COVID-19 in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs): A Narrative Review from Prevention to Vaccination Strategy

The management of the COVID-19 pandemic represents a challenging process, especially for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) due to the serious economic and health resource problems it generates. In this article, we assess COVID-19 situation in LMICs and outline emerging problems and possible solutions. The prevention and control of COVID-19 would be based on focused tests exploiting those systems (e.g., GeneXpert®) already used in other scenarios. This would be less stressful for the healthcare system in LMICs. Avoiding close contact with people suffering from acute respiratory infections, frequent handwashing, and avoiding unprotected contact with farm or wild animals are recommended infection control interventions. The appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is required, despite its procurement being especially difficult in LMICs. Patients’ triage should be based on a simple and rapid logarithm to decide who requires isolation and targeted testing for SARS-CoV-2. Being able to estimate which patients will develop severe disease would allow hospitals to better utilize the already limited resources more effectively. In LMICs, laboratories are often in the capital cities; therefore, early diagnosis and isolation become difficult. The number of ICU beds is often insufficient, and the equipment is often old and poorly serviced. LMICs will need access to COVID-19 treatments at minimal prices to ensure that all who need them can be treated. Year-to-date, different vaccines have been approved and are currently available. The main obstacle to accessing them is the limited ability of LMICs to purchase significant quantities of the vaccine

Cefiderocol for Carbapenem-Resistant Bacteria: Handle with Care! A Review of the Real-World Evidence

(1) Background: healthcare-associated infections are one of the most frequent adverse events in healthcare delivery worldwide. Several antibiotic resistance mechanisms have been developed, including those to carbapenemase. Cefiderocol (CFD) is a novel siderophore cephalosporin designed to treat carbapenem-resistant bacteria. (2) Methods: we performed a systematic review of all cases reported in the literature to outline the existing evidence. We evaluated real-world evidence studies of CFD in the treatment of carbapenem-resistant (CR) bacteria. (3) Results: a total of 19 publications treating cases of infection by CR bacteria were included. The three most frequent CR pathogens were Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Klebsiella pneumoniae. A regimen of 2 g every 8 h was most frequently adopted for CFD with a mean treatment duration of 25.6 days. CFD was generally well tolerated, with fewer side effects. The success rate of CFD therapy was satisfactory and almost 70% of patients showed clinical recovery; of these, nearly half showed negative blood cultures and infection-free status. (4) Conclusions: This review indicates that CFD is active against important GN organisms including Enterobacteriaceae, P. aeruginosa, and A. baumannii. CFD seems to have a safe profile

Pulsed Radiofrequency for Lumbar Facet Joint Pain: A Viable Therapeutic Option? A Retrospective Observational Study

n/

What is the role of locoregional anesthesia in breast surgery? A systematic literature review focused on pain intensity, opioid consumption, adverse events, and patient satisfaction

Breast surgery in the United States is common. Pain affects up to 50% of women undergoing breast surgery and can interfere with postoperative outcomes. General anesthesia is the conventional, most frequently used anaesthetic technique. Various locoregional anesthetic techniques are also used for breast surgeries. A systematic review of the use of locoregional anesthesia for postoperative pain in breast surgery is needed to clarify its role in pain management

Subarachnoid analgesia in advanced labor: a comparison of subarachnoid analgesia and pudendal block in advanced labor: analgesic quality and obstetric outcome.

Pain control during labor is a primary objective of antalgic therapy. The use of the peridural as an elective procedure for labor analgesia is now corroborated by the international scientific community. Sometimes a combined spinal-peridural procedure is used together with the intrathecal administration of opioids to also cover the first stage of labor. Unfortunately, patients and/or gynecologists often request analgesia in a late stage of labor. The aim of our study was to evaluate the possibility of using a subarachnoid block alone for labor analgesia when this is requested at a late stage, that is, in advanced labor with cervical dilation greater than 7 cm. After approval by our ethics committee and the written and informed consent of the patients, 111 women were enrolled in this study and randomly divided into two groups. The first group(Group S: 55 patients) received a subarachnoid block with 2.5 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine + 25 μg fentanyl + 1 mL 10% glucose. A pudendal nerve block with 7 mL 2% mepivacaine in each side was administered to the second group(Group P: 56 patients). In both groups, careful maternal–fetal monitoring was conducted, and pain was scored on a numerical scale from 0 to 4, 10 minutes after placement of the block (time [T] 0), at delivery (T1), and at episiorrhaphy(T2). In all patients, we recorded any side effects, the Apgar score at birth and after 5 minutes, the administration of other analgesic and/or sedative drugs,the degree of satisfaction, and the time of hospitalization after delivery. Evaluations were performed by anesthesiologists unaware of patients’ treatment group. The duration of spinal analgesia was considered to be the time from injection of study drugs to the time of the patient’s first request for additional analgesia. In no cases were there any side effects worthy of note, andhospitalization never exceeded 72 hours. The Apgar score was always between 7 and 10. All except one of the women in Group S were satisfied or more than satisfied with their pain management, whereas 50 women in Group P expressed only moderate satisfaction or dissatisfaction (P < 0.0001). In most patients in Group S, complete analgesia was obtained. In Group P, however, 10 minutes after placement of the pudendal nerve block, 40 patients reported no improvement in pain symptomatology during contractions and only 16 reported less painful contractions (P < 0.0001). The duration of spinal analgesia (128 ± 38 minutes) was enough in most cases for delivery to be completed. These results suggest that low-dose bupivacaine-fentanyl spinal analgesia represents an important option for pain relief in late labor, not the least because the procedure does not upset the dynamics of delivery or alter vital parameters and is welcomed by women in labor who are still able to collaborate actively in the birth of their baby