RESUMEN
Neuroinflammation, a pivotal factor in the pathogenesis of various brain disorders, including neurodegenerative diseases, has become a focal point for therapeutic exploration. This review highlights neuroinflammatory mechanisms that hallmark neurodegenerative diseases and the potential benefits of essential oils in counteracting neuroinflammation and oxidative stress, thereby offering a novel strategy for managing and mitigating the impact of various brain disorders. Essential oils, derived from aromatic plants, have emerged as versatile compounds with a myriad of health benefits. Essential oils exhibit robust antioxidant activity, serving as scavengers of free radicals and contributing to cellular defense against oxidative stress. Furthermore, essential oils showcase anti-inflammatory properties, modulating immune responses and mitigating inflammatory processes implicated in various chronic diseases. The intricate mechanisms by which essential oils and phytomolecules exert their anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects were explored, shedding light on their multifaceted properties. Notably, we discussed their ability to modulate diverse pathways crucial in maintaining oxidative homeostasis and suppressing inflammatory responses, and their capacity to rescue cognitive deficits observed in preclinical models of neurotoxicity and neurodegenerative diseases.
RESUMEN
Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) is suggested to assess costs within the value-based healthcare approach, but there is a paucity of applications in chronic diseases such as deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and leg ulcers. In this context, we applied TDABC in a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing venous stenting to compression ± anticoagulation (standard of care-SOC) from both hospital and societal perspectives in Italy. TDABC was applied to both treatments to assess costs that were included in a cost-effectiveness model. Clinical inputs were retrieved from the literature and integrated with real-world data. The Incremental Cost Utility Ratio (ICUR) of stenting compared to SOC was EUR 10,270/QALY and EUR 8962/QALY for hospital and societal perspectives, respectively. The mean cost per patient for venous stenting of EUR 5082 was higher than the Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) reimbursement (EUR 4742). For SOC, an ulcer healing in 3 months costs EUR 1892, of which EUR 302 (16%) is borne by the patient versus a reimbursement of EUR 1132. TDABC showed that venous stenting may be cost-effective compared with SOC but that reimbursement rates may not completely cover the real costs, which are partially sustained by the patients. A more efficient policy for covering the real costs may be beneficial for both clinical centers and patients.
Asunto(s)
Úlcera de la Pierna , Trombosis de la Vena , Humanos , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Úlcera de la Pierna/terapia , Factores de Tiempo , Trombosis de la Vena/terapia , Atención a la SaludRESUMEN
Long-term care for the elderly is one among the most important challenges for welfare and health care system across the world. Demographic and epidemiological trends are signalling that demand for long-term care will continue increasing in the next future, while public systems investments and efforts to cope with this issue are not enough. One possible strategy could be to reinforce integration between different care settings so to have positive spill over effects. The paper is focussed on Italian long-term care system analysing and assessing its performance at the regional level both in terms of answering citizens' long-term care needs and integrating with hospital care. The study is based on National health care records and regional data concerning long-term care to assess the state of the arts of in-kind services, and on qualitative focus groups with care providers and policy makers to provide interpretation about the Italian long-term care system performance and weaknesses. Results show that, due to a widespread and important lack of supply and inability to answer to citizens' needs, integration between long-term care and hospitals is not working, and substitution effect following investment in long-term care settings is not present. The paper introduces different interpretations of the causes of this phenomenon, suggesting to policy makers and managers the possible solutions to be implemented.