Search

Monkeypox infection is an emerging problem and a new challenge for modern medicine. With an increasing number of new cases worldwide, new data regarding the clinical manifestations, characteristics of the patients, risk factors and treatment options are coming to light. Knowing more about the disease will allow to elaborate new helpful methods to facilitate its diagnosis. Special attention should be paid to the careful dermatologic and dermoscopic examination of the patient. The analysis of available data also suggests possible strategies for the prevention of Monkeypox virus spread; the vaccine against Smallpox seems to be an effective solution. This case report describes the diagnostic approach and management of a non-vaccinated adult patient with several risk factors and a history of sexually transmitted disease. The patient had no history of travel abroad. Even though a clinical diagnose of Monkeypox can be challenging due to its similarities with skin rashes caused by other Orthopoxviral infections, there are fine differences between the rashes which can be helpful in their differentiation, although laboratory analysis is required for a definitive identification. A careful study of the characteristics of the rash, such as diameter, its presence on palms and soles and its evolution in time, provided important clues for the diagnosis of Monkeypox infection. The lack of vaccinations in the history of the patient was another crucial finding in the diagnostic process.

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic exhausted healthcare systems around the world, including European Union countries, with healthcare workers at the frontline. Therefore, new health laws and policies have been introduced at the national level in order to offer greater legal protection for health workers. Since the introduction of COVID-19 vaccination, it has led to the development of specific laws to define the compulsoriness for particular categories. This review aimed to evaluate the system of medical liability, focusing on the ten countries of the European Union with the highest rate of vaccination coverage against SARS-CoV-2. A country-by-country analysis was conducted on the different medical liability systems of individual professionals, in general, and with specific focus on the vaccinating doctors. Additional search was conducted to investigate which European states have introduced specific policies in this field, to identify the implementation of any new laws alongside the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, and to assess which countries have adopted the European Digital COVID Certificate and funded specific compensation programs for COVID-19 vaccination. Our results highlight an extremely fragmented European scenario; therefore, this work could be a starting point to define a common approach for medical liability and related policies in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Introduction: Working during the Sars-CoV-2 pandemic healthcare workers (HCWs) had to wear Personal Protective Equipment (PPEs) for extended periods of time, leading to an increase in dermatological reactions. The study evaluates the prevalence of adverse skin reactions to PPEs among Italian healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, and aims to determine whether prolonged PPEs usage poses a significant occupational health risk, by measuring the loss of work days and the eligibility of workers that requested health surveillance due to dermatological PPEs reactions. Materials and Methods: An online ad hoc questionnaire was administered to a sample of Italian HCWs. Questions verted on sociodemographic characteristics, PPEs usage, and occupational well-being. Descriptive analyses and logistic regressions were performed to explore possible associations between variables. Results: Two types of PPEs, Gloves and Masks, were tested. The sample included 1,223 interviewed HCWs, 1,184 gave their consent for participation. A total of 90 medical surveillance visits were requested due to PPEs related dermatological issues: in 30 cases were recognized limitations in working duties and in one case the worker was deemed not fit to keep working. Furthermore, 25 workers had a loss of occupational days due to dermatological issues. A statistically significant correlation was observed with being a nurse or midwife (OR = 1.91, IC = 1.38–2.63, p < 0.001), and being female (OR = 2.04, IC = 1.49–2.78, p < 0.001), which acted as risk factors. Discussion: The enhanced protection measures put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic, highlight the importance of occupational dermatology. This study could contribute to assess the issue, aiming to develop better prevention strategies in the workplace in order to improve well-being of HCWs and reduce the impact of dermatological adverse reactions to PPEs.

Worldwide, the management of health emergencies requires a high degree of preparedness and resilience on the part of governments and health systems. Indeed, disasters are becoming increasingly common, with significant health, social, and economic impacts. Living in a globalized world also means that emergencies that occur in one country often have an international, in some cases global, spread: the COVID-19 pandemic is a cogent example. The key elements in emergency management are central governance, coordination, investment of resources before the emergency occurs, and preparedness to deal with it at all levels. However, several factors might condition the response to the emergency, highlighting, as for Italy, strengths and weaknesses. In this context, policies and regulation of actions to be implemented at international and national level must be up-to-date, clear, transparent and, above all, feasible and implementable. Likewise, the allocation of resources to develop adequate preparedness plans is critical. Due to COVID-19 pandemic, the European Commission proposed the temporary recovery instrument NextGenerationEU, as well as a targeted reinforcement of the European Union’s long-term budget for the period 2021–2027. The pandemic highlighted that it is necessary to interrupt the continuous defunding of the health sector, allocating funds especially in prevention, training and information activities: indeed, a greater and more aware public attention on health risks and on the impacts of emergencies can help to promote virtuous changes, sharing contents and information that act as a guide for the population.

Introduction: During the pandemic, the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) has become essential for Healthcare Workers (HCWs) to fight safely against the virus. However, the extensive and prolonged use of PPE may cause various adverse skin reactions due to the use of alcohol hand cleanser and protracted use of masks and goggles. The aim of this study is to evaluate the skin problems caused by PPE in HCWs and the possible consequences on their work. Materials and methods: An online ad hoc questionnaire, composed by 35 questions about sociodemographic characteristics, work related issues and exposure/habits about PPE, was administered to a sample of Italian HCWs. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed in order to explore possible associations between variables. Results: We tested 3 types of PPE: Gloves, Hair Bonnets and Masks for different time of utilization (<1, 1-3, 3-6, >6 hours). The sample included 1184 participants: 292 workers reported a dermatological pathology nested in four different pathological groups: 45 (15%) had Psoriasis, 54 (19%) Eczema, 38 (13%) Acne, 48 (16%), seborrheic dermatitis and 107 (36%) other. 25 workers had a loss of occupational days due to dermatological illness; 56 occupational physician surveillance visits were asked for; in 30 cases were recognized limitations in working duties. Conclusions: Protecting HCWs requires the use of PPE, but occupational dermatitis is an emerging problem in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. National data for affected healthcare professionals could contribute to a better understanding of the problem and prevention initiatives in the workplace.

The introduction of agents inhibiting the B-cell receptor-associated kinases such as ibrutinib has dramatically changed treatments algorithms of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) as well as the role of different adverse prognosticators. We evaluated the efficacy of ibrutinib as a single agent, in a real-life context, in 180 patients with CLL mostly pre-treated, recruited from three independent cohorts from Italy. Patients received 420 mg oral ibrutinib once daily until progression or occurrence of unacceptable side effects. Seventy-three patients discontinued ibrutinib for progression or for adverse events. NOTCH1 mutations (NOTCH1 M) were correlated with a reduced redistribution lymphocytosis, calculated at 3 months on ibrutinib (P=0.022). Moreover, NOTCH1 M patients showed inferior nodal response at 6 months on ibrutinib compared to NOTCH1 wild-type patients (P<0.0001). Significant shorter progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were observed in NOTCH1 M patients (P=0.00002 and P=0.001). Interestingly, NOTCH1 M plus a lower BAX/BCL-2 ratio identified a CLL subset showing the worst PFS and OS (P=0.0002 and P=0.005). In multivariate analysis of PFS and OS, NOTCH1 M were confirmed an independent prognosticator (P=0.00006 and P=0.0039). In conclusion, NOTCH1 M are strongly associated with a lower BAX/BCL-2 ratio, consistent with defective apoptosis, lower redistribution lymphocytosis and lower nodal shrinkage under ibrutinib treatment, this last paramter being responsible for partial responses, subsequent relapses, as well as shorter PFS and OS. Either new small molecule combination approaches or antibodies targeting NOTCH1 could be future therapeutic options for NOTCH1 M patients.