Generic versus brand-name cardiovascular drugs: a remarkable update

   &nbsp

Presenteeism levels among Italian nurses. A multicentric survey [Livelli di presenteismo fra gli infermieri italiani. Uno studio multicentrico]

INTRODUZIONE: Il presenteismo rappresenta la necessità di "mettersi al lavoro anche se ci si sente male"; influenzando così la qualità del lavoro, portando a errori o omissioni, riducendo la produttività e aumentando i costi. Gli infermieri sono annoverati tra i professionisti con il più alto grado di presenteismo, con potenziali effetti negativi sulla qualità del lavoro. OBIETTIVI: Accertare la prevalenza del Presenteismo tra gli infermieri italiani. METODI: E’ stato condotto uno studio trasversale, multicentrico da gennaio a dicembre 2015 su un campione di infermieri italiani. 652 infermieri hanno completato il questionario. Il punteggio totale medio alla Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS-6) era 21.6 (± 4.0). Gli infermieri hanno mostrato elevati livelli di Presenteismo nelle sezioni: "Evitare distrazioni" e "Completare il lavoro" della Scala. RISULTATI: Gli infermieri maschi hanno mostrato livell inferiori di Presenteismo rispetto alle donne, che tendevano anche ad essere minori con l'aumentare dell'età. La presenza di ≥1 problema di salute auto-riferito è stata associata ad un aumento del punteggio. CONCLUSIONI: In linea con studi precedenti effettuati nel contesto internazionale, il Presenteismo sembra essere una condizione diffusa anche tra gli infermieri italiani, che dovrebbe essere adeguatamente riconosciuta da parte dei manager sanitari. I risultati di questa indagine potrebbero essere utilizzati come spunto di riflessione, per implementare mirate strategie di politica sanitaria.BACKGROUND: Presenteeism represents the need to "get to work although we feel sick"; thus, affecting the quality of work, leading to errors or omissions, reducing productivity and increasing costs. Nurses are among the job categories with the highest degree of Presenteeism, which may negatively affect work quality. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence of Presenteeism among Italian nurses. METHODS: A cross-sectional, multicentric study was carried out from January to December 2015 in a sample of Italian nurses. A total of 652 nurses completed the questionnaire. The mean Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS-6) total score was 21.6 (±4.0). Nurses showed high Presenteeism levels when considering the "Avoiding distractions" and "Completing work" sections of the Scale. RESULTS: Male nurses showed a lower degree of Presenteeism than women, which also tended to be less severe with increasing age. The presence of ≥1 self-reported health problem was associated with an increase in the score. CONCLUSIONS: In line with previous studies performed outside Italy, Presenteeism appear to be a widespread condition also among Italian nurses, requiring appropriate treatment and recognition by healthcare providers. The results of this survey might be used as a minimum, most likely underestimated basis for targeted public health policies

Livelli di presenteismo fra gli infermieri italiani. Uno studio multicentrico

BACKGROUND: Presenteeism represents the need to "get to work although we feel sick"; thus, affecting the quality of work, leading to errors or omissions, reducing productivity and increasing costs. Nurses are among the job categories with the highest degree of Presenteeism, which may negatively affect work quality. Aims and objectives: To assess the prevalence of Presenteeism among Italian nurses. METHODS: A cross-sectional, multicentric study was carried out from January to December 2015 in a sample of Italian nurses. A total of 652 nurses completed the questionnaire. The mean Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS-6) total score was 21.6 (±4.0). Nurses showed high Presenteeism levels when considering the “Avoiding distractions” and “Completing work” sections of the Scale. RESULTS: Male nurses showed a lower degree of Presenteeism than women, which also tended to be less severe with increasing age (both p<0.05). The presence of ≥1 self-reported health problem was associated with an increase in the score (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In line with previous studies performed outside Italy, Presenteeism appear to be a widespread condition also among Italian nurses, requiring appropriate treatment and recognition by healthcare providers. The results of this survey might be used as a minimum, most likely underestimated basis for targeted public health policies.INTRODUZIONE: Il presenteismo rappresenta la necessità di "mettersi al lavoro anche se ci si sente male"; influenzando così la qualità del lavoro, portando a errori o omissioni, riducendo la produttività e aumentando i costi. Gli infermieri sono annoverati tra i professionisti con il più alto grado di presenteismo, con potenziali effetti negativi sulla qualità del lavoro. OBIETTIVI: Accertare la prevalenza del Presenteismo tra gli infermieri italiani. METODI: E’ stato condotto uno studio trasversale, multicentrico da gennaio a dicembre 2015 su un campione di infermieri italiani. 652 infermieri hanno completato il questionario. Il punteggio totale medio alla Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS-6) era 21.6 (± 4.0). Gli infermieri hanno mostrato elevati livelli di Presenteismo nelle sezioni: "Evitare distrazioni" e "Completare il lavoro" della Scala. RISULTATI: Gli infermieri maschi hanno mostrato livell inferiori di Presenteismo rispetto alle donne, che tendevano anche ad essere minori con l'aumentare dell'età (entrambi p <0,05). La presenza di ≥1 problema di salute auto-riferito è stata associata ad un aumento del punteggio (p <0,05). CONCLUSIONI: In linea con studi precedenti effettuati nel contesto internazionale, il Presenteismo sembra essere una condizione diffusa anche tra gli infermieri italiani, che dovrebbe essere adeguatamente riconosciuta da parte dei manager sanitari. I risultati di questa indagine potrebbero essere utilizzati come spunto di riflessione, per implementare mirate strategie di politica sanitaria

