Search

Introduction and objectives: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in Portugal, thus it is important to identify individuals at risk. Patients with hypertension have an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular (CV) events. The role of LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) in atherosclerotic CVD is well-established. SCORE2, a new CV risk calculation tool, is used to predict the 10-year risk of fatal or non-fatal CVD. The aim of this study was to understand the impact of SCORE2 on CV risk assessment in a population with hypertension from a moderate risk country, compared to the previously used SCORE. Methods: This observational cross-sectional study analyzed a population census of 3146 patients diagnosed with hypertension without complications (K86). After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 654 patients were included. Data from medical records were collected to calculate and compare SCORE and SCORE2 categories and LDL-C targets. Results: Patients were classified into SCORE categories: 188 (28.75%) low, 448 (68.5%) moderate, 17 (2.6%) high and 1 (0.15%) very high risk. Using SCORE2, individuals in the SCORE low risk category were reclassified, requiring new targets: 149 individuals (80%) as low to moderate and 39 (20%) as high risk. These differences became more evident when considering SCORE moderate and high-risk categories, where 358 patients (77%) received a higher CV risk categorization, and therefore a lower LDL-C target. There was a significant increase in individuals failing to meet the target when using SCORE2, compared to SCORE (p

Background: Low-quality tumoral surgical excision is the major relapse factor in rectal cancer. If the surgery is highly difficult, the quality of the resection might be compromised. In the literature, it is described how low pelvic dimensions can make this type of surgery difficult. The main aim was to study the influence of pelvic measures in surgical difficulty on the patients submitted to tumoral surgical resection with curative intent. Methods: A retrospective, observational and analytic study was conducted. A total of 73 patients over a period of 3 years were included. Demographic and surgical data, as well as measurements of the pelvis taken from MRI, were collected. An univariate and multivariate analysis was performed. Results: 11 (15.1%) patients were classified as having highly difficult surgeries. All 11 patients were male. Significant differences were found between groups regarding gender (p = 0.013), transverse diameter of the pelvis (p < 0.001), interspinal distance (p = 0.014) and intertuberous distance (p < 0.001). The logistic regression revealed that a small transverse diameter (O.R. 0.919, 95% I.C. 0.846–0.999, p = 0.047) increases the degree of difficulty of the surgery. Conclusions: Male patients with a small pelvic measurement deserve a thorough surgical plan that predicts a quality resection.

INTRODUÇÃO: A fibromialgia é uma síndrome caracterizada por dor musculoesquelética generalizada, que tem um elevado impacto na qualidade de vida e um grande consumo de recursos de saúde. Apesar de não existirem recomendações que suportem a utilização de opioides na fibromialgia, estes são largamente utilizados. Assim, há a necessidade de encontrar alternativas farmacológicas eficazes e com perfil de risco-benefício favorável. Os canabinoides são atualmente alvo de grande interesse científico, em particular devido ao seu efeito analgésico. METODOLOGIA: Realizou-se uma pesquisa bibliográfica nas bases de dados PubMed, Cochrane e NICE, de estudos publicados nos últimos 5 anos, utilizando os termos MeSH: fibromyalgia, cannabinoids e cannabis. Para estratificar o nível de evidência e a força de recomendação, foi utilizada a escala SORT. RESULTADOS: Foram selecionados nove artigos, incluindo uma guideline, quatro revisões sistemáticas, duas MAs e um ensaio clínico randomizado. CONCLUSÃO: Os canabinoides têm potencial terapêutico como tratamento adjuvante na dor crónica.

The ILA Study Group began its work by identifying guiding principles that should frame and inform state practices with respect to children in migration. These principles included, but were not limited to, non-discrimination; the best interests of the child; the right to life, survival, and development; the right of the child to express their views on all matters affecting them; and the right to an effective remedy. The Study Group identified some of the most common rights violations for children in migration such as arbitrary age assessment practices; inadequate and age-inappropriate reception policies and facilities; and immigration detention of children and other coercive practices. The Study Group undertook a multidisciplinary approach by summarizing the research documenting the harmful effects of these practices on child health and well-being. It surveyed (1) treaties and international instruments that might recognize a right or remedy for children on the move; (2) regional and international fora where the claims of children could be heard; and (3) the growing body of regional and international jurisprudence upholding the rights of children in migration. Finally, it identified gaps in the international and regional frameworks and formulated recommendations as to how to ensure children in migration are able to enforce their rights and access justice.

According to the International Human Rights Law, States can limit the application of human rights rules to preserve individual and collective interests, such as public health, for example. The COVID-19 pandemic and its exceptional circumstances made several States worldwide go further. They decided to derogate their obligations concerning international human rights rules, suspending their applicability inside these countries’ territories under the justification that it is part of the sanitary attempts to address the spread of the disease. This article intends to show that this decision allows States to skip their international responsibility to respect human rights instead of guaranteeing people’s most fundamental rights. The suspension effect brought by a derogation enlarges the power of governments to create policies and laws to contain the emergency. However, governments do not need to observe some international human rights limitations if the derogation lasts. As a result, it allows some States to use the public health emergency brought by the COVID-19 to legitimize abusive and discriminative legislation, which purpose is to persecute political opposition and restrict minorities’ rights, for example. Therefore, adopting derogations in situations in which a simple limitation would be sufficient allows national governments to put their responsibility to follow international human rights terms and conditions out of the way under the justification of combatting a health emergency.