The WHO declared the novel coronavirus disease a pandemic, with severe consequences for health and global economic activity and Italy is one of the hardest hit countries. This study aims to assess the socio-economic burden of COVID-19 pandemic in Italy through the estimation of Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) and productivity loss. The observational study was based on data from official governmental sources collected since the inception of epidemic until 28 April 2020. DALYs for a disease combines the years of life lost due to premature mortality in the population and the years lost due to disability of the disease. In addition to DALYs, temporary productivity loss due to absenteeism from work and permanent productivity loss due to premature mortality were estimated using the Human Capital Approach. The total DALYs amount to 2.01 per 1000 persons. The total permanent productivity loss was around EUR 300 million while the temporary productivity loss was around EUR 100 million. This evaluation does not consider other economic aspects related to lockdown, quarantine of contacts, healthcare direct costs etc. The burden of disease methodology is functional metric for steering choices of health policy and allowing the government to be accountable for the utilization of resources.

No abstract

Objective: This study compares the incidence of new-onset symptoms within 24 hours after enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (eMRI) with intravenous administration of gadodiamide or gadoterate meglumine compared with a control group undergoing unenhanced MRI (uMRI). Materials and Methods: A prospective cohort study (n = 1088 patients) was designed to assess the incidence of symptoms within 24 hours after administration of gadodiamide or gadoterate meglumine. The participants underwent a structured questionnaire by phone call before and 24 hours after the MRI scan to check for symptoms that were not present before the scan. The questionnaire included a list of active questions aimed to test the prevalence of symptoms that have been proposed in the debated definition of gadolinium deposition disease (GDD) and that we recorded in this study as GDD-like. In particular, the following symptoms and signs were tested: central torso pain, arm or leg pain, bone pain, headache, skin redness (any site of the body), fatigue, and mental confusion.Fisher exact test was used to test differences between groups with significance threshold set at P < 0.05. Results: Within the 24 hours after the MRI scan, 8.3% of patients reported at least one new-onset symptom in the uMRI group versus 17.4% in the gadodiamide eMRI versus 17.8% in the gadoterate meglumine eMRI group. The difference between the eMRI and the uMRI group was statistically significant (P < 0.001 for gadodiamide and P < 0.001 for gadoterate meglumine). There was not a different incidence of symptoms between the gadodiamide and the gadoterate meglumine eMRI groups. For gadodiamide, fatigue (P < 0.05) and dizziness (P < 0.05) were symptoms significantly more frequent than uMRI group; for gadoterate meglumine, fatigue (P < 0.01), mental confusion (P < 0.01), and diarrhea (P < 0.01) were significantly more frequent than uMRI group. Conclusions: We found that the onset of new symptoms within 24 hours after exposure to gadolinium-based contrast agent was more frequent than after uMRI. Among GDD-like symptoms, fatigue and mental confusion were the most frequent symptoms reported after eMRI. The other GDD-like symptoms were not overreported after eMRI versus uMRI. Thus, these results are questioning the term GDD.

Vaccination rates in Italy fell until 2015 because of unfounded safety concerns. Public education and a 2017 law on mandatory vaccination have boosted rates since then. The aim of our study is to explore how trust in the scientific community and attitudes towards vaccines have changed in the period of 2017–2019 in Italy. Data were extracted from the Italian section of the 2017 and 2019 editions of the European Social Survey (ESS). We compared the two surveys highlighting changes in public opinion on vaccines. A descriptive analysis of the socio-cultural variables according to the answers provided to key questions on the harmfulness of vaccines was conducted. Differences between percentages were tested by using the χ2 test. The association between the opinion about the harmfulness of vaccines and trust in the scientific community was analyzed through a logistic regression model. Compared to ESS8, ESS9 showed an increase in the percentage of respondents disagreeing with the harmfulness of vaccines. Trust in the scientific community raised in the period from 2017 to 2019 (59% vs. 69.6%). Higher education was significantly associated with disagreement regarding the harmfulness of vaccines (odds ratio (OR) = 2.41; 95% confidence interval (95%CI) 1.75–3.31), the strongest predictor was trust in the scientific community (OR = 10.47; 95% CI 7.55–14.52). In Italy, trust in the scientific community and in vaccinations has grown significantly in recent years, indicating a paradigm shift in public opinion compared to the past. Central actions and effective public communication strategies might reduce vaccine hesitancy and could be essential to garner public trust.

