Efficacy and Safety of an mRNA-Based RSV PreF Vaccine in Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) can cause substantial morbidity and mortality among older adults. An mRNA-based RSV vaccine, mRNA-1345, encoding the stabilized RSV prefusion F glycoprotein, is under clinical investigation. METHODS: In this ongoing, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2-3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, adults 60 years of age or older to receive one dose of mRNA-1345 (50 µg) or placebo. The two primary efficacy end points were the prevention of RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease with at least two signs or symptoms and with at least three signs or symptoms. A key secondary efficacy end point was the prevention of RSV-associated acute respiratory disease. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 35,541 participants were assigned to receive the mRNA-1345 vaccine (17,793 participants) or placebo (17,748). The median follow-up was 112 days (range, 1 to 379). The primary analyses were conducted when at least 50% of the anticipated cases of RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease had occurred. Vaccine efficacy was 83.7% (95.88% confidence interval [CI], 66.0 to 92.2) against RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease with at least two signs or symptoms and 82.4% (96.36% CI, 34.8 to 95.3) against the disease with at least three signs or symptoms. Vaccine efficacy was 68.4% (95% CI, 50.9 to 79.7) against RSV-associated acute respiratory disease. Protection was observed against both RSV subtypes (A and B) and was generally consistent across subgroups defined according to age and coexisting conditions. Participants in the mRNA-1345 group had a higher incidence than those in the placebo group of solicited local adverse reactions (58.7% vs. 16.2%) and of systemic adverse reactions (47.7% vs. 32.9%); most reactions were mild to moderate in severity and were transient. Serious adverse events occurred in 2.8% of the participants in each trial group. CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of the mRNA-1345 vaccine resulted in no evident safety concerns and led to a lower incidence of RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease and of RSV-associated acute respiratory disease than placebo among adults 60 years of age or older. (Funded by Moderna; ConquerRSV ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05127434.).

Efficacy and Safety of a Bivalent RSV Prefusion F Vaccine in Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection causes considerable illness in older adults. The efficacy and safety of an investigational bivalent RSV prefusion F protein-based (RSVpreF) vaccine in this population are unknown. METHODS: In this ongoing, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, adults (≥60 years of age) to receive a single intramuscular injection of RSVpreF vaccine at a dose of 120 µg (RSV subgroups A and B, 60 µg each) or placebo. The two primary end points were vaccine efficacy against seasonal RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness with at least two or at least three signs or symptoms. The secondary end point was vaccine efficacy against RSV-associated acute respiratory illness. RESULTS: At the interim analysis (data-cutoff date, July 14, 2022), 34,284 participants had received RSVpreF vaccine (17,215 participants) or placebo (17,069 participants). RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness with at least two signs or symptoms occurred in 11 participants in the vaccine group (1.19 cases per 1000 person-years of observation) and 33 participants in the placebo group (3.58 cases per 1000 person-years of observation) (vaccine efficacy, 66.7%; 96.66% confidence interval [CI], 28.8 to 85.8); 2 cases (0.22 cases per 1000 person-years of observation) and 14 cases (1.52 cases per 1000 person-years of observation), respectively, occurred with at least three signs or symptoms (vaccine efficacy, 85.7%; 96.66% CI, 32.0 to 98.7). RSV-associated acute respiratory illness occurred in 22 participants in the vaccine group (2.38 cases per 1000 person-years of observation) and 58 participants in the placebo group (6.30 cases per 1000 person-years of observation) (vaccine efficacy, 62.1%; 95% CI, 37.1 to 77.9). The incidence of local reactions was higher with vaccine (12%) than with placebo (7%); the incidences of systemic events were similar (27% and 26%, respectively). Similar rates of adverse events through 1 month after injection were reported (vaccine, 9.0%; placebo, 8.5%), with 1.4% and 1.0%, respectively, considered by the investigators to be injection-related. Severe or life-threatening adverse events were reported in 0.5% of vaccine recipients and 0.4% of placebo recipients. Serious adverse events were reported in 2.3% of participants in each group through the data-cutoff date. CONCLUSIONS: RSVpreF vaccine prevented RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness and RSV-associated acute respiratory illness in adults (≥60 years of age), without evident safety concerns. (Funded by Pfizer; RENOIR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05035212; EudraCT number, 2021-003693-31.).

Bivalent Prefusion F Vaccine in Pregnancy to Prevent RSV Illness in Infants.

