Dall'armonizzazione alla frammentazione: obiettivi e fallimenti della Direttiva Copyright (2019/790/UE) in materia di ricerca, educazione e accesso al patrimonio culturale

La Direttiva (UE) 2019/790 sul diritto d’autore nel mercato unico digitale (CDSM) ha voluto segnare un cambio di marcia e direzione nell’approccio alle eccezioni al diritto d’autore europeo, optando per l’introduzione di norme di natura obbligatoria ed in larga parte non derogabili dall’autonomia privata. La svolta giunge in risposta alle severe critiche mosse da dottrina e stakeholder sugli effetti distorsivi della natura opzionale delle eccezioni proposte sino a quel momento dall’armonizzazione comunitaria. Gli artt.3-6 CDSMD, che intervengono su temi centrali per l’accesso alla cultura, la preservazione del patrimonio culturale e il diritto all’educazione e alla ricerca, lasciano tuttavia ai legislatori nazionali ampi margini di discrezionalità su elementi chiave, e mancano di offrire linee guida utili al coordinamento delle nuove disposizioni con eccezioni già previste da direttive precedenti o dagli ordinamenti statali. A più di un anno dal termine fissato per la trasposizione, la frammentazione e disorganicità delle soluzioni normative adottate o proposte dagli Stati membri confermano i timori sollevati in fase di sua approvazione. Nel fornire una mappatura dello stato dell’armonizzazione, questo articolo offre (a) una analisi “verticale” delle divergenze nazionali nell’implementazione degli artt. 3-6 CDSMD e dei loro effetti negativi rispetto al perseguimento degli obiettivi delle singole norme, nonché (b) una valutazione “orizzontale” delle occasioni perse dai legislatori degli Stati membri, tanto rispetto ai margini di discrezionalità loro rimessi quanto nel coordinamento ed aggiornamento delle discipline nazionali, nonché delle conseguenze di tale “inerzia” sul bilanciamento tra diritto d’autore e accesso alla cultura, preservazione del patrimonio culturale e diritto all’educazione e alla ricerca

Antimicrobial Treatmdent of "Complicated" Intra-Abdominal Infections and The New IDSA Guidelines - A Commentary and an Alternative European Approach According to Clinical Definitions

Recently, an update of the IDSA guidelines for the treatment of complicated intraabdominal infections has been published. No guideline can cater for all variations in ecology, antimicrobial resistance patterns, patient characteristics and presentation, health care and reimbursement systems in many different countries. In the short time the IDSA guidelines have been available, a number of practical clinical issues have been raised by physicians regarding interpretation of the guidelines. The main debatable issues of the new IDSA guidelines are described as follows

Diagnostic stewardship based on patient profiles: differential approaches in acute versus chronic infectious syndromes

Introduction: New diagnostics may be useful in clinical practice, especially in contexts of high prevalence of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO). However, misuse of diagnostic tools may lead to increased costs and worse patient outcome. Conventional and new techniques should be appropriately positioned in diagnostic algorithms to guide an appropriate use of antimicrobial therapy. Areas covered: A panel of experts identified 4 main areas in which the implementation of diagnostic stewardship is needed. Among chronic infections, bone and prosthetic joint infections and subacute-chronic intravascular infections and endocarditis represent common challenges for clinicians. Among acute infections, bloodstream infections and community-acquired pneumonia may be associated with high mortality and require appropriate diagnostic approach. Expert opinion: Diagnostic stewardship aims to improve the appropriate use of microbiological diagnostics to guide therapeutic decisions through appropriate and timely diagnostic testing. Here, diagnostic algorithms based on different patient profiles are proposed for chronic and acute clinical syndromes. In each clinical scenario, combining conventional and new diagnostic techniques is crucial to make a rapid and accurate diagnosis and to guide the selection of antimicrobial therapy. Barriers related to the implementation of new rapid diagnostic tools, such as high initial costs, may be overcome through their rational and structured use

Diagnostic stewardship based on patient profiles: differential approaches in acute versus chronic infectious

Introduction: New diagnostics may be useful in clinical practice, especially in contexts of high prevalence of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO). However, misuse of diagnostic tools may lead to increased costs and worse patient outcome. Conventional and new techniques should be appropriately positioned in diagnostic algorithms to guide an appropriate use of antimicrobial therapy.Areas covered: A panel of experts identified 4 main areas in which the implementation of diagnostic stewardship is needed. Among chronic infections, bone and prosthetic joint infections and subacute-chronic intravascular infections and endocarditis represent common challenges for clinicians. Among acute infections, bloodstream infections and community-acquired pneumonia may be associated with high mortality and require appropriate diagnostic approach.Expert opinion: Diagnostic stewardship aims to improve the appropriate use of microbiological diagnostics to guide therapeutic decisions through appropriate and timely diagnostic testing. Here, diagnostic algorithms based on different patient profiles are proposed for chronic and acute clinical syndromes. In each clinical scenario, combining conventional and new diagnostic techniques is crucial to make a rapid and accurate diagnosis and to guide the selection of antimicrobial therapy. Barriers related to the implementation of new rapid diagnostic tools, such as high initial costs, may be overcome through their rational and structured use

