Objectives: Technology can assist and support both people with dementia (PWD) and caregivers. Recently, technology has begun to embed remote components. Timely with respect to the pandemic, the present work reviews the most recent literature on technology in dementia contexts together with the newest studies about technological support published until October 2020. The final aim is to provide a synthesis of the timeliest evidence upon which clinical and non-clinical decision-makers can rely to make choices about technology in the case of further pandemic waves.Methods: A review of reviews was performed alongside a review of the studies run during the first pandemic wave. PsycInfo, CINAHL, and PubMed-online were the databases inspected for relevant papers published from January 2010.Results: The search identified 420 articles, 30 of which were reviews and nine of which were new studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Studies were first sorted according to the target population, then summarized thematically in a narrative synthesis. The studies targeting technologies for PWD were categorized as follows: monitoring and security purposes, sustaining daily life, and therapeutic interventions. Each category showed potential benefits. Differently, the interventions for caregivers were classified as informative, psycho-education programs, psychosocial-supportive, therapeutic, and cognitive/physical training. Benefits to mental health, skills learning, and social aspects emerged.Conclusions: The evidence shows that technology is well-accepted and can support PWD and caregivers to bypass physical and environmental problems both during regular times and during future pandemic waves. Nevertheless, the lack of a common methodological background is revealed by this analysis. Further and more standardized research is necessary to improve the implementation of technologies in everyday life while respecting the necessary personalization.

Oxaliplatin is a platinum-derived antitumor drug that is active against cisplatin-resistant tumors and has lower overall toxicity than does cisplatin. DNA adduct formation is believed to mediate the cytotoxic activity of both compounds; however, the adducts may also be responsible for mutagenic and secondary tumorigenic activities. In this study, we have compared the mutagenicity of oxaliplatin and cisplatin in the Hprt gene of CHO-K1 cells. Both drugs produced dose-related increases in mutant frequency. For 1-hr treatments, oxaliplatin was less mutagenic than cisplatin at equimolar doses, while similar mutant frequencies were induced at equitoxic doses. Sequencing of mutant Hprt genes indicated that the mutation spectra of both oxaliplatin and cisplatin were significantly different from the spontaneous mutation spectrum (P = 0.014 and P = 0.008, respectively). A significant difference was also observed between the spectra of oxaliplatin- and cisplatin-induced mutations (P = 0.033). Although G:C-->T:A transversion was the most common mutation produced by both compounds, oxaliplatin produced higher frequencies of A:T-->T:A transversion than did cisplatin, most commonly at nucleotide 307, and higher frequencies of small deletions/insertions. Also, cisplatin induced tandem base-pair substitutions, mainly at positions 135/136, and a higher frequency of G:C-->A:T transition than did oxaliplatin. These results provide the first evidence that oxaliplatin is mutagenic and that the profiles of cisplatin- and oxaliplatin-induced mutations display not only similarities but also distinctive features relating to the type and sequence-context preference for mutation. Environ.

Objectives: Considering the adverse outcomes of COVID-19, it is essential to provide adequate support and care for people with dementia and informal carers.Technology can reduce the distress associated with social distancing rules and the decreased access to in-person services. This study aimed to explore the use of technology and its perceived effects across different settings and countries. Methods:The sample was composed of 127 informal carers and 15 people with dementia from the UK, Italy, Australia and Poland. Semi-structured interviews explored participants' experiences of using technology and their perceived effects.Transcripts were analysed by researchers in each country using an inductive approach.Results: Three overarching themes were developed: (1) Technology kept us alive during COVID-19; (2) Remote care was anything but easy; (3) Perceived technology limitations. Many similarities emerged between countries supporting the role of technology for being socially engaged, having a routine, and staying active. However, the benefits of technology for health and psychosocial care were more limited.Across countries, barriers to the access and use of technology included lack of digital literacy, dementia severity, and lack of appropriate digital environments.Help and supervision from carers were also necessary and sometimes perceived as an additional burden. Conclusions:Technology can effectively reduce the shrinking world that may be amplified by the pandemic, thus preserving people with dementia's social skills and maintaining family connections. However, for more extensive and well-adapted use of technology in dementia care, actions should be taken to overcome the barriers to the access and use of technology by older and vulnerable people globally.

The results of this multicenter study showed that there is a noticeable difference in the expression of PCNA, p53, cyclin-D1, and AgNOR in tissues from patients with LLSCC and controls.