BACKGROUND: Whether vaccination during pregnancy could reduce the burden of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)-associated lower respiratory tract illness in newborns and infants is uncertain. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind trial conducted in 18 countries, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, pregnant women at 24 through 36 weeks' gestation to receive a single intramuscular injection of 120 µg of a bivalent RSV prefusion F protein-based (RSVpreF) vaccine or placebo. The two primary efficacy end points were medically attended severe RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness and medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness in infants within 90, 120, 150, and 180 days after birth. A lower boundary of the confidence interval for vaccine efficacy (99.5% confidence interval [CI] at 90 days; 97.58% CI at later intervals) greater than 20% was considered to meet the success criterion for vaccine efficacy with respect to the primary end points. RESULTS: At this prespecified interim analysis, the success criterion for vaccine efficacy was met with respect to one primary end point. Overall, 3682 maternal participants received vaccine and 3676 received placebo; 3570 and 3558 infants, respectively, were evaluated. Medically attended severe lower respiratory tract illness occurred within 90 days after birth in 6 infants of women in the vaccine group and 33 infants of women in the placebo group (vaccine efficacy, 81.8%; 99.5% CI, 40.6 to 96.3); 19 cases and 62 cases, respectively, occurred within 180 days after birth (vaccine efficacy, 69.4%; 97.58% CI, 44.3 to 84.1). Medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness occurred within 90 days after birth in 24 infants of women in the vaccine group and 56 infants of women in the placebo group (vaccine efficacy, 57.1%; 99.5% CI, 14.7 to 79.8); these results did not meet the statistical success criterion. No safety signals were detected in maternal participants or in infants and toddlers up to 24 months of age. The incidences of adverse events reported within 1 month after injection or within 1 month after birth were similar in the vaccine group (13.8% of women and 37.1% of infants) and the placebo group (13.1% and 34.5%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: RSVpreF vaccine administered during pregnancy was effective against medically attended severe RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness in infants, and no safety concerns were identified. (Funded by Pfizer; MATISSE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04424316.).

Efficacy and Safety of a Recombinant Plant-Based Adjuvanted Covid-19 Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus-like particles (CoVLP) that are produced in plants and display the prefusion spike glycoprotein of the original strain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are combined with an adjuvant (Adjuvant System 03 [AS03]) to form the candidate vaccine. METHODS: In this phase 3, multinational, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted at 85 centers, we assigned adults (≥18 years of age) in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of the CoVLP+AS03 vaccine or placebo 21 days apart. The primary objective of the trial was to determine the efficacy of the CoVLP+AS03 vaccine in preventing symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) beginning at least 7 days after the second injection, with the analysis performed after the detection of at least 160 cases. RESULTS: A total of 24,141 volunteers participated in the trial; the median age of the participants was 29 years. Covid-19 was confirmed by polymerase-chain-reaction assay in 165 participants in the intention-to-treat population; all viral samples that could be sequenced contained variants of the original strain. Vaccine efficacy was 69.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 56.7 to 78.8) against any symptomatic Covid-19 caused by five variants that were identified by sequencing. In a post hoc analysis, vaccine efficacy was 78.8% (95% CI, 55.8 to 90.8) against moderate-to-severe disease and 74.0% (95% CI, 62.1 to 82.5) among the participants who were seronegative at baseline. No severe cases of Covid-19 occurred in the vaccine group, in which the median viral load for breakthrough cases was lower than that in the placebo group by a factor of more than 100. Solicited adverse events were mostly mild or moderate and transient and were more frequent in the vaccine group than in the placebo group; local adverse events occurred in 92.3% and 45.5% of participants, respectively, and systemic adverse events in 87.3% and 65.0%. The incidence of unsolicited adverse events was similar in the two groups up to 21 days after each dose (22.7% and 20.4%) and from day 43 through day 201 (4.2% and 4.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The CoVLP+AS03 vaccine was effective in preventing Covid-19 caused by a spectrum of variants, with efficacy ranging from 69.5% against symptomatic infection to 78.8% against moderate-to-severe disease. (Funded by Medicago; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04636697.).

Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine through 6 Months.

