Emanuela Esposito

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is the most common foregut disease, affecting about 20% of the adult population. Esophageal epithelial barrier plays a fundamental role in the pathophysiology of GERD; however, pharmacological therapies mainly aim to reduce the acidity of the gastroesophageal environment rather than to protect esophageal tissue integrity. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of an oral solution containing xyloglucan and pea proteins (XP) in reestablishing gastroesophageal tissue integrity and biochemical markers. To induce GERD, C57BL/6 mice were alternatively overfed and fasted for 56 days and then treated with XP, sodium alginate, omeprazole, or omeprazole+XP twice daily for 7 days. Gastric pain and inflammatory markers were evaluated after 3 and 7 days of treatment. After sacrifice, the esophagi and stomachs were surgically removed for macroscopic and histological examination. Gastric pain was significantly reduced at days 3 and 7 by XP, omeprazole, and omeprazole+XP, while alginates were ineffective at day 3. XP was able to diminish gastric macroscopic damage and demonstrated the same efficacy as omeprazole in reducing esophageal damage. XP significantly reduced histological damage, with an efficacy comparable to that of omeprazole, but superior to alginates. Inflammatory markers were significantly reduced by XP, with superior efficacy compared with alginates at day 7. Interestingly, XP was also able to significantly increase gastric pH. This study demonstrated that XP restored gastric homeostasis, improved esophageal integrity, and decreased inflammation and pain with a similar efficacy to omeprazole and greater than alginates.

Since the inception of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, healthcare systems around the world observed an increased rate of Acute Limb Ischemia (ALI) in patients with a COVID-19 infection. Despite several pieces of evidence suggesting that COVID-19 infection may also worsen the prognosis associated with ALI, only a small number of published studies include a direct comparison regarding the outcomes of both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ALI patients. Based on the above, a systematic review and a meta-analysis of the literature were conducted, evaluating differences in the incidence of two major outcomes (amputation and mortality rate) between patients concurrently affected by COVID-19 and negative ALI subjects. PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, and Embase (OVID) databases were scrutinized from January 2020 up to 31 December 2023, and 7906 total articles were recovered. In total, 11 studies (n: 15,803 subjects) were included in the systematic review, and 10 of them (15,305 patients) were also included in the meta-analysis. Across all the studies, COVID-19-positive ALI patients experienced worse outcomes (mortality rates ranging from 6.7% to 47.2%; amputation rates ranging from 7.0% to 39.1%) compared to non-infected ALI patients (mortality rates ranging from 3.1% to 16.7%; amputation rates ranging from 2.7% to 18%). Similarly, our meta-analysis shows that both the amputation rate (OR: 2.31; 95% CI: 1.68–3.17; p < 0.00001) and mortality (OR: 3.64; 95% CI: 3.02–4.39; p < 0.00001) is significantly higher in COVID-19 ALI patients compared to ALI patients.

Background: Evolocumab is a humanized immunoglobulin G2 monoclonal antibody, directed against Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin/Kexin type 9 (PCSK9), prescribed in hypercholesterolemic patients. The safety profile of this drug is currently defined by the data of pre-authorization clinical trials. The purpose of this study is to update knowledge of the safety of evolocumab through an analysis of post-marketing real-world data on suspected adverse reactions (SARs), reported by the EudraVigilance database system. Methods: The public version of the EudraVigilance database has been used, and only serious SARs signals were included. Results: Musculoskeletal system disorders, flu-like symptoms, injection-site reactions, skin reactions, and metabolism and nutrition disorders are observed in the post-marketing surveillance, as well as being found in the pre-authorization studies. Not previously signaled in the pre-marketing studies, diarrhea was reported. Furthermore, signals related to cardiac adverse reactions, more frequently at the expense of adults in comparison to elders, were found. Conclusions: The post-marketing safety profile of evolocumab emerging from an analysis of the EudraVigilance data system indicates it is sufficiently safe but suggests the necessity for caution when it is prescribed to hyperlipidemic patients affected by heart diseases.