Vaccinations generate health, economic and social benefits in both vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. The aim of this study was to conduct a cost–benefit analysis to estimate the costs and benefits associated with the COVID-19 vaccination campaign for health workers in Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS (FPG). The analysis included 5152 healthcare workers who voluntarily received the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, divided into physicians, nurses and other health workers. Data about vaccine cost, administration and materials were derived from administrative databases of the FPG from 28 December 2020 to 31 March 2021. The costs associated with the COVID-19 vaccination campaign amounted to EUR 2,221,768, while the benefits equaled EUR 10,345,847. The benefit-to-cost ratio resulted in EUR 4.66, while the societal return on investment showed a ratio of EUR 3.66. The COVID-19 vaccination campaign for health workers in FPG has high social returns and it strengthens the need to inform and update decision-making about the economic and social benefits associated with a vaccination campaign. Health economic evaluations on vaccines should always be considered by decision-makers when considering the inclusion of a new vaccine into the national program.

Health workers, especially those in patient-facing roles, had a significantly increased risk of COVID-19 infection, having serious outcomes, and risking spreading the virus to patients and staff. Vaccination campaign planning suggests allocating initial supplies of BNT162b2 vaccine to health workers given the importance of early protection to safeguard the continuity of care to patients. The aim of the study is to assess the effectiveness and safety of BNT162b2 vaccine among the health workers of Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS (FPG). The retrospective cohort study was conducted among health staff working at the FPG. Vaccination data were collected from hospital records. The primary end points were vaccine effectiveness and safety. A total of 6649 health workers were included, of whom 5162 received injections. There were 14 cases of COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days after the second dose among vaccinated health workers and 45 cases among unvaccinated ones. BNT162b2 was 91.5% effective against COVID-19 (95% credible interval, 84.7% to 95.3%). The safety profile of BNT162b2 vaccine consisted of short-term, non-serious events. The promotion and boost of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign represents a key public health measure useful to curb the spread of the pandemic especially in vulnerable contexts, such as hospitals, where health workers carry out a paramount role for the entire community, and requires further protection with a possible booster dose in view of autumn-winter 2021.

The present review aims to map the current literature on educational interventions to promote food literacy in type 2 diabetes, with a particular focus on the concept of patient engagement. The systematic review was implemented on five databases with no restrictions on the publication year. The studies selected for the review were focused on patients with type 2 diabetes, ranging from 2003 to 2021 and published in 13 countries (44% USA). Thirty-three articles were analyzed. Twenty-seven articles targeted singular patients; fifteen articles conceptualized patient engagement as self-management. In seven articles, the provider is a multidisciplinary team. Twenty articles did not report a theoretical framework in the intervention development, and eleven did not use an intervention material. Twenty-six articles did not use a technology proxy. Outcome categories were narratively mapped into four areas: clinical, psychological, behavioral, and literacy. To date, most of the interventions are heterogeneous in the adopted methodology, measures, and outcomes considered. More attention should be given to the psychosocial characterization of patient engagement as well as the technological support. High-quality, randomized controlled trials and longitudinal studies are lacking and need to be conducted to verify the efficacy of these insights.

IntroductionIn primary care, almost 75% of outpatient visits by family doctors and general practitioners involve continuation or initiation of drug therapy. Due to the enormous amount of drugs used by outpatients in unmonitored situations, the potential risk of adverse events due to an error in the use or prescription of drugs is much higher than in a hospital setting. Artificial intelligence (AI) application can help healthcare professionals to take charge of patient safety by improving error detection, patient stratification and drug management. The aim is to investigate the impact of AI algorithms on drug management in primary care settings and to compare AI or algorithms with standard clinical practice to define the medication fields where a technological support could lead to better results.Methods and analysisA systematic review and meta-analysis of literature will be conducted querying PubMed, Cochrane and ISI Web of Science from the inception to December 2021. The primary outcome will be the reduction of medication errors obtained by AI application. The search strategy and the study selection will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and the population, intervention, comparator and outcome framework. Quality of included studies will be appraised adopting the quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies for non-randomised controlled trials as well as the quality assessment of controlled intervention studies of National Institute of Health for randomised controlled trials.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethical approval is not required since no human beings are involved. The results will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications.