Results of multilevel containment measures to better protect lung cancer patients from COVID-19. the IEO model

A novel coronavirus causing severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), named SARS-CoV-2, was identified at the end of 2019. The spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has progressively expanded from China, involving several countries throughout the world, leading to the classification of the disease as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). According to published reports, COVID-19 severity and mortality are higher in elderly patients and those with active comorbidities. In particular, lung cancer patients were reported to be at high risk of pulmonary complications related to SARS-CoV2 infection. Therefore, the management of cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic is a crucial issue, to which national and international oncology organizations have replied with recommendations concerning patients receiving anticancer treatments, delaying follow-up visits and limiting caregiver admission to the hospitals. In this historical moment, medical oncologists are required to consider the possibility to delay active treatment administration based on a case-by-case risk/benefit evaluation. Potential risks associated with COVID-19 infection should be considered, considering tumor histology and natural course, disease setting, clinical conditions, and disease burden, together with the expected benefit, toxicities (e.g., myelosuppression or interstitial lung disease), and response obtained from the planned or ongoing treatment. In this study, we report the results of proactive measures including social media, telemedicine, and telephone triage for screening patients with lung cancer during the COVID-19 outbreak in the European Institute of Oncology (Milan, Italy). Proactive management and containment measures, applied in a structured and daily way, has significantly aided the identification of advance patients with suspected symptoms related to COVID-19, limiting their admission to our cancer center; we have thus been more able to protect other patients from possible contamination and at the same time guarantee to the suspected patients the immediate treatment and evaluation in referral hospitals for COVID-19

Mapping Protein Structure Changes with Cysteine Labeling Kinetics by Mass Spectrometry

Currently we observe a gap between theory and practices of patient engagement. If both scholars and health practitioners do agree on the urgency to realize patient engagement, no shared guidelines exist so far to orient clinical practice. Despite a supportive policy context, progress to achieve greater patient engagement is patchy and slow and often concentrated at the level of policy regulation without dialoguing with practitioners from the clinical field as well as patients and families. Though individual clinicians, care teams and health organizations may be interested and deeply committed to engage patients and family members in the medical course, they may lack clarity about how to achieve this goal. This contributes to a wide "system" inertia-really difficult to be overcome-and put at risk any form of innovation in this filed. As a result, patient engagement risk today to be a buzz words, rather than a real guidance for practice. To make the field clearer, we promoted an Italian Consensus Conference on Patient Engagement (ICCPE) in order to set the ground for drafting recommendations for the provision of effective patient engagement interventions. The ICCPE will conclude in June 2017. This document reports on the preliminary phases of this process. In the paper, we advise the importance of "fertilizing a patient engagement ecosystem": an oversimplifying approach to patient engagement promotion appears the result of a common illusion. Patient "disengagement" is a symptom that needs a more holistic and complex approach to solve its underlined causes. Preliminary principles to promote a patient engagement ecosystem are provided in the paper

The Determinants of Vaccine Literacy in the Italian Population: Results from the Health Literacy Survey 2019

Vaccines are among the most important public health achievements of the last century; however, vaccine awareness and uptake still face significant challenges and the COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated this phenomenon. Vaccine Literacy (VL) is the ability to find, understand and judge immunisation-related information to make appropriate immunisation decisions. A cross-sectional study on a sample of 3500 participants, representative of the Italian adult population aged 18+ years, was conducted in Italy in 2021. A validated questionnaire, including sections on health literacy (HL), sociodemographic characteristics, risk factors, and lifestyles of respondents, was used. VL was measured by four items (item 19, 22, 26 and 29) of the HL section. While 67.6% of the respondents had a "good" (47.5%) or "sufficient" (20.1%) level of VL, 32.4% had "limited" VL levels. Although the overall VL level was quite high, many participants reported difficulties in dealing with vaccination information, particularly those with a lower educational level, those living in southern and insular regions of Italy, those with greater financial deprivation and those with a migration background. Improving VL in Italy should be a top priority in the political agenda, with special regard to socially and geographically disadvantaged communities

Effects on the incidence of cardiovascular events of the addition of pioglitazone versus sulfonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin (TOSCA.IT): a randomised, multicentre trial

Background The best treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes in whom treatment with metformin alone fails to achieve adequate glycaemic control is debated. We aimed to compare the long-term effects of pioglitazone versus sulfonylureas, given in addition to metformin, on cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods TOSCA.IT was a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic clinical trial, in which patients aged 50\ue2\u80\u9375 years with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy (2\ue2\u80\u933 g per day) were recruited from 57 diabetes clinics in Italy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), by permuted blocks randomisation (block size 10), stratified by site and previous cardiovascular events, to add-on pioglitazone (15\ue2\u80\u9345 mg) or a sulfonylurea (5\ue2\u80\u9315 mg glibenclamide, 2\ue2\u80\u936 mg glimepiride, or 30\ue2\u80\u93120 mg gliclazide, in accordance with local practice). The trial was unblinded, but event adjudicators were unaware of treatment assignment. The primary outcome, assessed with a Cox proportional-hazards model, was a composite of first occurrence of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or urgent coronary revascularisation, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned participants with baseline data available and without any protocol violations in relation to inclusion or exclusion criteria). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00700856. Findings Between Sept 18, 2008, and Jan 15, 2014, 3028 patients were randomly assigned and included in the analyses. 1535 were assigned to pioglitazone and 1493 to sulfonylureas (glibenclamide 24 [2%], glimepiride 723 [48%], gliclazide 745 [50%]). At baseline, 335 (11%) participants had a previous cardiovascular event. The study was stopped early on the basis of a futility analysis after a median follow-up of 57\uc2\ub73 months. The primary outcome occurred in 105 patients (1\uc2\ub75 per 100 person-years) who were given pioglitazone and 108 (1\uc2\ub75 per 100 person-years) who were given sulfonylureas (hazard ratio 0\uc2\ub796, 95% CI 0\uc2\ub774\ue2\u80\u931\uc2\ub726, p=0\uc2\ub779). Fewer patients had hypoglycaemias in the pioglitazone group than in the sulfonylureas group (148 [10%] vs 508 [34%], p<0\uc2\ub70001). Moderate weight gain (less than 2 kg, on average) occurred in both groups. Rates of heart failure, bladder cancer, and fractures were not significantly different between treatment groups. Interpretation In this long-term, pragmatic trial, incidence of cardiovascular events was similar with sulfonylureas (mostly glimepiride and gliclazide) and pioglitazone as add-on treatments to metformin. Both of these widely available and affordable treatments are suitable options with respect to efficacy and adverse events, although pioglitazone was associated with fewer hypoglycaemia events. Funding Italian Medicines Agency, Diabete Ricerca, and Italian Diabetes Society