A pharmacoeconomic analysis from Italian guidelines for the management of prolactinomas.

Background: Prolactinoma, the most common pituitary adenoma, is usually treated with dopamine agonist (DA) therapy like cabergoline. Surgery is second-line therapy, and radiotherapy is used if surgical treatment fails or in relapsing macroprolactinoma. Objective: This study aimed to provide economic evidence for the management of prolactinoma in Italy, using a cost-of-illness and cost-utility analysis that considered various treatment options, including cabergoline, bromocriptine, temozolomide, radiation therapy, and surgical strategies. Methods: The researchers conducted a systematic literature review for each research question on scientific databases and surveyed a panel of experts for each therapeutic procedure's specific drivers that contributed to its total cost. Results: The average cost of the first year of treatment was €2,558.91 and €3,287.40 for subjects with microprolactinoma and macroprolactinoma, respectively. Follow-up costs from the second to the fifth year after initial treatment were €798.13 and €1,084.59 per year in both groups. Cabergoline had an adequate cost-utility profile, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €3,201.15 compared to bromocriptine, based on a willingness-to-pay of €40,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in the reference economy. Endoscopic surgery was more cost-effective than cabergoline, with an ICER of €44,846.64. Considering a willingness-to-pay of €40,000/QALY, the baseline findings show cabergoline to have high cost utility and endoscopic surgery just a tad above that. Conclusions: Due to the favorable cost-utility profile and safety of surgical treatment, pituitary surgery should be considered more frequently as the initial therapeutic approach. This management choice could lead to better outcomes and an appropriate allocation of healthcare resources.

Italian Guidelines for the Management of Prolactinomas.

INTRODUCTION: This guideline (GL) is aimed at providing a reference for the management of prolactin (PRL)-secreting pituitary adenoma in adults. However, pregnancy is not considered. METHODS: This GL has been developed following the methods described in the Manual of the Italian National Guideline System. For each question, the panel appointed by Associazione Medici Endocrinologi (AME) has identified potentially relevant outcomes, which have then been rated for their impact on therapeutic choices. Only outcomes classified as "critical" and "important" have been considered in the systematic review of evidence and only those classified as "critical" have been considered in the formulation of recommendations. RESULTS: The present GL provides recommendations regarding the role of pharmacological and neurosurgical treatment in the management of prolactinomas. We recommend cabergoline (Cab) vs. bromocriptine (Br) as the firstchoice pharmacological treatment to be employed at the minimal effective dose capable of achieving the regression of the clinical picture. We suggest that medication and surgery are offered as suitable alternative first-line treatments to patients with non-invasive PRL-secreting adenoma, regardless of size. We suggest Br as an alternative drug in patients who are intolerant to Cab and are not candidates for surgery. We recommend pituitary tumor resection in patients 1) without any significant neuro-ophthalmologic improvement within two weeks from the start of Cab, 2) who are resistant or do not tolerate Cab or other dopamine-agonist drugs (DA), 3) who escape from previous efficacy of DA, and 4) who are unwilling to undergo a chronic DA treatment. We recommend that patients with progressive disease notwithstanding previous tumor resection and ongoing DA should be managed by a multidisciplinary team with specific expertise in pituitary diseases using a multimodal approach that includes repeated surgery, radiotherapy, DA, and possibly, the use of temozolomide. CONCLUSION: The present GL is directed to endocrinologists, neurosurgeons, and gynecologists working in hospitals, in territorial services or private practice, and to general practitioners and patients.

Exploring the evidence for the effectiveness of health interventions for COVID-19 targeting migrants: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Owing to their inherent vulnerabilities, the burden of COVID-19 and particularly of its control measures on migrants has been magnified. A thorough assessment of the value of the interventions for COVID-19 tailored to migrants is essential for improving their health outcomes as well as promoting an effective control of the pandemic. In this study, based on evidence from primary biomedical research, we aimed to systematically identify health interventions for COVID-19 targeting migrants and to assess and compare their effectiveness. The review will be conducted within a programme aimed at defining and implementing interventions to control the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy, funded by the Italian Ministry of Health and conducted by a consortium of Italian regional health authorities. METHODS AND ANALYSES: Data sources will include the bibliographic databases MEDLINE, Embase, LOVE Platform COVID-19 Evidence, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies must evaluate health interventions for COVID-19 in migrants. Two independent reviewers will screen articles for inclusion using predefined eligibility criteria, extract data of retained articles and assess methodological quality by applying the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Disagreements will be resolved through consensus or arbitrated by a third reviewer if necessary. In synthesising the evidence, we will structure results by interventions, outcomes and quality. Where studies are sufficiently homogenous, trial data will be pooled and meta-analyses will be performed. Data will be reported according to methodological guidelines for systematic review provided by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This is a review of existing literature, and ethics approval is not required. We will submit results for peer-review publication and present at relevant conferences. The review findings will be included in future efforts to develop evidence-informed recommendations, policies or programmatic actions at the national and regional levels and address future high-quality research in public health.

