Alterations of intestinal microflora may significantly contribute to the pathogenesis of different inflammatory and autoimmune disorders. There is emerging interest on the role of selective modulation of microflora in inducing benefits in inflammatory intestinal disorders, by as probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, antibiotics, and fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT). To summarize recent evidences on microflora modulation in main intestinal inflammatory disorders, PubMed was searched using terms microbiota, intestinal flora, probiotics, prebiotics, fecal transplantation. More than three hundred articles published up to 2015 were selected and reviewed. Randomized placebo-controlled trials and meta-analysis were firstly included, mainly for probiotics. A meta-analysis was not performed because of the heterogeneity of these studies. Most of relevant data derived from studies on probiotics, reporting some efficacy in ulcerative colitis and in pouchitis, while disappointing results are available for Crohn's disease. Probiotic supplementation may significantly reduce rates of rotavirus diarrhea. Efficacy of probiotics in NSAID enteropathy and irritable bowel syndrome is still controversial. Finally, FMT has been recently recognized as an efficacious treatment for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Modulation of intestinal flora represents a very interesting therapeutic target, although it still deserves some doubts and limitations. Future studies should be encouraged to provide new understanding about its therapeutical role.

The detection of amino acid resonance at 0.9 ppm at in vivo 1H MR spectroscopy (136-msec TE) is a promising tool for distinguishing bacterial abscesses and cystic brain tumors.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an emerging infectious disease. Bilateral pneumonia, acute respiratory failure, systemic inflammation, endothelial dysfunction and coagulation activation are key features of severe COVID-19. Fibrinogen and D-dimer levels are typically increased. The risk for venous thromboembolism is markedly increased, especially in patients in the intensive care unit despite prophylactic dose anticoagulation. Pulmonary microvascular thrombosis has also been described and the risk for arterial thrombotic diseases also appears to be increased while bleeding is less common than thrombosis, but it can occur. Evaluation for venous thromboembolism may be challenging because symptoms of pulmonary embolism overlap with COVID-19, and imaging studies may not be feasible in all cases. The threshold for evaluation or diagnosis of thromboembolism should be low given the high frequency of these events. Management and treatment are new challenges due to the paucity of high-quality evidence regarding efficacy and safety of different approaches to prevent or treat thromboembolic complications of the disease. All inpatients should receive thromboprophylaxis unless contraindicated. Some institutional protocols provide more aggressive anticoagulation with intermediate or even therapeutic dose anticoagulation for COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU. Therapeutic dose anticoagulation is always appropriate to treat deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, unless contraindicated. This article reviews evaluation and management of coagulation abnormalities in individuals with COVID-19.

The presence of a vascular access device (or of any intravascular foreign body) inside the bloodstream is often associated with the formation of a connective tissue sleeve around the catheter (often named—erroneously—“fibrin sleeve”). Such sleeve is usually a physiological phenomenon with little or no clinical relevance, but its pathogenesis is still unclear, so that it is frequently confused with venous thrombosis; also, its relationship with other major catheter-related complications, such as venous thrombosis and bloodstream infection, is uncertain. This narrative review tries to convey in a systematic form the current knowledge about pathogenesis, incidence, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and management of this phenomenon.

Viral sepsis is rare, and its real incidence is not known. SARS-CoV-2 infection causes the release of a significant amount of pro-inflammatory cytokines that aggravates interstitial pneumonia and evolves in viral sepsis with prominent hypercoagulability. We believe it is useful and advisable to establish early immunomodulator therapy and the prophylaxis anticoagulant therapy should be rethought.

