Search

Objectives: According to the National Cancer Institute, the integrative medicine (IM) approach to medical care combines standard medicine with complementary and alternative medicine practices that have proved safe and effective.Methods: We describe the clinical cases of four patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (DMPM), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and breast cancer (BC) who received supportive treatment (ST) according to an IM approach after the failure of standard cancer treatments or the appearance of serious adverse events caused by antiblastic chemotherapy. The critical role of complementary drugs in reducing the side effects of cancer treatments and normalizing the white cell count is especially apparent in the case of the patient with metastatic BC, who experienced prolonged neutropenia.Results: The IM approach was well-tolerated and had no adverse side effects. It improved the quality of life (QoL) of all patients and in two cases extended overall survival.Conclusion: The extended clinical and instrumental response to IM of the patients with malignant mesothelioma and the improved health-related QoL and good tolerance of the ST demonstrated in all cases support the value of this approach in patients whose cancer therapies have failed but who show a good performance status. Our data require confirmation in a well-designed prospective clinical trial.

In this first edition of 2021’s Medical Writing, I am delighted to present a piece from Filippo Vitale and colleagues. This is a truly fascinating article that discusses how we have communicated science and scientific facts throughout history and how changes in societyhave affected how this is done and the outcomes that this has produced. I found this article extremely thought- provoking (and at times a sad reflection of where we have come to as a global society) as the authors document and explain concepts like “clickbait” and “fake news”. Whilst it was truly educational to understand the evolution of these concepts, I totally echo the authors’ call to arms in their plea for us to be more aware of these phenomena and to do our utmost to counter them. As medical writers, we are uniquely placed to do this, and I consider it our duty to do so. What a way to start a new year!

Mariagrazia D’Ippolito,1 Adriano Purgato,2 Maria Gabriella Buzzi1,3 1Neurorehabilitation 2, Post-Coma Unit, IRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia, Rome 00179, Italy; 2National Health System, Azienda USL Roma 2, Rome 00157, Italy; 3Headache Centre, IRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia, Rome 00179, ItalyCorrespondence: Maria Gabriella BuzziNeurorehabilitation 2, Post-Coma Unit, IRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia, Via Ardeatina 306, Rome 00142, ItalyTel +39 0651501753Fax +39 0651501752Email mg.buzzi@hsantalucia.itAbstract: Experiencing pain, especially when chronic, is an excruciating condition that should be regarded as a syndrome, if not a disease. People suffering from chronic pain tend to develop psychological discomfort mostly due to lack of acceptance, disbelief, blame. The complexity of pain pathophysiology, plus a wide range of negative psychosocial factors, leads to a more complex suffering that deserves attention and multidisciplinary treatments. The possibility that chronic pain may occur following physical aggression, torture, or persecution raises the issue of evil as a major contributor to pain in its worst representation – when individuals or groups are attacked based on racial, social, gender, religious, political, or other grounds. To explore the complex issue of chronic pain following physical or psychological harm, and to underscore the need for a multidisciplinary approach to reduce the burden of chronic pain, we discuss the biological mechanisms underlying pain state. We seek to clarify those factors leading to pain chronification, as well as personal and social attitudes that confound patients with chronic pain. The importance of family and social environment is also investigated, as well as personality traits of chronic pain patients that may further hamper successful treatment. The presence of chronic pain, modulated by, for example, acceptance of being a victim of premeditated physical and social violence, makes the issue more difficult to comprehend.Keywords: pain, evil, psychological features

Background The worldwide use of prone position (PP) for invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 is progressively increasing from the first pandemic wave in everyday clinical practice. Among the suggested treatments for the management of ARDS patients, PP was recommended in the Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 guidelines as an adjuvant therapy for improving ventilation. In patients with severe classical ARDS, some authors reported that early application of prolonged PP sessions significantly decreases 28-day and 90-day mortality. Methods and analysis Since January 2021, the COVID19 Veneto ICU Network research group has developed and implemented nationally and internationally the “PROVENT-C19 Registry”, endorsed by the Italian Society of Anesthesia Analgesia Resuscitation and Intensive Care…’(SIAARTI). The PROVENT-C19 Registry wishes to describe 1. The real clinical practice on the use of PP in COVID-19 patients during the pandemic at a National and International level; and 2. Potential baseline and clinical characteristics that identify subpopulations of invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 that may improve daily from PP therapy. This web-based registry will provide relevant information on how the database research tools may improve our daily clinical practice. Conclusions This multicenter, prospective registry is the first to identify and characterize the role of PP on clinical outcome in COVID-19 patients. In recent years, data emerging from large registries have been increasingly used to provide real-world evidence on the effectiveness, quality, and safety of a clinical intervention. Indeed observation-based registries could be effective tools aimed at identifying specific clusters of patients within a large study population with widely heterogeneous clinical characteristics. Trial registration The registry was registered (ClinicalTrial.Gov Trials Register NCT04905875) on May 28,2021.