The Standard of Care Definitions on COVID-19 Pharmacological Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review.

Background: Standard of Care (SoC) has been used with different significance across Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) on the treatment of Covid-19. In the context of a living systematic review on pharmacological interventions for COVID-19, we assessed the characteristics of the SoC adopted in the published RCTs. Methods: We performed a systematic review searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to April 10, 2021. We included all RCTs comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo, or SoC. All trials selected have been classified as studies with SoC including treatments under investigation for COVID-19 (SoC+); studies with SoC without specifications regarding the potential therapies allowed (SoC-); studies including as control groups Placebo (P) or active controls (A+). Results: We included in our analysis 144 RCTs, comprising 78,319 patients. Most of these trials included SoC (108; 75.0%); some in all arms of the study (69.7%) or just as independent comparators (30.3%). Treatments under investigation for COVID-19 in other trials were included in the SoC (SoC+) in 67 cases (62.0%), Thirty-one different therapeutic agents (alone or in combination) were counted within the studies with SoC+: mostly hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine (28), lopinavir/ritonavir (20) or azithromycin (16). No specification was given regarding treatment allowed in the control groups (SoC-) in 41 studies (38.0%). Conclusion: Our analysis shows that the findings emerging from several clinical trials regarding the efficacy and safety of pharmacological intervention for COVID-19 might be jeopardized by the quality of control arms.

Comparative Effectiveness of Pharmacological Interventions for Covid-19: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Background: Several pharmacological interventions are now under investigation for the treatment of Covid-19, and the evidence is evolving rapidly. Our aim is to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of these drugs. Methods and Findings: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We included 96 RCTs, comprising of 34,501 patients. The network meta-analysis showed in terms of all-cause mortality, when compared to SC or placebo, only corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate (RR 0.90, 95%CI 0.83, 0.97; moderate certainty of evidence). Corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate also when compared to hydroxychloroquine (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.74, 0.94; moderate certainty of evidence). Remdesivir proved to be better in terms of SAEs when compared to SC or placebo (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0.63, 0.89; high certainty of evidence) and plasma (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.34, 0.94; high certainty of evidence). The combination of lopinavir and ritonavir proved to reduce SAEs when compared to plasma (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.25, 0.95; high certainty of evidence). Most of the RCTs were at unclear risk of bias (42 of 96), one third were at high risk of bias (34 of 96) and 20 were at low risk of bias. Certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low. Conclusion: At present, corticosteroids reduced all-cause mortality in patients with Covid-19, with a moderate certainty of evidence. Remdesivir appeared to be a safer option than SC or placebo, while plasma was associated with safety concerns. These preliminary evidence-based observations should guide clinical practice until more data are made public.

[The praise of uncertainty: a systematic living review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of drug treatments for patients with covid-19.] / L'elogio dell'incertezza: una revisione sistematica living per valutare l'efficacia e la sicurezza dei trattamenti farmacologici per pazienti affetti da covid-19.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus that causes a disease which can leads to a severe form of fatal pneumonia. At december 2020 in Italy, more than 2 million people have contracted the virus and 78,755 people have died. The scientific community is studying and testing numerous compounds that can be effective and safe for treating people with covid-19. AIM: To synthesize and evaluate the quality of evidence of efficacy and safety for the treatment. The available evidence is summarized in a living systematic review, a review that is constantly updated on the basis of the results of the new clinical studies. METHODS: A bibliographic search is launched weekly on the electronic databases and on the main clinical trial registers. Two researchers independently select the articles and assess the quality of the studies using the criteria developed by the Cochrane Collaboration, the certainty of the overall quality of the evidence is assessed using the GRADE criteria. RESULTS: At 31/12/2020, 101 randomized controlled studies were included that consider 72 different comparisons and include a total of 55,281 patients. 37 drugs are tested with respect to the standard treatment, 6 are evaluated against placebo and finally 29 compare different drugs with each other. By selecting studies that evaluate the efficacy and safety of a drug compared to standard treatment, which include at least 2 studies and which have low to high certainty of evidence, results show that corticosteroids, remdesivir, favipiravir, immunoglobulins, colchicine, and umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cell infusion could reduce overall mortality. No differences for the risk of any adverse events are observed between convalescent plasma and remdesivir compared to standard treatment. Remdesivir probably reduces the risk of serious adverse events; a similar effect, although less strong, is also noted for tocilizumab and the lopinavir-ritonavir combination. In contrast, hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids and convalescent plasma transfusion are associated with safety concerns with respect to the risk of serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The 101 studies included consider 72 comparisons and numerous outcomes, the results often coming from single studies and of small dimensions, and for 61% with a very low certainty of evidence, are difficult to summarize and the final result is to increase the uncertainty rather than providing useful information to the clinic and research. From all the work carried out it seems to us that the pandemic has highlighted the many shadows of scientific literature as tool to improve knowledge.