Inhaled CO2 Concentration While Wearing Face Masks: A Pilot Study Using Capnography

Background: Face masks are recommended based on the assumption that they protect against SARS-CoV-2 transmission, however studies on their potential side effects are still lacking. We aimed to evaluate the inhaled air carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration, when wearing masks. Methods: We measured end-tidal CO2 using professional side-stream capnography, with water-removing tubing, (1) without masks, (2) wearing a surgical mask, and (3) wearing a FFP2 respirator (for 5 minutes each while seated after 10 minutes of rest), in 146 healthy volunteers aged 10 to 90 years, from the general population of Ferrara, Italy. The inhaled air CO2 concentration was computed as: ([mask volume × end-tidal CO2] + [tidal volume − mask volume] × ambient air CO2)/tidal volume. Results: With surgical masks, the mean CO2 concentration was 7091 ± 2491 ppm in children, 4835 ± 869 in adults, and 4379 ± 978 in the elderly. With FFP2 respirators, this concentration was 13 665 ± 3655 in children, 8502 ± 1859 in adults, and 9027 ± 1882 in the elderly. The proportion showing a CO2 concentration higher than the 5000 ppm (8-hour average) acceptable threshold for workers was 41.1% with surgical masks, and 99.3% with FFP2 respirators. Adjusting for age, gender, BMI, and smoking, the inhaled air CO2 concentration significantly increased with increasing respiratory rate (mean 10 837 ±3712 ppm among participants ⩾18 breaths/minute, with FFP2 respirators), and among the minors. Conclusion: If these results are confirmed, the current guidelines on mask-wearing should be reevaluated

Generic versus brand-name drugs used in cardiovascular diseases

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and adverse events, either serious or mild/moderate, of all generic versus brand-name cardiovascular medicines. We searched randomized trials in MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trial Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov (last update December 1, 2014). Attempts were made to contact the investigators of all potentially eligible trials. Two investigators independently extracted and analyzed soft (including systolic blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, and others) and hard efficacy outcomes (including major cardiovascular adverse events and death), minor/moderate and serious adverse events. We included 74 randomized trials; 53 reported ≥1 efficacy outcome (overall sample 3051), 32 measured mild/moderate adverse events (n = 2407), and 51 evaluated serious adverse events (n = 2892). We included trials assessing ACE inhibitors (n = 12), anticoagulants (n = 5), antiplatelet agents (n = 17), beta-blockers (n = 11), calcium channel blockers (n = 7); diuretics (n = 13); statins (n = 6); and others (n = 3). For both soft and hard efficacy outcomes, 100 % of the trials showed non-significant differences between generic and brand-name drugs. The aggregate effect size was 0.01 (95 % CI -0.05; 0.08) for soft outcomes; -0.06 (-0.71; 0.59) for hard outcomes. All but two trials showed non-significant differences in mild/moderate adverse events, and aggregate effect size was 0.07 (-0.06; 0.20). Comparable results were observed for each drug class and in each stratified meta-analysis. Overall, 8 serious possibly drug-related adverse events were reported: 5/2074 subjects on generics; 3/2076 subjects on brand-name drugs (OR 1.69; 95 % CI 0.40-7.20). This meta-analysis strengthens the evidence for clinical equivalence between brand-name and generic cardiovascular drugs. Physicians could be reassured about prescribing generic cardiovascular drugs, and health care organization about endorsing their wider use

SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: An overview

By the end of May 2020, SARS-CoV-2 pandemic caused more than 350,000 deaths worldwide. In the first months, there have been uncertainties on almost any area: infection transmission route, virus origin and persistence in the environment, diagnostic tests, therapeutic approach, high-risk subjects, lethality, and containment policies. We provide an updated summary of the current knowledge on the pandemic, discussing the available evidence on the effectiveness of the adopted mitigation strategies

Cohort study of electronic cigarette use: effectiveness and safety at 24 months

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of e-cigarettes, by comparing users of only e-cigarettes, smokers of only tobacco cigarettes and dual users. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. We update previous 12-month findings and report the results of the 24-month follow-up. DATA SOURCES: Direct contact and questionnaires by phone or via internet. METHODS: Adults (30-75 years) were classified as: (1) tobacco smokers, if they smoked ≥1 tobacco cigarette/day, (2) e-cigarette users, if they inhaled ≥50 puffs/week of any type of e-cigarette and (3) dual users, if they smoked tobacco cigarettes and also used e-cigarettes. Carbon monoxide levels were tested in 50% of those declaring tobacco smoking abstinence. Hospital discharge data were used to validate possibly related serious adverse events in 46.0% of the sample. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sustained abstinence from tobacco cigarettes and/or e-cigarettes after 24 months, the difference in the number of tobacco cigarettes smoked daily between baseline and 24 months, possibly related serious adverse events. RESULTS: Data at 24 months were available for 229 e-cigarette users, 480 tobacco smokers and 223 dual users (overall response rate 68.8%). Of the e-cigarette users, 61.1% remained abstinent from tobacco (while 23.1% and 26.0% of tobacco-only smokers and dual users achieved tobacco abstinence). The rate (18.8%) of stopping use of either product (tobacco and/or e-cigarettes) was not higher for e-cigarette users compared with tobacco smokers or dual users. Self-rated health and adverse events were similar between all groups. Among those continuing to smoke, there were no differences in the proportion of participants reducing tobacco cigarette consumption by 50% or more, the average daily number of cigarettes and the average self-rated health by baseline group. Most dual users at baseline abandoned e-cigarettes and continued to smoke tobacco. Those who continued dual using or converted from tobacco smoking to dual use during follow-up experienced significant improvements in the 3 outcomes compared with those who continued or switched to only smoking tobacco (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: E-cigarette use alone might support tobacco quitters remaining abstinent from smoking. However, dual use did not improve the likelihood of quitting tobacco or e-cigarette use, but may be helpful to reduce tobacco consumption. Adverse event data were scarce and must be considered preliminary. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01785537

COVID-19 vaccines reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection and hospitalization: Meta-analysis

The addictive protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection conferred by vaccination, as compared to natural immunity alone, remains to be quantified. We thus carried out a meta-analysis to summarize the existing evidence on the association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and the risk of reinfection and disease. We searched MedLine, Scopus and preprint repositories up to July 31, 2022, to retrieve cohort or case-control studies comparing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection or severe/critical COVID-19 among vaccinated vs. unvaccinated subjects, recovered from a primary episode. Data were combined using a generic inverse-variance approach. Eighteen studies, enrolling 18,132,192 individuals, were included. As compared to the unvaccinated, vaccinated subjects showed a significantly lower likelihood of reinfection (summary Odds Ratio-OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.42-0.54). Notably, the results did not change up to 12 months of follow-up, by number of vaccine doses, in studies that adjusted for potential confounders, adopting different reinfection definitions, and with different predominant strains. Once reinfected, vaccinated subjects were also significantly less likely to develop a severe disease (OR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.38-0.54). Although further studies on the long-term persistence of protection, under the challenge of the new circulating variants, are clearly needed, the present meta-analysis provides solid evidence of a stronger protection of hybrid vs. natural immunity, which may persist during Omicron waves and up to 12 months

Effectiveness of a family nurse‐led programme on accuracy of blood pressure self‐measurement: A randomised controlled trial

