New Psychoactive Substances Intoxications and Fatalities during the COVID-19 Epidemic.

In January 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, declaring the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic in March 2020. Stringent measures decreased consumption of some drugs, moving the illicit market to alternative substances, such as New Psychoactive Substances (NPS). A systematic literature search was performed, using scientific databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and institutional and government websites, to identify reported intoxications and fatalities from NPS during the COVID-19 pandemic. The search terms were: COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, coronavirus disease 2019, intox*, fatal*, new psychoactive substance, novel psychoactive substance, smart drugs, new psychoactive substance, novel synthetic opioid, synthetic opioid, synthetic cathinone, bath salts, legal highs, nitazene, bath salt, legal high, synthetic cannabinoid, phenethylamine, phencyclidine, piperazine, novel benzodiazepine, benzodiazepine analogue, designer benzodiazepines, tryptamine and psychostimulant. From January 2020 to March 2022, 215 NPS exposures were reported in Europe, UK, Japan and USA. Single NPS class intoxications accounted for 25, while mixed NPS class intoxications represented only 3 cases. A total of 130 NPS single class fatalities and 56 fatalities involving mixed NPS classes were published during the pandemic. Synthetic opioids were the NPS class most abused, followed by synthetic cathinones and synthetic cannabinoids. Notably, designer benzodiazepines were frequently found in combination with fentalogues. Considering the stress to communities and healthcare systems generated by the pandemic, NPS-related information may be underestimated. However, we could not define the exact impacts of COVID-19 on processing of toxicological data, autopsy and death investigations.

Ethical and Legal Challenges of Telemedicine in the Era of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background and objective: Telemedicine or telehealth services has been increasingly practiced in the recent years. During the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine turned into and indispensable service in order to avoid contagion between healthcare professionals and patients, involving a growing number of medical disciplines. Nevertheless, at present, several ethical and legal issues related to the practice of these services still remain unsolved and need adequate regulation. This narrative review will give a synthesis of the main ethical and legal issues of telemedicine practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Material and Methods: A literature search was performed on PubMed using MeSH terms: Telemedicine (which includes Mobile Health or Health, Mobile, mHealth, Telehealth, and eHealth), Ethics, Legislation/Jurisprudence, and COVID-19. These terms were combined into a search string to better identify relevant articles published in the English language from March 2019 to September 2021. Results: Overall, 24 out of the initial 85 articles were considered eligible for this review. Legal and ethical issues concerned important aspects such as: informed consent (information about the risks and benefits of remote therapy) and autonomy (87%), patient privacy (78%) and confidentiality (57%), data protection and security (74%), malpractice and professional liability/integrity (70%), equity of access (30%), quality of care (30%), the professional-patient relationship (22%), and the principle of beneficence or being disposed to act for the benefit of others (13%). Conclusions: The ethical and legal issues related to the practice of telehealth or telemedicine services still need standard and specific rules of application in order to guarantee equitable access, quality of care, sustainable costs, professional liability, respect of patient privacy, data protection, and confidentiality. At present, telemedicine services could be only used as complementary or supplementary tools to the traditional healthcare services. Some indications for medical providers are suggested.

Designer Benzodiazepines: A Review of Toxicology and Public Health Risks.

The rising use of designer benzodiazepines (DBZD) is a cat-and-mouse game between organized crime and law enforcement. Non-prohibited benzodiazepines are introduced onto the global drug market and scheduled as rapidly as possible by international authorities. In response, DBZD are continuously modified to avoid legal sanctions and drug seizures and generally to increase the abuse potential of the DBZD. This results in an unpredictable fluctuation between the appearance and disappearance of DBZD in the illicit market. Thirty-one DBZD were considered for review after consulting the international early warning database, but only 3-hydroxyphenazepam, adinazolam, clonazolam, etizolam, deschloroetizolam, diclazepam, flualprazolam, flubromazepam, flubromazolam, meclonazepam, phenazepam and pyrazolam had sufficient data to contribute to this scoping review. A total of 49 reports describing 1 drug offense, 2 self-administration studies, 3 outpatient department admissions, 44 emergency department (ED) admissions, 63 driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) and 141 deaths reported between 2008 and 2021 are included in this study. Etizolam, flualprazolam flubromazolam and phenazepam were implicated in the majority of adverse-events, drug offenses and deaths. However, due to a general lack of knowledge of DBZD pharmacokinetics and toxicity, and due to a lack of validated analytical methods, total cases are much likely higher. Between 2019 and April 2020, DBZD were identified in 48% and 83% of postmortem and DUID cases reported to the UNODC, respectively, with flualprazolam, flubromazolam and etizolam as the most frequently detected substances. DBZD toxicology, public health risks and adverse events are reported.

Died with or Died of? Development and Testing of a SARS CoV-2 Significance Score to Assess the Role of COVID-19 in the Deaths of Affected Patients.

Since December 2019, a new form of coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, has spread from China to the whole word, raising concerns regarding Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) endangering public health and life. Over 1.5 million deaths related with COVID-19 have been recorded worldwide, with wide variations among countries affected by the pandemic and continuously growing numbers. The aim of this paper was to provide an overview of the literature cases of deaths involving COVID-19 and to evaluate the application of the COVID-19 Significance Score (CSS) in the classification of SARS CoV-2-related fatalities, comparing it with the Hamburg rating scale. The results obtained allowed us to highlight that CSS used after a complete accurate post-mortem examination, coupled to the retrieval of in vivo data, post-mortem radiology, histology and toxicology, as well as to additional required analyses (e.g., electronic microscopy) is a useful and concise tool in the assessment of the cause of death and the role played by this virus. A shared use of this scale might hopefully lower the inhomogeneities in forensic evaluation of SARS CoV-2-related fatalities.

Intensive and pharmacological care in times of COVID-19: A "special ethics" for emergency?

BACKGROUND: The Authors have laid out an analysis of Italian COVID-19 confirmed data and fatality rates, pointing out how a dearth of health care resources in northern regions has resulted in hard, ethically challenging decisions in terms of granting patient access to intensive care units (ICU). MAIN TEXT: Having to make such decisions certainly entails substantial difficulties, and that has led many health care professional to seek ethical guidance. The Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) has attempted to meet that growing need by a set of recommendations, applying "clinical soundness" as a beacon standard; that approach tends to prioritize patients with higher life expectancy, which could be characterized as a "moderately utilitarian" approach. Yet, such a selection has engendered daunting ethical quandaries. The authors believe it can only be warranted and acceptable if rooted in a transparent decision-making process and verifiable, reviewed criteria. Moreover, the authors have stressed how clinical experimentation in a pandemic setting is a subtext of great interest from an ethical perspective. In Italy, no drug therapy and trials were undertaken for COVID-19 patients for a rather long period of time. When the epidemic was already circulating, an intervention proved necessary on the system of administrative procedures, aimed at expediting the authorization and validation of protocols, then bogged down by bureaucracy. A new system has since been instituted by a government decree that was signed about one month after the first Covid-19 case was officially recorded in the country. Such a swift implementation, which took just a few weeks, is noteworthy and proves that clinical trials can be initiated in a timely fashion, even with a pandemic unfolding. The concerted, action of supportive care and RCTs is the only way to attain effective forms of treatments for COVID-19 and any other future outbreak. CONCLUSIONS: The authors have arrived at the conclusion that the most effective and ethically sound response on the part of any national health care system would be to adequately reconfigure its organizational mechanisms, by making clinical trials and all related administrative procedures consistent with the current state of emergency.