Impact of antipsychotics in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The net health benefit of using antipsychotics in children and adolescents with ASD is unclear. This review was performed to provide the evidence necessary to inform the Italian national guidelines for the management of ASD. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antipsychotics versus placebo for the treatment of ASD in children and adolescents. For efficacy, acceptability and safety we considered outcomes evaluated by the guideline panel critical and important for decision-making. Continuous outcomes were analyzed by using standardized mean difference (SMD), and dichotomous outcomes by calculating the risk ratio (RR), with their 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Data were analyzed using a random effects model. We used the Cochrane tool to assess risk of bias of included studies. Certainty in the evidence of effects was assessed according to the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We included 21 RCTs with 1,309 participants, comparing antipsychotics to placebo. Antipsychotics were found effective on "restricted and repetitive interests and behaviors" (SMD - 0.21, 95% CI - 0.35 to - 0.07, moderate certainty), "hyperactivity, inattention, oppositional, disruptive behavior" (SMD - 0.67, 95% CI - 0.92 to - 0.42, moderate certainty), "social communication, social interaction" (SMD - 0.38, 95% CI - 0.59 to - 0.16, moderate certainty), "emotional dysregulation/irritability" (SMD - 0.71, 95% CI - 0.98 to - 0.43, low certainty), "global functioning, global improvement" (SMD - 0.64, 95% CI - 0.96 to - 0.33, low certainty), "obsessions, compulsions" (SMD - 0.30, 95% CI - 0.55 to - 0.06, moderate certainty). Antipsychotics were not effective on "self-harm" (SMD - 0.14, 95% CI - 0.58 to 0.30, very low certainty), "anxiety" (SMD - 0.38, 95% CI - 0.82 to 0.07, very low certainty). Antipsychotics were more acceptable in terms of dropout due to any cause (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.78, moderate certainty), but were less safe in terms of patients experiencing adverse events (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.32, moderate certainty), and serious adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.43, low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis found antipsychotics for children and adolescents with ASD more efficacious than placebo in reducing stereotypies, hyperactivity, irritability and obsessions, compulsions, and in increasing social communication and global functioning. Antipsychotics were also found to be more acceptable, but less safe than placebo.

Acceptability, equity, and feasibility of using antipsychotics in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether the administration of antipsychotics to children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) is acceptable, equitable, and feasible. METHODS: We performed a systematic review to support a multidisciplinary panel in formulating a recommendation on antipsychotics, for the development of the Italian national guidelines for the management of ASD. A comprehensive search strategy was performed to find data related to intervention acceptability, health equity, and implementation feasibility. We used quantitative data from randomized controlled trials to perform a meta-analysis assessing the acceptability and tolerability of antipsychotics, and we estimated the certainty of the effect according to the GRADE approach. We extracted data from systematic reviews, primary studies, and grey literature, and we assessed the risk of bias and methodological quality of the published studies. RESULTS: Antipsychotics were acceptable (dropouts due to any cause: RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48-0.78, moderate certainty of evidence) and well tolerated (dropouts due to adverse events: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.55-1.79, low certainty of evidence) by children and adolescents with ASD. Parents and clinicians did not raise significant issues concerning acceptability. We did not find studies reporting evidence of reduced equity for antipsychotics in disadvantaged subgroups of children and adolescents with ASD. Workloads, cost barriers, and inadequate monitoring of metabolic adverse events were indirect evidence of concerns for feasibility. CONCLUSION: Antipsychotics in children and adolescents with ASD were likely acceptable and possibly feasible. We did not find evidence of concern for equity.

