Extended Treatment with Micron-Size Oral Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) in Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) emerged over the years as a promising approach in the management of chronic pain. Despite the fact that the efficacy of micron-size PEA formulations appears to be time-dependent, the optimal timing has not yet been elucidated. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to estimate the possible advantage of an extended treatment in the relief of chronic pain. The literature search was conducted consulting scientific databases, to identify clinical trials in which micron-size PEA was administered for at least 60 days, and pain assessed by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) or Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Nine studies matched the required criteria, for a total of 742 patients involved. The meta-analysis showed a statistically and clinically significant pain intensity reduction after 60 days of micron-size PEA supplementation, compared to 30 days (1.36 points, p < 0.01). The secondary analysis revealed a weighted NRS/VAS score decrease of 2.08 points within the first month of treatment. These two obtained scores corresponded to a 35.1% pain intensity reduction within the first month, followed by a further 35.4% during the second month. Overall, these results confirm the clinically relevant and time-depended pain-relieving effect of micron-size PEA and therefore the advantage of an extended treatment, especially in patient with incomplete pain management.

Bioethics in an oncological surgery unit during the COVID-19 pandemic: the Verona experience.

The spread of COVID-19 has overwhelmed medical facilities across the globe, with patients filling beds in both regular wards and in intensive care units. The repurposing of hospital facilities has resulted in a dramatic decrease in the capacity of hospitals-in terms of available beds, surgical facilities, and medical and nursing staff- to care for oncology patients. The Italian National Board of Bioethics provided precise and homogeneous guidelines for the allocation of the scarce resources available. In our experience, strictly following these general guidelines and not considering the clinical vocation of each single health care center did not allow us to resume usual activities but generated further confusion in resource allocation. To face the scarcity of available resources and guarantee our patients fair access to the health care system we created a surgical triage with four fundamental steps. We took into consideration " well defined and widely accepted clinical prognostic factors " as stated by the Italian Society of Anesthesia and Resuscitation. We were able to draw up a list of patients giving priority to those who theoretically should have a greater chance of overcoming their critical situation. The age criterion has also been used in the overall evaluation of different cure options in each case, but it has never been considered on its own or outside the other clinical parameters. Although not considered acceptable by many we had to forcefully adopt the criterion of comparison between patients to give priority to those most in need of immediate care.