BACKGROUND: BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine encoding a prefusion-stabilized, membrane-anchored severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) full-length spike protein. BNT162b2 is highly efficacious against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and is currently approved, conditionally approved, or authorized for emergency use worldwide. At the time of initial authorization, data beyond 2 months after vaccination were unavailable. METHODS: In an ongoing, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, multinational, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned 44,165 participants 16 years of age or older and 2264 participants 12 to 15 years of age to receive two 30-µg doses, at 21 days apart, of BNT162b2 or placebo. The trial end points were vaccine efficacy against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety, which were both evaluated through 6 months after vaccination. RESULTS: BNT162b2 continued to be safe and have an acceptable adverse-event profile. Few participants had adverse events leading to withdrawal from the trial. Vaccine efficacy against Covid-19 was 91.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89.0 to 93.2) through 6 months of follow-up among the participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection who could be evaluated. There was a gradual decline in vaccine efficacy. Vaccine efficacy of 86 to 100% was seen across countries and in populations with diverse ages, sexes, race or ethnic groups, and risk factors for Covid-19 among participants without evidence of previous infection with SARS-CoV-2. Vaccine efficacy against severe disease was 96.7% (95% CI, 80.3 to 99.9). In South Africa, where the SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern B.1.351 (or beta) was predominant, a vaccine efficacy of 100% (95% CI, 53.5 to 100) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Through 6 months of follow-up and despite a gradual decline in vaccine efficacy, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile and was highly efficacious in preventing Covid-19. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.).

Alimentos fermentados y probióticos en niños. La importancia de conocer sus diferencias microbiológicas / Fermented foods and probiotics for children. The importance of knowing their microbiological differences

La leche materna provee microorganismos que colonizan el intestino y programan el sistema inmunológico para desarrollar tolerancia oral. Entre los 6 meses de lactancia materna exclusiva y los 2 años de lactancia prolongada recomendada, la alimentación complementaria conlleva una reducción progresiva en el ingreso de microorganismos vivos al ecosistema intestinal. Esto se debe a que los alimentos en general -a diferencia de la leche materna- o se encuentran desprovistos de microorganismos o, si los poseen, suelen inactivarse durante la cocción. Los alimentos fermentados y los probióticos podrían constituir una estrategia nutricional valiosa, dado que garantizarían la provisión de microorganismos vivos ante la reducción o interrupción anticipada de la lactancia. Los términos "alimentos fermentados" y "probióticos" no son sinónimos. La identidad microbiológica, la inocuidad y la existencia de estudios clínicos de eficacia para unos y otros son claves para entender sus diferencias y decidir una eventual recomendación alimentaria

Breast milk provides microorganisms that colonize the gut and program the immune system to develop oral tolerance. Between the 6 months of exclusive breastfeeding and the recommended 2 years of prolonged breastfeeding, complementary feeding leads to a progressive reduction in the entry of live microorganisms into the gut ecosystem. This is because foods in general -unlike breast milk- are devoid of microorganisms or, if present, they are often inactivated during cooking. Fermented foods and probiotics could be a valuable nutritional strategy, as they would ensure the supply of live microorganisms in the face of a reduction or early cessation of breastfeeding. The terms "fermented foods" and "probiotics" are not synonymous. Microbiological identity, safety, and the existence of clinical efficacy studies supporting both are key to understand their differences and decide on an eventual dietary recommendation

Early High-Titer Plasma Therapy to Prevent Severe Covid-19 in Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Therapies to interrupt the progression of early coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) remain elusive. Among them, convalescent plasma administered to hospitalized patients has been unsuccessful, perhaps because antibodies should be administered earlier in the course of illness. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of convalescent plasma with high IgG titers against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in older adult patients within 72 hours after the onset of mild Covid-19 symptoms. The primary end point was severe respiratory disease, defined as a respiratory rate of 30 breaths per minute or more, an oxygen saturation of less than 93% while the patient was breathing ambient air, or both. The trial was stopped early at 76% of its projected sample size because cases of Covid-19 in the trial region decreased considerably and steady enrollment of trial patients became virtually impossible. RESULTS: A total of 160 patients underwent randomization. In the intention-to-treat population, severe respiratory disease developed in 13 of 80 patients (16%) who received convalescent plasma and 25 of 80 patients (31%) who received placebo (relative risk, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29 to 0.94; P = 0.03), with a relative risk reduction of 48%. A modified intention-to-treat analysis that excluded 6 patients who had a primary end-point event before infusion of convalescent plasma or placebo showed a larger effect size (relative risk, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.81). No solicited adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Early administration of high-titer convalescent plasma against SARS-CoV-2 to mildly ill infected older adults reduced the progression of Covid-19. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Fundación INFANT Pandemic Fund; Dirección de Sangre y Medicina Transfusional del Ministerio de Salud number, PAEPCC19, Plataforma de Registro Informatizado de Investigaciones en Salud number, 1421, and ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04479163.).

Fermented foods and probiotics for children. The importance of knowing their microbiological differences. / Alimentos fermentados y probióticos en niños. La importancia de conocer sus diferencias microbiológicas.

