Mental health law: a comparison of compulsory hospital admission in Italy and the UK

In Europe, the mental health law legal framework has had several changes throughout the years to achieve and develop new reforms, better mental health care, and protect the human rights of patients. The UK national data shows rising detention rates and the disproportionate use of the legal framework among people from black and minority ethnic groups. At the national level, compulsory admissions are lower in Italy; it also shows that it has increased in the last few years in both countries. The lack of ethnic national data, especially in Italy, limited the ability to understand compulsory admission, discrimination, and stigma in mental health. The present study aims to compare the legal framework of mental health law and compulsory hospital admission in Italy and the UK. A review of each country’s latest amendments to mental health law and the number of compulsory hospital admissions was conducted to understand the impact of changes in mental health care

Risk and outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with multiple sclerosis

Background and purpose Limited information is available on incidence and outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). This study investigated the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related outcomes in patients with MS, and compared these with the general population. Methods A regional registry was created to collect data on incidence, hospitalization rates, intensive care unit admission, and death in patients with MS and COVID-19. National government outcomes and seroprevalence data were used for comparison. The study was conducted at 14 specialist MS treatment centers in Madrid, Spain, between February and May 2020. Results Two-hundred nineteen patients were included in the registry, 51 of whom were hospitalized with COVID-19. The mean age ± standard deviation was 45.3 ± 12.4 years, and the mean duration of MS was 11.9 ± 8.9 years. The infection incidence rate was lower in patients with MS than the general population (adjusted incidence rate ratio = 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.70–0.80), but hospitalization rates were higher (relative risk = 5.03, 95% CI = 3.76–6.62). Disease severity was generally low, with only one admission to an intensive care unit and five deaths. Males with MS had higher incidence rates and risk of hospitalization than females. No association was found between the use of any disease-modifying treatment and hospitalization risk. Conclusions Patients with MS do not appear to have greater risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection or severe COVID-19 outcomes compared with the general population. The decision to start or continue disease-modifying treatment should be based on a careful risk–benefit assessment.post-print996 K

Des sources du savoir aux médicaments du futur

L'origine des pharmacopées traditionnelles L'élaboration des pharmacopées Les médicaments du XXIe siècle Comment les connaissances des savoirs thérapeutiques se sont-elles transmises au travers des différentes cultures ? Cet ouvrage innovant, qui réunit les travaux présentés au 4e Congrès européen d'ethnopharmacologie, fait remonter à la préhistoire les sources des connaissances thérapeutiques. Si les pharmacopées écrites jalonnent l'histoire des grandes médecines savantes, d'autres modes d'accès à la connaissance semblent exister dans l'univers chamanique des sociétés de tradition orale ainsi que dans la façon dont les animaux malades se soignent par les plantes. L'évaluation des propriétés pharmaco-toxicologiques et chimiques des plantes d'usage traditionnel devrait par ailleurs favoriser le développement futur des médicaments à base de plantes, l'un des thèmes porteurs abordés dans cet ouvrage. Mais l'objectif de ce livre est aussi de susciter, partout dans le monde, de nouvelles thématiques de recherche dans le domaine de la préhistoire du médicament et de la compréhension de l'acquisition et de la transmission du savoir. Le développement du phytomédicament non toxique destiné à l'homme et à l'animal figure également parmi les enjeux majeurs de demain.The origin of traditional pharmacopoeias The development of pharmacopoeias The medicines of the XXIth century How have the traditional Therapeutical knowledges been transmited to the différent cultures? This innovating book containing the proceedings of the 4th European Congress of Ethnopharmacology return to prehistory the sources of fherapeutical knowledge and asks how the animals cure themselves with plants. If the printing pharmacopoeias ponctuate the history of learning medicines other way of accessibility to the knowledge seems exist in the world of shaman in society with oral tradition. Ethnopharmacological evaluation of traditional médicinal plant should favour the development of phytomedicine. The purpose of this publication is also to provide dues to scientists in the whole world and help them identify new avenues for research in the field of the prehistory of drugs, for a better understanding of the way knowledge is acquired and then transmitted, and for the development of non-toxic herbal medicines for administration to human and animal beings

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field