Search

This brief paper is intended to be a quick guide to prescribe biologics in severe asthma by following Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines but also considering the author’s personal opinions. The paper starts with the identification of candidates for biologic therapy examining next the biological markers to be taken into account for the phenotyping of inflammation. Finally, it indicates the type of biologic to be chosen. This guide also points out the possible signals that can allow us to identify patients with severe asthma that would otherwise be ignored. Furthermore, it tries to give some directions on how to proceed in order to select the right biologic in the cases where the overlapping of different phenotypes can be found or in non-T2 asthma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This contribution deals with the remarkably important and widespread (albeit controversial) legal mechanism of (falling into) ‘prescription’. In particular, it is argued here that the study of the mechanism of prescription reveals that, in the complex relationship between law and time, we find at work a form of rationality that is not purely logical and formal, but rather incremental: more precisely, it is a form of rationality that allows us to look at law as a structure that evolves over time as it regulates and recomposes incessantly the multiple relationships that bind the members of society. Nonetheless, in the presence of circumstances of time that legal systems normally envisage (while being able to determine them in various ways), this rationality may also require that certain legal relations be removed from the original regulation of positive law. And this is precisely what the mechanism of prescription does: in fact, it provides for legal relationships now ‘worn out’ by the passage of a qualified lapse of time to be regulated in a different manner from the past or even restored to a ‘moral’ di)mension that precedes positive law (but which, at the same time, cannot be considered pre-juridical). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the traditional reading of the rules outlining the statute of limitations, the underlying need for certainty requires that the starting date of the statute of limitations, in general and specifically with regard to the right to compensation for damage caused by an unlawful act, be not prevented by mere factual impediments to the exercise of the right, such as ignorance of the legal position by its holder. However, a well-established jurisprudential trend, sensitive to the need for effective protection of the interests of the right’s holder, contradicts this assumption, and this precisely in the field of compensation for damages, and with particular reference to personal injury characterized by long latency in time (such as, by way of example, that arising from harassment and sexual abuse of minors). The reasons underlying this approach are not purely equitable and may be found in the need for an adequate balancing, in accordance with constitutional principles, of the values underlying the individual compensation cases. Pending an intervention of reform, which is in any case desirable, it is more complex, however, to admit a hermeneutical extension of such solutions to all claims to compensation for damage and other legal positions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]