Breast milk provides microorganisms that colonize the gut and program the immune system to develop oral tolerance. Between the 6 months of exclusive breastfeeding and the recommended 2 years of prolonged breastfeeding, complementary feeding leads to a progressive reduction in the entry of live microorganisms into the gut ecosystem. This is because foods in general ­unlike breast milk­ are devoid of microorganisms or, if present, they are often inactivated during cooking. Fermented foods and probiotics could be a valuable nutritional strategy, as they would ensure the supply of live microorganisms in the face of a reduction or early cessation of breastfeeding. The terms "fermented foods" and "probiotics" are not synonymous. Microbiological identity, safety, and the existence of clinical efficacy studies supporting both are key to understand their differences and decide on an eventual dietary recommendation.

La leche materna provee microorganismos que colonizan el intestino y programan el sistema inmunológico para desarrollar tolerancia oral. Entre los 6 meses de lactancia materna exclusiva y los 2 años de lactancia prolongada recomendada, la alimentación complementaria conlleva una reducción progresiva en el ingreso de microorganismos vivos al ecosistema intestinal. Esto se debe a que los alimentos en general ­a diferencia de la leche materna­ o se encuentran desprovistos de microorganismos o, si los poseen, suelen inactivarse durante la cocción. Los alimentos fermentados y los probióticos podrían constituir una estrategia nutricional valiosa, dado que garantizarían la provisión de microorganismos vivos ante la reducción o interrupción anticipada de la lactancia. Los términos "alimentos fermentados" y "probióticos" no son sinónimos. La identidad microbiológica, la inocuidad y la existencia de estudios clínicos de eficacia para unos y otros son claves para entender sus diferencias y decidir una eventual recomendación alimentaria.

Asymptomatic COVID-19 in the elderly: dementia and viral clearance as risk factors for disease progression.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals ≥60 years old have the highest hospitalization rates and represent >80% fatalities. Within this population, those in long-term facilities represent >50% of the total COVID-19 related deaths per country. Among those without symptoms, the rate of pre-symptomatic illness is unclear, and potential predictors of progression for symptom development are unknown. Our objective was to delineate the natural evolution of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in elders and identify determinants of progression. METHODS: We established a medical surveillance team monitoring 63 geriatric institutions. When an index COVID-19 case emerged, we tested all other eligible asymptomatic elders ≥75 or >60 years old with at least 1 comorbidity. SARS-CoV-2 infected elders were followed for 28 days. Disease was diagnosed when any COVID-19 manifestation occurred. SARS-CoV-2 load at enrollment, shedding on day 15, and antibody responses were also studied. RESULTS: After 28 days of follow-up, 74/113(65%) SARS-CoV-2-infected elders remained asymptomatic. 21/39(54%) pre-symptomatic patients developed hypoxemia and ten pre-symptomatic patients died(median day 13.5,IQR 12). Dementia was the only clinical risk factor associated with disease(OR 2.41(95%CI=1.08, 5.39). In a multivariable logistic regression model, dementia remained as a risk factor for COVID-19 severe disease. Furthermore, dementia status showed a statistically significant different trend when assessing the cumulative probability of developing COVID-19 symptoms(log-rank p=0.027). On day 15, SARS-CoV-2 was detectable in 30% of the asymptomatic group while in 61% of the pre-symptomatic(p=0.012). No differences were observed among groups in RT-PCR mean cycle threshold at enrollment(p=0.391) and in the rates of antibody seropositivity(IgM and IgG against SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein). CONCLUSIONS: In summary, 2/3 of our cohort of SARS-CoV-2 infected elders from vulnerable communities in Argentina remained asymptomatic after 28 days of follow-up with high mortality among those developing symptoms. Dementia and persistent SARS-CoV-2 shedding were associated with progression from asymptomatic to symptomatic infection.

Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. METHODS: In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 µg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety. RESULTS: A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.).

Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination during Pregnancy and Effects in Infants.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the dominant cause of severe lower respiratory tract infection in infants, with the most severe cases concentrated among younger infants. METHODS: Healthy pregnant women, at 28 weeks 0 days through 36 weeks 0 days of gestation, with an expected delivery date near the start of the RSV season, were randomly assigned in an overall ratio of approximately 2:1 to receive a single intramuscular dose of RSV fusion (F) protein nanoparticle vaccine or placebo. Infants were followed for 180 days to assess outcomes related to lower respiratory tract infection and for 364 days to assess safety. The primary end point was RSV-associated, medically significant lower respiratory tract infection up to 90 days of life, and the primary analysis of vaccine efficacy against the primary end point was performed in the per-protocol population of infants (prespecified criterion for success, lower bound of the 97.52% confidence interval [CI] of ≥30%). RESULTS: A total of 4636 women underwent randomization, and there were 4579 live births. During the first 90 days of life, the percentage of infants with RSV-associated, medically significant lower respiratory tract infection was 1.5% in the vaccine group and 2.4% in the placebo group (vaccine efficacy, 39.4%; 97.52% CI, -1.0 to 63.7; 95% CI, 5.3 to 61.2). The corresponding percentages for RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection with severe hypoxemia were 0.5% and 1.0% (vaccine efficacy, 48.3%; 95% CI, -8.2 to 75.3), and the percentages for hospitalization for RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection were 2.1% and 3.7% (vaccine efficacy, 44.4%; 95% CI, 19.6 to 61.5). Local injection-site reactions among the women were more common with vaccine than with placebo (40.7% vs. 9.9%), but the percentages of participants who had other adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: RSV F protein nanoparticle vaccination in pregnant women did not meet the prespecified success criterion for efficacy against RSV-associated, medically significant lower respiratory tract infection in infants up to 90 days of life. The suggestion of a possible benefit with respect to other end-point events involving RSV-associated respiratory disease in infants warrants further study. (Funded by Novavax and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02624947.).