Impact of polyunsaturated fatty acids on patient-important outcomes in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) claimed PUFAs to be effective for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) but international guidelines have not considered yet this body of evidence. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of PUFAs in children and adolescents with ASD, for the Italian national guidelines on the management of ASD in children and adolescents. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing PUFAs versus placebo or a healthy diet for the treatment of ASD in children and adolescents. The outcomes considered were deemed by the guideline panel to be highly relevant to children and adolescents with ASD and to their caregivers. The outcomes included hyperactivity, quality of sleep, self-harm, aggression, irritability, anxiety, attention, adaptive functioning, social interaction, restricted and repetitive interests and behavior, communication, hyperactivity and disruptive behaviors coexistent with core symptoms. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed with the Cochrane tool, and the rating of the confidence in the effect estimates according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: We included 9 studies with 405 participants. The strength of evidence ranged from low to very low. Six studies included preschoolers and school-age children, three studies included both children and adolescents. The majority of participants were males (83.8%), with a mean age of 6.7 years. PUFAs were superior compared to placebo in reducing anxiety in individuals with ASD (SMD -1.01, 95% CI - 1.86 to - 0.17; very low certainty of evidence). Moreover, PUFAs worsened quality of sleep compared to a healthy diet (SMD 1.11, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.00; very low certainty of evidence). PUFAs were not better than placebo in reducing aggression, hyperactivity, adaptive functioning, irritability, restricted and repetitive interests and behaviors and communication. Effects on some critical outcomes such as sleep, self-harm and disruptive behavior are currently unknown. The main limitations were the small number of participants included in the RCTs and the dosage which varied greatly (from 200 mg/day to 1540 mg/day), making it difficult to address causal inference. CONCLUSIONS: PUFAs did not show evidence of effect in children and adolescents with ASD and the certainty of evidence as measured with the GRADE was low to very low. Further research is needed on this topic because the available evidence is inconclusive.

[Effects of electronic cigarettes on health: a systematic review of the available evidence.] / Effetti delle sigarette elettroniche sulla salute: una revisione sistematica delle prove disponibili.

BACKGROUND: In recent years there has been an enormous development in the use of electronic cigarettes (e-cig). In Italy, in the 2019, the users of e-cig are about 900.000. E-cig users tend to overlook the absolute risk of the e-cig product in favor of the relative risk compared to traditional ones. This is also due to the fact that at the moment there are large knowledge gaps on the health effects of using e-cig. Recently reports have emerged regarding serious health adverse effects (AE) related to their use. As of December 2019, the American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported 2409 cases of lung disease associated with the use of e-cig, and 52 deaths. AIM: To summarize the available evidence on the health effects of electronic cigarettes. METHODS: We searched systematic reviews (SR) of the literature published up to September 2019. RESULTS: The systematic searches led to the identification of 14 SRs (1037 studies included of which 77 provided useful information for this review) that met the inclusion criteria. Given the heterogeneity of the comparisons and of the outcome measures considered, the results are described narratively. Effects on the respiratory system: cough, phlegm, asthma and bronchitis symptoms, cases of chronic bronchitis and COPD have also been reported. Effects on the oropharyngeal system: lesions in the oral cavity, villous black tongue, allergic reactions, endogenous formation of carcinogens, development of oral cancer. Effects on the cardiovascular system: increased heart rate, increased systolic and diastolic pressure. Effects on skin and annexes: squamous and pruritic dermatitis. Any adverse effect: the most frequently reported AEs are cough, dry mouth, shortness of breath, irritation of the mouth and throat and headache. Effects of exposure to e-cig passive smoking: increase in cotinine levels in exposed environments. CONCLUSIONS: These results, based on evidence from very low to moderate, show a series of possible risks linked to the use of e-cig. However, there is a need for further well-conducted studies with longer follow-up periods to confirm these results.

[Systematic review to evaluate the efficacy, acceptability and safety of second-generation antipsychotics for the treatment of unipolar and bipolar depression.] / Revisione sistematica per valutare l'efficacia, l'accettabilità e la sicurezza degli antipsicotici di seconda generazione per il trattamento della depressione unipolare e bipolare.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that depression affects about 121 million people in the world and in terms of years of illness, by the year 2020 could become the second most prevalent disease in the world population after cardiovascular diseases. Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) seems to induce remission in depression when added to an antidepressant. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of SGAs for the treatment of depression. METHODS: We searched five bibliographic databases. We assessed the quality of evidence using Cochrane and GRADE criteria. RESULTS: We included 42 RCTs. Where possible, we made a statistical synthesis of results. For efficacy outcomes, in direct comparisons in unipolar and bipolar patients with acute depressive episode, and in unipolar patients who did not respond to previous treatments with antidepressants (non-responders), SGAs gave better results than placebo, moderate to low certainty of evidence. In the comparison with antidepressants, in unipolar and bipolar patients with acute depressive episode the evidence was in favour of SGAs high certainty of evidence; while in the non-responder unipolar patients (the included studies considered only this typology of patients) the evidence was in favour of the antidepressants, low certainty of evidence. For safety outcomes, the results were in favour of placebo for patients with at least one adverse event, and in favour of SGAs for the number of patients with serious adverse events, for both comparisons the certainty of evidence was moderate. Comparing the SGAs with antidepressants, no differences were observed for patients with at least one adverse event, high certainty of evidence; while serious adverse events were less acute in patients treated with SGAs, moderate certainty evidence. The results of direct and indirect comparisons made with the network meta-analysis showed no differences for most of the outcomes considered, not showing a clear superiority of a drug compared to the others. CONCLUSIONS: These results showed a moderate effect in favour of SGAs compared to antidepressants in patients, unipolar and bipolar, with a new acute depressive episode and confirm that in patients non-responders, antidepressants may remain more effective.

