Cognitive trajectories after surgery: Guideline hints for assessment and treatment.

Elderly patients who undergo major surgery (not-neurosurgical) under general anaesthesia frequently complain about cognitive difficulties, especially during the first weeks after surgical "trauma". Although recovery usually occurs within a month, about one out of four patients develops full-blown postoperative Neurocognitive disorders (NCD) which compromise quality of life or daily autonomy. Mild/Major NCD affect approximately 10% of patients from three months to one year after major surgery. Neuroinflammation has emerged to have a critical role in the postoperative NCDs pathogenesis, through microglial activation and the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines which increase blood-brain-barrier permeability, enhance movement of leukocytes into the central nervous system (CNS) and favour the neuronal damage. Moreover, pre-existing Mild Cognitive Impairment, alcohol or drugs consumption, depression and other factors, together with several intraoperative and post-operative sequelae, can exacerbate the severity and duration of NCDs. In this context it is crucial rely on current progresses in serum and CSF biomarker analysis to frame neuroinflammation levels, along with establishing standard protocol for neuropsychological assessment (with specific set of tools) and to apply cognitive training or neuromodulation techniques to reduce the incidence of postoperative NCDs when required. It is recommended to identify those patients who would need such preventive intervention early, by including them in pre-operative and post-operative comprehensive evaluation and prevent the development of a full-blown dementia after surgery. This contribution reports all the recent progresses in the NCDs diagnostic classification, pathogenesis discoveries and possible treatments, with the aim to systematize current evidences and provide guidelines for multidisciplinary care.

When the diagnosis is in the patient's hand and in the neurologist's eye.

The objective of this study was to encompass current knowledge about pathophysiological mechanisms of those specific hand postures or deformities caused by central nervous system disorders. In the era of high-resolution neuroimaging and molecular biology, clinicians are progressively losing confidence with neurological examination. Careful hand observation is of key importance in order to differentiate neurological from non-neurological conditions, central from peripheral aetiologies, and organic from functional disorders. Localizing the potential anatomical site is essential to properly conduct subsequent exams. We provided a practical guide for clinicians to recognize hand patterns caused by central nervous system disorders, avoiding mimicking conditions, thus optimizing and prompting the diagnostic pathway.

Toward a new personalized psycho-social approach for the support of prostate cancer and their caregivers dyads: a pilot study.

Introduction: Prostate cancer patients (PCP) often struggle with a significant emotional, physical, and social burden during the care-flow pathway. Noteworthy, PCP should not be considered a standalone patient, but someone who is connected with a relevant social environment and that is usually supported by a beloved one, the caregiver. The involvement of the caregivers through the care pathway might bring significant benefits both on the psychological and the treatment and decision-making side. The present pilot study aimed at preliminarily assessing quantitatively the psychological impact of a prostate cancer diagnosis on the degree of agreement of PCPs and their caregivers on medical decisions, coping resources and psychological distress levels. Methods: 16 PCP and their caregivers were enrolled in the study and fulfilled a battery of standardized questionnaires. Results: Results showed low concordance in decision making styles and preferences in patients and their caregivers and that the dyads showed similar depression symptoms levels. Relevant features of the psychological needs of the analyzed dyads, such as need for information and support, also emerged. Conclusion: On the basis of these preliminary results, guidelines for the construction of tailored brief psychological support interventions for PCP dyads are provided.

Research Priorities to Increase Confidence in and Acceptance of Health Preference Research: What Questions Should be Prioritized Now?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There has been an increase in the study and use of stated-preference methods to inform medicine development decisions. The objective of this study was to identify prioritized topics and questions relating to health preferences based on the perspective of members of the preference research community. METHODS: Preference research stakeholders from industry, academia, consultancy, health technology assessment/regulatory, and patient organizations were recruited using professional networks and preference-targeted e-mail listservs and surveyed about their perspectives on 19 topics and questions for future studies that would increase acceptance of preference methods and their results by decision makers. The online survey consisted of an initial importance prioritization task, a best-worst scaling case 1 instrument, and open-ended questions. Rating counts were used for analysis. The best-worst scaling used a balanced incomplete block design. RESULTS: One hundred and one participants responded to the survey invitation with 66 completing the best-worst scaling. The most important research topics related to the synthesis of preferences across studies, transferability across populations or related diseases, and method topics including comparison of methods and non-discrete choice experiment methods. Prioritization differences were found between respondents whose primary affiliation was academia versus other stakeholders. Academic researchers prioritized methodological/less studied topics; other stakeholders prioritized applied research topics relating to consistency of practice. CONCLUSIONS: As the field of health preference research grows, there is a need to revisit and communicate previous work on preference selection and study design to ensure that new stakeholders are aware of this work and to update these works where necessary. These findings might encourage discussion and alignment among different stakeholders who might hold different research priorities. Research on the application of previous preference research to new contexts will also help increase the acceptance of health preference information by decision makers.