[Subject and pain: introduction to a philosophy of medicine]. / Sujeto y dolor: introducción a una filosofía de la medicina.

Pain cannot be explained. It may only be understood from the most unpleasant of positions: suffering it. Thus, in the attempt to account for its multiple occurrences, meanings and mechanisms, developing a philosophy of pain appears to be essential. The approach to these issues by traditional occidental medicine has not considered the particular language in their background, which contains a double subjectivity: the subjectivity it represents itself, and that which frames the relationship between the agents where this language circulates. Articulating traditional scientific medicine with social, anthropological, and artistic disciplines would allow for a satisfactory response to this double subjectiveness, resulting in a deep change in current pain therapies.

Sujeto y dolor: introducción a una filosofía de la medicina / Subject and pain: introduction to a philosophy of medicine

El dolor no se puede explicar. Su comprensión no es posible si no lo es desde la más ingrata de las posiciones: su padecimiento. Así, en el intento por explicar sus múltiples apariciones, significados y mecanismos, surge como imprescindible el desarrollo de una filosofía del dolor. El acercamiento a estas cuestiones por parte de la medicina occidental tradicional, no ha tenido en cuenta el lenguaje particular en el que éstas se enmarcan, el cual se ve atravesado por una doble subjetividad: la que él mismo representa y la que encuadra a la relación entre los agentes por la que este lenguaje circula. La articulación de la medicina científica tradicional con disciplinas sociales, antropológicas y artísticas permitiría conformar una respuesta satisfactoria a esta doble subjetividad, con un profundo cambio enlas terapéuticas actuales del dolor.

Pain cannot be explained. It may only be understood from the most unpleasant of positions: suffering it. Thus, in the attempt to account for its multiple occurrences, meanings and mechanisms,developing a philosophy of pain appearsto be essential. The approach to these issues by traditional occidental medicine has not considered the particular language in their background, which contains a double subjectivity: the subjectivity it represents itself, and that which frames the relationship between the agents where this language circulates. Articulating traditionalscientific medicine with social, anthropological, and artistic disciplines would allow for a satisfactory response to this double subjectiveness, resultingin a deep change in current pain therapies.

Sujeto y dolor: introducción a una filosofía de la medicina / Subject and pain: introduction to a philosophy of medicine

El dolor no se puede explicar. Su comprensión no es posible si no lo es desde la más ingrata de las posiciones: su padecimiento. Así, en el intento por explicar sus múltiples apariciones, significados y mecanismos, surge como imprescindible el desarrollo de una filosofía del dolor. El acercamiento a estas cuestiones por parte de la medicina occidental tradicional, no ha tenido en cuenta el lenguaje particular en el que éstas se enmarcan, el cual se ve atravesado por una doble subjetividad: la que él mismo representa y la que encuadra a la relación entre los agentes por la que este lenguaje circula. La articulación de la medicina científica tradicional con disciplinas sociales, antropológicas y artísticas permitiría conformar una respuesta satisfactoria a esta doble subjetividad, con un profundo cambio enlas terapéuticas actuales del dolor.(AU)

Pain cannot be explained. It may only be understood from the most unpleasant of positions: suffering it. Thus, in the attempt to account for its multiple occurrences, meanings and mechanisms,developing a philosophy of pain appearsto be essential. The approach to these issues by traditional occidental medicine has not considered the particular language in their background, which contains a double subjectivity: the subjectivity it represents itself, and that which frames the relationship between the agents where this language circulates. Articulating traditionalscientific medicine with social, anthropological, and artistic disciplines would allow for a satisfactory response to this double subjectiveness, resultingin a deep change in current pain therapies.(AU)