Volume and health outcomes: evidence from systematic reviews and from evaluation of Italian hospital data. / Volumi di attività ed esiti delle cure: prove scientifiche in letteratura ed evidenze empiriche in Italia.

BACKGROUND Improving quality and effectiveness of healthcare is one of the priorities of health policies. Hospital or physician volume represents a measurable variable with an impact on effectiveness of healthcare. An Italian law calls for the definition of «qualitative, structural, technological, and quantitative standards of hospital care¼. There is a need for an evaluation of the available scientific evidence in order to identify qualitative, structural, technological, and quantitative standards of hospital care, including the volume of care above or below which the public and private hospitals may be accredited (or not) to provide specific healthcare interventions. OBJECTIVES To identify conditions/interventions for which an association between volume and outcome has been investigated. To identify conditions/interventions for which an association between volume and outcome has been proved. To analyze the distribution of Italian health providers by volume of activity. To measure the association between volume of care and outcomes of the health providers of the Italian National Health Service (NHS). METHODS Systematic review An overview of systematic reviews was performed searching PubMed, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library up to November 2016. Studies were evaluated by 2 researchers independently; quality assessment was performed using the AMSTAR checklist. For each health condition and outcome, if available, total number of studies, participants, high volume cut-off values, and metanalysis have been reported. According to the considered outcomes, health topics were classified into 3 groups: positive association: a positive association was demonstrated in the majority of studies/participants and/or a pooled measure (metanalysis) with positive results was reported; lack of association: both studies and/or metanalysis showed no association; no sufficient evidence of association: both results of single studies and metanalysis do not allow to draw firm conclusions on the association between volume and outcome. Analysis of the distribution of Italian hospitals by volume of activity and the association between volume of activity and outcomes: the Italian National Outcome evaluation Programme 2016 The analyses were performed using the Hospital Information System and the National Tax Register (year 2015). For each condition, the number of hospitals by volume of activity was calculated. Hospitals with a volume lower than 3-5 cases/year were excluded. For conditions with more than 1,500 cases/year and frequency of outcome ≥1%, the association between volume of care and outcome was analyzed estimating risk-adjusted outcomes. RESULTS Bibliographic searches identified 80 reviews, evaluating 48 different clinical areas. The main outcome considered was intrahospital/30-day mortality. The other outcomes vary depending on the type of condition or intervention in study. The relationship between hospital volume and outcomes was considered in 47 out of 48 conditions: 34 conditions showed evidence of a positive association; • 14 conditions consider cancer surgery for bladder, breast, colon, rectum, colon rectum, oesophagus, kidney, liver, lung, ovaries, pancreas, prostate, stomach, head and neck; • 11 conditions consider cardiocerebrovascular area: nonruptured and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, acute myocardial infarction, brain aneurysm, carotid endarterectomy, coronary angioplasty, coronary artery bypass, paediatric heart surgery, revascularization of lower limbs, stroke, subarachnoid haemorrhage; • 2 conditions consider orthopaedic area: knee arthroplasty, hip fracture; • 7 conditions consider other areas: AIDS, bariatric surgery, cholecystectomy, intensive care unit, neonatal intensive care unit, sepsis, and traumas; for 3 conditions, no association was demonstrated: hip arthroplasty, dialysis, and thyroidectomy. for the remaining 10 conditions, the available evidence does not allow to draw firm conclusions about the association between hospital volume and considered outcomes: surgery for testicular cancer and intracranial tumours, paediatric oncology, aortofemoral bypass, cardiac catheterization, appendectomy, colectomy, inguinal hernia, respiratory failure, and hysterectomy. The relationship between volume of clinician/surgeon and outcomes was assessed only through the literature re view; to date, it is not possible to analyze this association for Italian health provider hospitals, since information on the clinician/surgeon on the hospital discharge chart is missing. The literature found a positive association for 21 conditions: 9 consider surgery for cancer: bladder, breast, colon, colon rectum, pancreas, prostate, rectum, stomach, and head and neck; 5 consider the cardiocerebrovascular area: ruptured and nonruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, carotid endarterectomy, paediatric heart surgery, and revascularization of the lower limbs; 2 consider the orthopaedic area: knee and hip arthroplasty; 5 consider other areas: AIDS, bariatric surgery, hysterectomy, intensive