Aims and objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of a Family Nurse Practitioner (FNP)-led programme on the degree of adherence of current recommendations on home blood pressure self-measurement (HBPM) as compared to routine care and management. Background: HBPM plays an important role for monitoring hypertensive patients; however, patients’ adherence to current guidelines is unsatisfactory. A nurse-led training programme in the community setting could be an effective strategy to achieve high level of patients’ adherence to recommendations. Design: A multicentre randomised controlled trial was carried out from September 2016 to September 2017.MethodsIn total, 170 patients were randomly allocated into the intervention group (n = 83) and the usual care (n = 87). All participants received usual care (written and verbal information on HBPM recommendations); subjects in the intervention group also received 1-hour training session on how to correctly self-measure BP. Clinical trial registration was done (ClinicalTrials.gov.: NCT04681703). The CONSORT checklist for randomised controlled trials was used in this study. Results: At baseline, the level of adherence to the recommendation was similar in the two groups (p 5 min before performing the measurement (all p < .05). Conclusions: The FNP-led programme is effective in improving patients’ adherence to guidelines on the correct technique to self-measure BP at home. Relevance to clinical practice: This programme may be added to the existing interventions in the community setting or considered into specifically nurse-led hypertension management models

Cervical cerclage for prevention of preterm birth and adverse perinatal outcome in twin pregnancies with short cervical length or cervical dilatation : a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The optimal approach to prevent preterm birth (PTB) in twins has not been fully established yet. Recent evidence suggests that placement of cervical cerclage in twin pregnancies with short cervical length at ultrasound or cervical dilatation at physical examination might be associated with a reduced risk of PTB. However, such evidence is based mainly on small studies thus questioning the robustness of these findings. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the role of cervical cerclage in preventing PTB and adverse maternal or perinatal outcomes in twin pregnancies. Methods and findings: Key databases searched and date of last search: MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL were searched electronically on 20 April 2023. Eligibility criteria: Inclusion criteria were observational studies assessing the risk of PTB among twin pregnancies undergoing cerclage versus no cerclage and randomized trials in which twin pregnancies were allocated to cerclage for the prevention of PTB or to a control group (e.g., placebo or treatment as usual). The primary outcome was PTB <34 weeks of gestation. The secondary outcomes were PTB <37, 32, 28, 24 weeks of gestation, gestational age at birth, the interval between diagnosis and birth, preterm prelabor rupture of the membranes (pPROM), chorioamnionitis, perinatal loss, and perinatal morbidity. Subgroup analyses according to the indication for cerclage (short cervical length or cervical dilatation) were also performed. Risk of bias assessment: The risk of bias of the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials, while that of the observational studies using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS). Statistical analysis: Summary risk ratios (RRs) of the likelihood of detecting each categorical outcome in exposed versus unexposed women, and (b) summary mean differences (MDs) between exposed and unexposed women (for each continuous outcome), with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed using head-to-head meta-analyses. Synthesis of the results: Eighteen studies (1,465 twin pregnancies) were included. Placement of cervical cerclage in women with a twin pregnancy with a short cervix at ultrasound or cervical dilatation at physical examination was associated with a reduced risk of PTB <34 weeks of gestation (RR: 0.73, 95% CI [0.59, 0.91], p = 0.005 corresponding to a 16% difference in the absolute risk, AR), <32 (RR: 0.69, 95% CI [0.57, 0.84], p < 0.001; AR: 16.92%), <28 (RR: 0.54, 95% [CI 0.43, 0.67], 0.001; AR: 18.29%), and <24 (RR: 0.48, 95% CI [0.23, 0.97], p = 0.04; AR: 15.57%) weeks of gestation and a prolonged gestational age at birth (MD: 2.32 weeks, 95% [CI 0.99, 3.66], p < 0.001). Cerclage in twin pregnancy with short cervical length or cervical dilatation was also associated with a reduced risk of perinatal loss (RR: 0.38, 95% CI [0.25, 0.60], p < 0.001; AR: 19.62%) and composite adverse outcome (RR: 0.69, 95% CI [0.53, 0.90], p = 0.007; AR: 11.75%). Cervical cerclage was associated with a reduced risk of PTB <34 weeks both in women with cervical length <15 mm (RR: 0.74, 95% CI [0.58, 0.95], p = 0.02; AR: 29.17%) and in those with cervical dilatation (RR: 0.68, 95% CI [0.57, 0.80], p < 0.001; AR: 35.02%). The association between cerclage and prevention of PTB and adverse perinatal outcomes was exclusively due to the inclusion of observational studies. The quality of retrieved evidence at GRADE assessment was low. Conclusions: Emergency cerclage for cervical dilation or short cervical length <15 mm may be potentially associated with a reduction in PTB and improved perinatal outcomes. However, these findings are mainly based upon observational studies and require confirmation in large and adequately powered RCTs