Background: Sigh is a cyclic brief recruitment manoeuvre: previous physiological studies showed that its use could be an interesting addition to pressure support ventilation to improve lung elastance, decrease regional heterogeneity and increase release of surfactant. Research question: Is the clinical application of sigh during pressure support ventilation (PSV) feasible? Study design and methods: We conducted a multi-center non-inferiority randomized clinical trial on adult intubated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure or acute respiratory distress syndrome undergoing PSV. Patients were randomized to the No Sigh group and treated by PSV alone, or to the Sigh group, treated by PSV plus sigh (increase of airway pressure to 30 cmH2Ofor 3 seconds once per minute) until day 28 or death or successful spontaneous breathing trial. The primary endpoint of the study was feasibility, assessed as non-inferiority (5% tolerance) in the proportion of patients failing assisted ventilation. Secondary outcomes included safety, physiological parameters in the first week from randomization, 28-day mortality and ventilator-free days. Results: Two-hundred fifty-eight patients (31% women; median age 65 [54-75] years) were enrolled. In the Sigh group, 23% of patients failed to remain on assisted ventilation vs. 30% in the No Sigh group (absolute difference -7%, 95%CI -18% to 4%; p=0.015 for non-inferiority). Adverse events occurred in 12% vs. 13% in Sigh vs. No Sigh (p=0.852). Oxygenation was improved while tidal volume, respiratory rate and corrected minute ventilation were lower over the first 7 days from randomization in Sigh vs. No Sigh. There was no significant difference in terms of mortality (16% vs. 21%, p=0.342) and ventilator-free days (22 [7-26] vs. 22 [3-25] days, p=0.300) for Sigh vs. No Sigh. Interpretation: Among hypoxemic intubated ICU patients, application of sigh was feasible and without increased risk.

Background Hip fracture is one of the most common orthopedic causes of hospital admission in frail elderly patients. Hip fracture fixation in this class of patients is considered a high-risk procedure. Preoperative physical examination, plasma natriuretic peptide levels (BNP, Pro-BNP), and cardiovascular scoring systems (ASA-PS, RCRI, NSQIP-MICA) have all been demonstrated to underestimate the risk of postoperative complications. We designed a prospective multicenter observational study to assess whether preoperative lung ultrasound examination can predict better postoperative events thanks to the additional information they provide in the form of “indirect” and “direct” cardiac and pulmonary lung ultrasound signs. Methods LUSHIP is an Italian multicenter prospective observational study. Patients will be recruited on a nation-wide scale in the 12 participating centers. Patients aged > 65 years undergoing spinal anesthesia for hip fracture fixation will be enrolled. A lung ultrasound score (LUS) will be generated based on the examination of six areas of each lung and ascribing to each area one of the four recognized aeration patterns—each of which is assigned a subscore of 0, 1, 2, or 3. Thus, the total score will have the potential to range from a minimum of 0 to a maximum of 36. The association between 30-day postoperative complications of cardiac and/or pulmonary origin and the overall mortality will be studied. Considering the fact that cardiac complications in patients undergoing hip surgery occur in approx. 30% of cases, to achieve 80% statistical power, we will need a sample size of 877 patients considering a relative risk of 1.5. Conclusions Lung ultrasound (LU), as a tool within the anesthesiologist’s armamentarium, is becoming increasingly widespread, and its use in the preoperative setting is also starting to become more common. Should the study demonstrate the ability of LU to predict postoperative cardiac and pulmonary complications in hip fracture patients, a randomized clinical trial will be designed with the scope of improving patient outcome. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04074876. Registered on August 30, 2019.

The author wish to note there are three imprecisions in the article [1].

BACKGROUND: Sigh is a cyclic brief recruitment maneuver: previous physiologic studies showed that its use could be an interesting addition to pressure support ventilation to improve lung elastance, decrease regional heterogeneity, and increase release of surfactant. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is the clinical application of sigh during pressure support ventilation (PSV) feasible? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter noninferiority randomized clinical trial on adult intubated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure or ARDS undergoing PSV. Patients were randomized to the no-sigh group and treated by PSV alone, or to the sigh group, treated by PSV plus sigh (increase in airway pressure to 30 cm H2O for 3 s once per minute) until day 28 or death or successful spontaneous breathing trial. The primary end point of the study was feasibility, assessed as noninferiority (5% tolerance) in the proportion of patients failing assisted ventilation. Secondary outcomes included safety, physiologic parameters in the first week from randomization, 28-day mortality, and ventilator-free days. RESULTS: Two-hundred and fifty-eight patients (31% women; median age, 65 [54-75] years) were enrolled. In the sigh group, 23% of patients failed to remain on assisted ventilation vs 30% in the no-sigh group (absolute difference, -7%; 95% CI, -18% to 4%; P = .015 for noninferiority). Adverse events occurred in 12% vs 13% in the sigh vs no-sigh group (P = .852). Oxygenation was improved whereas tidal volume, respiratory rate, and corrected minute ventilation were lower over the first 7 days from randomization in the sigh vs no-sigh group. There was no significant difference in terms of mortality (16% vs 21%; P = .337) and ventilator-free days (22 [7-26] vs 22 [3-25] days; P = .300) for the sigh vs no-sigh group. INTERPRETATION: Among hypoxemic intubated ICU patients, application of sigh was feasible and without increased risk.