Background: Alzheimer's disease (AD) and dementia are chronic diseases with progressive deterioration of cognition, function, and behavior leading to severe disability and death. The prevalence of AD and dementia is constantly increasing because of the progressive aging of the population. These conditions represent a considerable challenge to patients, their family and caregivers, and the health system, because of the considerable need for resources allocation. There is no disease modifying intervention for AD and dementia, and the symptomatic pharmacological treatments has limited efficacy and considerable side effects. Non-pharmacological treatment (NPT), which includes a wide range of approaches and techniques, may play a role in the treatment of AD and dementia.Aim: To review, with a narrative approach, current evidence on main NPTs for AD and dementia.Methods: PubMed and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews were searched for studies written in English and published from 2000 to 2018. The bibliography of the main articles was checked to detect other relevant papers.Results: The role of NPT has been largely explored in AD and dementia. The main NPT types, which were reviewed here, include exercise and motor rehabilitation, cognitive rehabilitation, NPT for behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia, occupational therapy, psychological therapy, complementary and alternative medicine, and new technologies, including information and communication technologies, assistive technology and domotics, virtual reality, gaming, and telemedicine. We also summarized the role of NPT to address caregivers' burden.Conclusions: Although NPT is often applied in the multidisciplinary approach to AD and dementia, supporting evidence for their use is still preliminary. Some studies showed statistically significant effect of NPT on some outcomes, but their clinical significance is uncertain. Well-designed randomized controlled trials with innovative designs are needed to explore the efficacy of NPT in AD and dementia. Further studies are required to offer robust neurobiological grounds for the effect of NPT, and to examine its cost-efficacy profile in patients with dementia.

The current COVID-19 pandemic presents unprecedented new challenges to public health and medical care delivery. To control viral transmission, social distancing measures have been implemented all over the world, interrupting the access to routine medical care for many individuals with neurological diseases. Cognitive disorders are common in many neurological conditions, e.g., stroke, traumatic brain injury, Alzheimer's disease, and other types of dementia, Parkinson's disease and parkinsonian syndromes, and multiple sclerosis, and should be addressed by cognitive rehabilitation interventions. To be effective, cognitive rehabilitation programs must be intensive and prolonged over time; however, the current virus containment measures are hampering their implementation. Moreover, the reduced access to cognitive rehabilitation might worsen the relationship between the patient and the healthcare professional. Urgent measures to address issues connected to COVID-19 pandemic are, therefore, needed. Remote communication technologies are increasingly regarded as potential effective options to support health care interventions, including neurorehabilitation and cognitive rehabilitation. Among them, telemedicine, virtual reality, augmented reality, and serious games could be in the forefront of these efforts. We will briefly review current evidence-based recommendations on the efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation and offer a perspective on the role of tele-and virtual rehabilitation to achieve adequate cognitive stimulation in the era of social distancing related to COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, we will discuss issues related to their diffusion and propose a roadmap to address them. Methodological and technological improvements might lead to a paradigm shift to promote the delivery of cognitive rehabilitation to people with reduced mobility and in remote regions.

No abstract

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a chronic systemic disease that manifests via various symptoms such as chronic fatigue, post-exertional malaise, and cognitive impairment described as “brain fog”. These symptoms often prevent patients from keeping up their pre-disease onset lifestyle, as extended periods of physical or mental activity become almost impossible. However, the disease presents heterogeneously with varying severity across patients. Therefore, consensus criteria have been designed to provide a diagnosis based on symptoms. To date, no biomarker-based tests or diagnoses are available, since the molecular changes observed also largely differ from patient to patient. In this review, we discuss the infectious, genetic, and hormonal components that may be involved in CFS pathogenesis, we scrutinize the role of gut microbiota in disease progression, we highlight the potential of non-coding RNA (ncRNA) for the development of diagnostic tools and briefly mention the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 infection causing CFS.

SARS-CoV-2 survivors may report persistent symptoms that resemble myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). We explored (a) ME/CFS-like symptom prevalence and (b) whether axonal, inflammatory, and/or lung changes may contribute to ME/CFS-like symptoms in SARS-CoV-2 survivors through clinical, neuropsychiatric, neuropsychological, lung function assessment, and serum neurofilament light chain, an axonal damage biomarker. ME/CFS-like features were found in 27% of our sample. ME/CFS-like group showed worse sleep quality, fatigue, pain, depressive symptoms, subjective cognitive complaints, Borg baseline dyspnea of the 6-min walking test vs. those without ME/CFS-like symptoms. These preliminary findings raise concern on a possible future ME/CFS-like pandemic in SARS-CoV-2 survivors.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Post-stroke pain is one of the most common sequelae of stroke, which stands among the leading causes of death and adult-acquired disability worldwide. The role and clinical efficacy of opioids in post-stroke pain syndromes is still debated.Objectives: Due to the important gap in knowledge on the management of post-stroke pain, this systematic review aimed at assessing the efficacy of opioids in post-stroke pain syndromes.Methods: A literature search was conducted on databases relevant for medical scientific literature, i.e. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases from databases inception until August 31st, 2020 for clinical trials assessing the effects of opioids and opioid antagonists on pain reduction and pain related symptoms in patients with post-stroke pain syndromes. Studies assessing the effects of other medications (e.g., tricyclic antidepressant, pregabalin) or non - pharmacological management strategies (e.g., neurostimulation techniques) were excluded. The selected studies have been subjected to examination of the risk of bias.Results: The literature search retrieved 83,435 results. After duplicates removal, 34,285 articles were title and abstract screened. 25 full texts were assessed and 8 articles were identified to be eligible for inclusion in the qualitative summary and narrative analysis, of which three were placebo-controlled and two were dose-response. Among placebo-controlled studies, two evaluated the analgesic effect of morphine and one assessed the effects of the opioid antagonist naloxone on patients with central post-stroke pain. With regard to dose-response studies, both were on patients with central post-stroke pain, one assessing the efficacy of levorphanol, and the other on naloxone. Seven out of eight included studies showed an overall slight analgesic effect of opioids, with less consistent effects on other pain-related symptoms (e.g., mood, quality of life). The randomized controlled trials were subjected to meta-analysis and rating of the quality of evidence for the two outcomes considered according to GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) system. The overall results are inconclusive because of the small number of studies and of patients.Conclusions: The limited number of the included studies and their heterogeneity in terms of study design do not support the efficacy of opioids in post-stroke pain and in pain-related outcomes. Large double-blind randomized clinical trials with objective assessment of pain and related symptoms are needed to further investigate this topic.