhaustion. Methods The sample included 647 nurses from 66 working units in 4 Italian hospitals. A self-administrated questionnaire was administered to nurses. To analyze data, hierarchical linear modeling was used to examine cross-level relationships between variables. Results The results indicated that emotional exhaustion increased with augmenting of WFC and that this relationship was stronger when collective affective commitment was low and weaker when it was high. Conclusions The study thus suggests that collective affective commitment may be considered a protective resource for nurses. Moreover, the results show that high work–family conflict should not represent a serious problem when nurses have high affective commitment. Interventions at both individual and group level are discussed in order to mitigate WFC, promoting collective affective commitment and thus reducing emotional exhaustion.