care unit, and thyroidectomy. The analysis of the distribution of Italian hospitals concerned the 34 conditions for which the systematic review has shown a positive volume-outcome association. For the following, it was possible to conduct the analysis of the association using national data: unruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, coronary angioplasty, hip arthroplasty, knee arthroplasty, coronary artery bypass, cancer surgery (colon, liver, breast, pancreas, lung, prostate, kidney, and stomach), laparoscopic cholecystectomy, hip fracture, stroke, acute myocardial infarction. For these conditions, the association between volume and outcome of care was observed. For laparoscopic cholecystectomy and surgery of the breast and stomach cancer, the association between the volume of the discharge (o dismissal) operating unit and the outcome was analyzed. The outcomes differ depending on the condition studied. The shape of the relationship is variable among different conditions, with heterogeneous slope of the curves. DISCUSSION For many conditions, the overview of systematic reviews has shown a strong evidence of association between higher volumes and better outcomes. The quality of the available reviews can be considered good for the consistency of the results between the studies and for the strength of the association; however, this does not mean that the included studies are of good quality. Analyzing national data, potential confounders, including age and comorbidities, have been considered. The systematic review of the literature does not permit to identify predefined volume thresholds. The analysis of national data shows a strong improvement in outcomes in the first part of the curve (from very low to higher volumes) for most conditions. In some cases, the improvement in outcomes remains gradual or constant with the increasing volume of care; in other, the analysis could allow the identification of threshold values beyond which the outcome does not further improve. However, a good knowledge of the relationship between effectiveness of treatments and costs, the geographical distribution and the accessibility to healthcare services are necessary to choose the minimum volumes of care, under which specific health procedures could not been provided in the NHS. Some potential biases due to the use of information systems data should also be considered. The different way of coding among hospitals could lead to a different selection of cases for some conditions. Regarding the definition of the exposure (volume of care), a possible bias could result from misclassification of health providers with high volume of activity. Performing the intervention in different departments/ units of the same hospital would result in an overestimation of the volume of care measured for hospital rather than for department/unit. For the conditions with a further fragmentation within the same structure, the association between volumes of discharge department and outcomes has also been evaluated. In this case, the two curves were different. The limit is to attribute the outcome to the discharge unit, which in case of surgery may not be the intervention unit. A similar bias could occur if the main determinant of the outcome of treatment was the caseload of each surgeon. The results of the analysis may be biased when different operators in the same hospital/unit carried out the same procedure. In any case, the observed association between volumes and outcome is very strong, and it is unlikely to be attributable to biases of the study design. Another aspect on which there is still little evidence is the interaction between volume of the hospital and of the surgeon. A MEDICARE study suggests that in some conditions, especially for specialized surgery, the effect of the surgeon's volume of activity is different depending on the structure volume, whereas it would not differ for some less specialized surgery conditions. The data here presented still show extremely fragmented volumes of both clinical and surgical areas, with a predominance of very low volume structures. Health systems operate, by definition, in a context of limited resources, especially when the amount of resources to allocate to the health system is reduced. In such conditions, the rationalization of the organization of health services based on the volume of care may make resources available to improve the effectiveness of interventions. The identification and certification of services and providers with high volume of activity can help to reduce differences in the access to non-effective procedures. To produce additional evidence to guide the reorganization of the national healthcare system, it will be necessary to design further primary studies to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of policies aimed at concentrating interventions in structures with high volumes of activity.

[Systematic review of safeness and therapeutic efficacy of cannabis in patients with multiple sclerosis, neuropathic pain, and in oncological patients treated with chemotherapy]. / Revisione sistematica sull'efficacia terapeutica e la sicurezza della cannabis per i pazienti affetti da sclerosi multipla, dolore neuropatico cronico e pazienti oncologici che assumono chemioterapie.