Sepsis represents a global health problem in terms of morbidity, mortality, social and economic costs. Although usually managed in Intensive Care Units, sepsis showed an increased prevalence among Internal Medicine wards in the last decade. This is substantially due to the ageing of population and to multi-morbidity. These characteristics represent both a risk factor for sepsis and a relative contra-indication for the admission to Intensive Care Units. Although there is a lack of literature on the management of sepsis in Internal Medicine, the outcome of these patients seems to be gradually improving. This is due to Internists' increased adherence to guidelines and "bundles". The routine use of SOFA score helps physicians in the definition of septic patients, even if the optimal score has still to come. Point-of-care ultrasonography, lactates, procalcitonin and beta-d-glucan are of help for treatment optimization. The purpose of this narrative review is to focus on the management of sepsis in Internal Medicine departments, particularly on crucial concepts regarding diagnosis, risk assessment and treatment. Key Messages Sepsis is a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. The prevalence of sepsis is constantly increasing, affecting more hospital patients than any other disease. At least half of patients affected by sepsis are admitted to Internal Medicine wards. Adherence to guidelines, routine use of clinical and lab scores and point-of-care ultrasonography are of help for early recognition of septic patients and treatment optimization.

Insertion of venous access devices (VAD) is usually considered a procedure with low risk of bleeding. Nonetheless, insertion of some devices is invasive enough to be associated with bleeding, especially in patients with previous coagulopathy or in treatment with antithrombotic drugs for cardiovascular disease. The current practices of platelet/plasma transfusion in coagulopathic patients and of temporary suspension of the antithrombotic treatment before VAD insertion are based on local policies and are often inadequately supported by evidence, since many of the clinical studies on this topic are not recent and are not of high quality. Furthermore, the protocols of antithrombotic treatment have changed during the last decade, after the introduction of new oral anticoagulant drugs. Though some guidelines address some of these issues in relation with specific procedures (port insertion, etc.), no evidence-based document covering all the aspects of this clinical problem is currently available. Thus, the Italian Group of Venous Access Devices (GAVeCeLT) has decided to develop a consensus on the management of antithrombotic treatment and bleeding disorders in patients requiring VADs. After a systematic review of the available evidence, the panel of the consensus (which included vascular access specialists, surgeons, intensivists, anesthetists, cardiologists, vascular medicine experts, nephrologists, infective disease specialists, and thrombotic disease specialists) has structured the final recommendations as detailed answers to three sets of questions: (1) which is an appropriate classification of VAD-related procedures based on the specific bleeding risk? (2) Which is the appropriate management of the patient with bleeding disorders candidate to VAD insertion/removal? (3) Which is the appropriate management of the patient on antithrombotic treatment candidate to VAD insertion/removal? Only statements reaching a complete agreement were included in the final recommendations, and all recommendations were offered in a clear and synthetic list, so to be easily translated into clinical practice.

Background: Neutropenic enterocolitis (NE), which in the past was also known as typhlitis or ileocecal syndrome for the segment of the gastrointestinal tract most affected, is a nosological entity that is difficult to diagnose and whose pathogenesis is not fully known to date. Initially described in pediatric patients with leukemic diseases, it has been gradually reported in adults with hematological malignancies and non-hematological conditions, such as leukemia, lymphoma, multiple myeloma, aplastic anemia, and also myelodysplastic syndromes, as well as being associated with other immunosuppressive causes such as AIDS treatment, therapy for solid tumors, and organ transplantation. Therefore, it is associated with high mortality due to the rapid evolution in worse clinical pictures: rapid progression to ischemia, necrosis, hemorrhage, perforation, multisystem organ failure, and sepsis. Case report: A case report is included to exemplify the clinical profile of patients with NE who develop sepsis. Literature Review: To identify a specific profile of subjects affected by neutropenic enterocolitis and the entity of the clinical condition most frequently associated with septic evolution, a systematic review of the literature was conducted. The inclusion criteria were as follows: English language, full-text availability, human subjects, and adult subjects. Finally, the papers were selected after the evaluation of the title and abstract to evaluate their congruity with the subject of this manuscript. Following these procedures, 19 eligible empirical studies were included in the present review. Conclusions: Despite the recent interest and the growing number of publications targeting sepsis and intending to identify biomarkers useful for its diagnosis, prognosis, and for the understanding of its pathogenesis, and especially for multi-organ dysfunction, and despite the extensive research period of the literature review, the number of publications on the topic “neutropenic enterocolitis and sepsis” appears to be very small. In any case, the extrapolated data allowed us to conclude that the integration of medical history, clinical and laboratory data, radiological imaging, and macroscopic and histological investigations can allow us to identify a specific pathological profile.