Management of invasive candidiasis and candidemia in adult non-neutropenic intensive care unit patients: Part II. Treatment

Background Invasive candidiasis and candidemia are frequently encountered in the nosocomial setting particularly in the intensive care unit (ICU)

Management of invasive candidiasis and candidemia in adult non-neutropenic intensive care unit patients: Part I. Epidemiology and diagnosis

Background Invasive candidiasis and candidemia are frequently encountered in the nosocomial setting, particularly in the intensive care unit (ICU)

Predictors of choice of initial antifungal treatment in intraabdominal candidiasis

Intraabdominal candidiasis (IAC) is the second most frequent form of invasive candidiasis, and is associated with high mortality rates. This study aims to identify current practices in initial antifungal treatment (IAT) in a real-world scenario and to define the predictors of the choice of echinocandins or azoles in IAC episodes. Secondary analysis was performed of a multinational retrospective cohort at 13 teaching hospitals in four countries (Italy, Greece, Spain and Brazil), over a 3-year period (2011\u20132013). IAC was identified in 481 patients, 323 of whom received antifungal therapy (classified as the treatment group). After excluding 13 patients given amphotericin B, the treatment group was further divided into the echinocandin group (209 patients; 64.7%) and the azole group (101 patients; 32.3%). Median APACHE II scores were significantly higher in the echinocandin group (p 0.013), but IAT did not differ significantly with regard to the Candida species involved. Logistic multivariate stepwise regression analysis, adjusted for centre effect, identified septic shock (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.54), APACHE II > 15 (aOR 1.16) and presence in surgical ward at diagnosis (aOR 1.16) as the top three independent variables associated with an empirical echinocandin regimen. No differences in 30-day mortality were observed between groups. Echinocandin regimen was the first choice for IAT in patients with IAC. No statistical differences in mortality were observed between regimens, but echinocandins were administered to patients with more severe disease. Some disagreements were identified between current clinical guidelines and prescription of antifungals for IAC at the bedside, so further educational measures are required to optimize therapies

Operative management of acute abdomen after bariatric surgery in the emergency setting: the OBA guidelines

Background: Patients presenting with acute abdominal pain that occurs after months or years following bariatric surgery may present for assessment and management in the local emergency units. Due to the large variety of surgical bariatric techniques, emergency surgeons have to be aware of the main functional outcomes and long-term surgical complications following the most performed bariatric surgical procedures. The purpose of these evidence-based guidelines is to present a consensus position from members of the WSES in collaboration with IFSO bariatric experienced surgeons, on the management of acute abdomen after bariatric surgery focusing on long-term complications in patients who have undergone laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Method: A working group of experienced general, acute care, and bariatric surgeons was created to carry out a systematic review of the literature following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) and to answer the PICO questions formulated after the Operative management in bariatric acute abdomen survey. The literature search was limited to late/long-term complications following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Conclusions: The acute abdomen after bariatric surgery is a common cause of admission in emergency departments. Knowledge of the most common late/long-term complications (> 4 weeks after surgical procedure) following sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and their anatomy leads to a focused management in the emergency setting with good outcomes and decreased morbidity and mortality rates. A close collaboration between emergency surgeons, radiologists, endoscopists, and anesthesiologists is mandatory in the management of this group of patients in the emergency setting

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) treatment: an Italian nationwide propensity score-matched cohort study investigating laparoscopic vs open approach

BackgroundPerforated peptic ulcer (PPU) remain a surgical emergency accounting for 37% of all peptic ulcer-related deaths. Surgery remains the standard of care. The benefits of laparoscopic approach have been well-established even in the elderly. However, because of inconsistent results with specific regard to some technical aspects of such technique surgeons questioned the adoption of laparoscopic approach. This leads to choose the type of approach based on personal experience. The aim of our study was to critically appraise the use of the laparoscopic approach in PPU treatment comparing it with open procedure.MethodsA retrospective study with propensity score matching analysis of patients underwent surgical procedure for PPU was performed. Patients undergoing PPU repair were divided into: Laparoscopic approach (LapA) and Open approach (OpenA) groups and clinical-pathological features of patients in the both groups were compared.ResultsA total of 453 patients underwent PPU simple repair. Among these, a LapA was adopted in 49% (222/453 patients). After propensity score matching, 172 patients were included in each group (the LapA and the OpenA). Analysis demonstrated increased operative times in the OpenA [OpenA: 96.4 +/- 37.2 vs LapA 88.47 +/- 33 min, p = 0.035], with shorter overall length of stay in the LapA group [OpenA 13 +/- 12 vs LapA 10.3 +/- 11.4 days p = 0.038]. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality [OpenA 26 (15.1%) vs LapA 18 (10.5%), p = 0.258]. Focusing on morbidity, the overall rate of 30-day postoperative morbidity was significantly lower in the LapA group [OpenA 67 patients (39.0%) vs LapA 37 patients (21.5%) p = 0.002]. When stratified using the Clavien-Dindo classification, the severity of postoperative complications was statistically different only for C-D 1-2.ConclusionsBased on the present study, we can support that laparoscopic suturing of perforated peptic ulcers, apart from being a safe technique, could provide significant advantages in terms of postoperative complications and hospital stay