BACKGROUND: medical cannabis refers to the use of cannabis or cannabinoids as medical therapy to treat disease or alleviate symptoms. In the United States, 23 states and Washington DC (May 2015) have introduced laws to permit the medical use of cannabis. Within the European Union, medicinal cannabis laws and praxis vary wildly between Countries. OBJECTIVES: to provide evidence for benefits and harms of cannabis (including extracts and tinctures) treatment for adults in the following indications: control of spasticity and pain in patients with multiple sclerosis; control of pain in patients with chronic neuropathic pain; control of nausea and vomiting in adults with cancer receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and EMBASE from inception to September 2016. We also searched for on-going studies via ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal. All searches included also non-English language literature. All relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the safety and efficacy of cannabis (including extracts and tinctures) compared with placebo or other pharmacological agents were included. Three authors independently evaluated the titles and abstracts of studies identified in the literature searches for their eligibility. For studies considered eligible, we retrieved full texts. Three investigators independently extracted data. For the assessment of the quality of evidence, we used the standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane and GRADE working Group. RESULTS: 41 trials (4,550 participants) were included; 15 studies considered efficacy and safety of cannabis for patients with multiple sclerosis, 12 for patients with chronic pain, and 14 for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy. The included studies were published between 1975 and 2015, and the majority of them were conducted in Europe. We judged almost 50% of these studies to be at low risk of bias. The large majority (80%) of the comparisons were with placebo; only 8 studies included patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy comparing cannabis with other antiemetic drugs. Concerning the efficacy of cannabis (compared with placebo) in patients with multiple sclerosis, confidence in the estimate was high in favour of cannabis for spasticity (numerical rating scale and visual analogue scale, but not the Ashworth scale) and pain. For chronic and neuropathic pain (compared with placebo), there was evidence of a small effect; however, confidence in the estimate is low and these results could not be considered conclusive. There is uncertainty whether cannabis, including extracts and tinctures, compared with placebo or other antiemetic drugs reduces nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer requiring chemotherapy, although the confidence in the estimate of the effect was low or very low. In the included studies, many adverse events were reported and none of the studies assessed the development of abuse or dependence. CONCLUSIONS: there is incomplete evidence of the efficacy and safety of medical use of cannabis in the clinical contexts considered in this review. Furthermore, for many of the outcomes considered, the confidence in the estimate of the effect was again low or very low. To give conclusive answers to the efficacy and safety of cannabis used for medical purposes in the clinical contexts considered, further studies are needed, with higher quality, larger sample sizes, and possibly using the same diagnostic tools for evaluating outcomes of interest.

A survey on lifestyle and level of biomarkers of environmental exposure in residents in Civitavecchia (Italy).

BACKGROUND: The assessment of individual exposure to toxicants in industrially contaminated areas is difficult when multiple productions are active close to residential areas. Two thermoelectric power plants and a large harbor have been operating since the '60s in the area of Civitavecchia (North of Rome). METHODS: The ABC (Ambiente e Biomonitoraggio nell'area di Civitavecchia, Environment and Biomonitoring in Civitavecchia) program involved, in the period 2013-2014, residents in Civitavecchia and in the nearby municipalities (Santa Marinella, Allumiere, Tolfa and Tarquinia). They were randomly selected from the Municipal Register's data and their residence addresses were geocoded using GIS techniques. Biomonitoring of the following urinary metals, Sb, Be, Mo, Cd, Sn, W, Ir, Pt, Hg, Tl, V, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Rh, Pd, As were performed. Glucose and lipid metabolism, liver, renal, and endocrine function were evaluated through blood laboratory tests. Tests of lung functionwere also carried out as well as saturometry (oxygen rate in the blood with an illuminated sensor placed on the fingertip), anthropometric and blood pressure measurements. Information on individual characteristics, histories of exposure, such as the consumption of local food, occupational history, lifestyle and medical history were collected through a validated questionnaire. Samples of nails and hair were also collected. The biological material (blood, urine, nails and hair) was stored in a biobank for future analysis related to the possible mechanisms of biological damage. The study protocol received the approval of the local ethics committee. RESULTS: A total of 1177 residents were enrolled (58% female, 60% with a secondary or graduate school degree). No particular differences in metal concentrations based on the municipality of residence were observed. For arsenic, mercury, lead, and tungsten some differences between the two geographical areas were observed, probably due to different diet, lifestyle (e.g., alcohol consumption, smoking, use of jewelry and piercings, tattoos, physical activity, hormonal and mineral supplements, and drugs), and occupational exposure. CONCLUSIONS: The undergoing study on the association between biomarkers concentration and pollutants concentrations - estimated using a dispersion modeling approach, and adjusting for personal characteristics and concomitant other environmental exposure - could clarify the individual exposure of the residents in this industrial area.

Liposomal daunorubicin, fludarabine, and cytarabine (FLAD) as bridge therapy to stem cell transplant in relapsed and refractory acute leukemia.

Therapeutic options for patients with relapsed or refractory acute leukemia are still undefined and often unsatisfactory. We report the outcome of 79 patients with relapsed-refractory acute leukemia treated with fludarabine, cytarabine, and liposomal daunorubicin (FLAD regimen) followed by hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), when clinically indicated, between May 2000 and January 2013. Forty-one patients had acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and 38 had acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Two patients with myeloid blast crises of CML and three with lymphoid blast crises were included in the AML and ALL subgroups, respectively. Median age was 48 years (range 13-77). FLAD was well tolerated with negligible, nonhematological toxicity. Six patients (7.5 %) died before response evaluation. Forty-seven patients achieved hematologic complete response (CR). Complete remission rate was 53 and 65 % among AML and ALL patients, respectively. No CR was recorded among 11 refractory AML patients. Twenty-four patients (30 %) underwent HSCT. Nine patients received stem cells from an HLA identical sibling, and 15 from an alternative donor (3 unrelated matched, 12 haploidentical sibling). Median overall survival in AML and ALL patients receiving FLAD therapy was 9 and 8 months, respectively. A 5-year projected OS for patients receiving the whole program (FLAD + HSCT) was 24 % for AML patients (median survival 43 months), 28 % for ALL patients treated in relapse (median survival 15 months), and 0 % for ALL patients treated for refractory disease. In this paper, we show that FLAD seems to be an effective bridge therapy to HSCT for a part of poor prognosis acute leukemia patients. However, prospective studies are needed to confirm our results.

De novo AML patients with favourable-intermediate karyotype may benefit from the addition of low-dose gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) to fludarabine, Ara-C and idarubicin (FLAI): a contribution to the reopened "GO question".

We report the final results of a prospective trial testing the combination of fludarabine, Ara-C and idarubicin (FLAI) followed by low-dose gemtuzumab ozogamicin (FLAI-GO) in 85 patients aged 60 years or more with CD33+ acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). Median age was 68 years (60-82); karyotype was unfavourable in 21 patients (24%), intermediate in 63 (74%) and favourable in 1 (2%). There were five therapy-related deaths. Of the 80 evaluable patients, 47 achieved complete response (CR) (58%); CR rates were 65 and 32% in good-intermediate/poor karyotype patients, respectively. Median length of CR was 7 months (3-76). The cumulative incidence of relapse was 84% with an actuarial survival of 50.3% at 1 year and 14.4% at 2 years. The study control population is an unselected consecutive historic cohort of 104 patients treated with the FLAI regimen, who were matched for age and prognostic factors. CR rates after FLAI-GO and FLAI were comparable. However, patients with de novo AML and intermediate-favourable karyotype receiving GO had a significantly lower risk of relapse at 2 years as compared to patients not receiving GO (n = 77) (40 vs 80%, p = 0.01) and significantly better disease-free survival (p = 0.018) and overall survival (p = 0.022).

In vivo catecholaminergic metabolism in the medial prefrontal cortex of ENU2 mice: an investigation of the cortical dopamine deficit in phenylketonuria.

OBJECTIVE: Phenylketonuria (PKU) is an inherited metabolic disease characterized by plasma hyperphenylalaninemia and several neurological symptoms that can be controlled by rigorous dietetic treatment. The cellular mechanisms underlying impaired brain functions are still unclear. It has been proposed, however, that phenylalanine interference in cognitive functions depends on impaired dopamine (DA) transmission in the prefrontal cortical area due to reduced availability of the precursor tyrosine. Here, using Pah(enu2) (ENU2) mice, the genetic murine model of PKU, we investigated all metabolic steps of catecholamine neurotransmission within the medial preFrontal Cortex (mpFC), availability of the precursor tyrosine, synthesis and release, to find an easy way to reinstate normal cortical DA neurotransmission. METHODS AND RESULTS: Analysis of blood and brain levels of tyrosine showed reduced plasma and cerebral levels of tyrosine in ENU2 mice. Western blot analysis demonstrated deficient tyrosine hydroxylase (TH) protein levels in mpFC of ENU2 mice. Cortical TH activity, determined in vivo by measuring the accumulation of l-3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine (L-DOPA) in mpFC after inhibition of L-aromatic acid decarboxylase with NSD-1015, was reduced in ENU2 mice. Finally, a very low dose of L-DOPA, which bypasses the phenylalanine-inhibited metabolic steps, restored DA prefrontal transmission to levels found in healthy mice. CONCLUSION: The data suggests that a strategy of using tyrosine supplementation to treat PKU is unlikely to be effective, whereas small dose L-DOPA administration is likely to have a positive therapeutic effect.