Giorgio Gentile

Objectives: To investigate how personal protective equipment (PPE) guidance altered the facial hair of hospital doctors and explore the wider impact and implications of these changes.Methods: A single site uncontrolled before‐after survey study examining change in facial hairstyles, and wider implications on doctor's cultural, religious, and personal wellbeing. Outcome measures included change in facial hair between January and April 2020 and whether these changes adhered to guidance set by Public Health England. Participants were also asked about the wider impact of these changes which were thematically analyzed using an inductive approach.Results: Of those who completed the survey, 257 participants met the inclusion criteria. 68% (n = 67) of doctors who could grow facial hair changed their facial hairstyle during the COVID‐19 pandemic and 96% (n = 64) reported that the change was in response to PPE guidance. The odds of having a facial hairstyle that complied with PPE guidance before the pandemic was 0.32, which rose to 2.77 after guidance was released, giving an odds ratio of 8.54 (95% CI 4.49‐16.23, P < .001). When compared to those who sported a shaven face prepandemic, the odds ratio of a change in style for those with prepandemic full beards was 37.92 (95% CI 7.45‐192.8, P < .001), for goatees was 7.22 (95% CI 1.076‐48.47, P = .04), for moustaches was 4.33 (95% CI 0.207‐90.85, P = .345), and for stubble was 9.06 (95% CI 2.133‐38.49, P = .003). Qualitative analysis revealed multiple themes, including skin irritation, loss of identity, and a significant impact on participants required to maintain a beard due to religious or cultural reasons.Conclusions: Facial hairstyles have changed significantly at our hospital during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Facial hair can impact upon doctors' cultural, religious, and personal wellbeing and these factors need to be considered with policy and provision of PPE.

Peyronie’s disease (PD) is due to a fibrotic alteration of the tunica albuginea of the penis. It is responsible of penile pain, angulation, and possible erectile dysfunction (ED). Despite almost three centuries have passed since the first description of the disease, etiology still remains uncertain. This fact has led to the lack of a truly effective medical therapy and to date the surgical treatment, although not yet standardized, is the only one that offers acceptable outcomes in terms of function and overall patient’s satisfaction. Since the beginning of the surgical experience in this field, two different currents of thought have developed: the first, involved the proposal of a number of different plication techniques, applied on the healthy side of the penis, opposite to the sick side, with the sole purpose of correcting the curvature; on the other side, efforts have focused on treating the “focus” of the disease, thus developing the so called “plaque surgery.” If with the passing of the decades neither of the two “philosophical” currents has prevailed, this probably depends on the fact that is still not clear which is the lesser of evils: the frequent onset of ED which may follows the plaque surgery or rather the penis shortening that inevitably occurs if any technique of plication has been applied. Our contribution aims to offer an historical retrospective of the surgical treatment of this disease as well as to discuss the latest international guidelines on this topic. The reader will also find some notes about our personal experience in this field.

As of 28 October 2020, there are over 44 000 000 confirmed COVID-19 infections and over 1 000 000 deaths worldwide, including 945 367 infections and 45 765 deaths in the UK. Acute respiratory distress syndrome occurs in 50% of patients with secondary haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, a hyperinflammatory syndrome characterised by a surge of cytokines, including interleukin 6 (IL-6). Here we describe the case of the first patient with severe COVID-19 pneumonia successfully treated with tocilizumab, a humanised monoclonal antibody against the IL-6 receptor, in the UK. Early treatment (after 7–10 days from the onset of symptoms) with tocilizumab could (1) reduce the risk of requiring non-invasive or invasive ventilation; (2) offer a chance of survival to people who are not fit for escalation or have refused to be ventilated; and (3) potentially increase the chance of survival in some patients who are already ventilated but fail to improve with supportive treatment.

Pregabalin is a medication used to treat epilepsy, neuropathic pain and generalised anxiety disorder. The most common side effects of pregabalin include dizziness, drowsiness, weight gain, ataxia and diplopia. On the other hand, neutropenia and rash are rare side effects of pregabalin, and at the time of writing, there are only two documented cases of neutropenia and one of rash in the literature, none of which involved renal transplant recipients. We present a 37-year-old renal transplant recipient who was admitted with lethargy, sore throat, urticarial rash and neutropenia after recently being commenced on pregabalin. On physical examination, he had erythematous urticarial rash near his renal transplant scar, on his right elbow, left knee and left wrist. Bacterial/viral serology and immunology were all negative. A blood film confirmed neutropenia and revealed reactive lymphocytes and neutrophil left shift, and those features were compatible with drug reaction. After cessation of the pregabalin, the neutropenia resolved. No other causes of neutropenia or urticarial rash were identified. To the best of our knowledge, we have described the first case of concomitant pregabalin-induced neutropenia and urticarial rash in a kidney transplant patient. This case report highlights the importance of close monitoring when starting any new medications, particularly in the immunosuppressed population, and is relevant because of the growing usage of pregabalin for treating neuropathic pain in such patients and the risk that a missed pregabalin-related neutropenia could lead to unnecessary modifications of the immunosuppressive treatment.

In patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), hypertension is a major challenge because of its high prevalence, the consequent increase in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and the risk it confers specifically to the progression of kidney disease. Hence, establishing evidence-based blood pressure targets and treatment strategies is a clinical priority of paramount importance. Over the last few years, different guidelines have advocated different blood pressure treatment thresholds and goals in CKD patients, including a target < 140/90 mmHg and a more intensive target—lower than 130/80 mmHg—in the presence of albuminuria ≥ 300 mg/daily. Aim of this article is to critically appraise the evidence base of the freshly released 2018 ESC/ESH European Guidelines, which recommend to lower systolic BP to a range 130 to < 140 mmHg in patients with diabetic or non-diabetic CKD, also in view of the 2017 US guidelines, which favor a more intensive strategy with a BP target lower than 130/80 mmHg.

Hypertension is a key risk factor for chronic kidney disease (CKD), but can also be a detrimental consequence of established CKD. Unsurprisingly, the majority of subjects with abnormal creatinine in the general population are also hypertensive, with a huge toll on national health care systems worldwide due to a staggering increase in the risk of cardiovascular complications and end-stage renal disease requiring renal replacement therapy. In this setting, a comprehensive and careful assessment of the whole 24-h blood pressure (BP) profile could be of paramount importance in ensuring a timely diagnosis of hypertension and an optimal therapeutic control. Hence, ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) has the potential to become the preferred method for optimal clinical management of CKD patients. ABPM might better define the relationship between BP, target organ damage (TOD), and clinical outcomes. Current evidence suggests that specific day–night BP components, along with average BP values, may have clinical relevance in such patients, despite the suboptimal statistical power of available studies and inconsistencies on the prognostic value of individual BP components. The main aim of our review is to scrutinize the evidence for the usage of ABPM in CKD patients, including the relationship between ambulatory BP recordings and cardiovascular events, and the distinctive features of ABPM in these subjects.

Current guidelines for dialysis specify a minimum Kt/V. For haemodialysis (HD) patients, minimum treatment time and frequency is also specified. The guidelines allow for modification to take account of renal function. The guidelines are not specifically aimed at the elderly and may not be appropriate for all patients in this group. Increasing age is accompanied by physiological and pathological changes that may modify the patient’s response to uraemia and dialysis. Frailty and multi-morbidity are likely, but to a variable extent. Elderly patients could be more susceptible to the effects of uraemia and require a higher dose of dialysis. Conversely, the generation rate of uraemic toxins is lower in elderly patients, potentially reducing the need for dialysis. In the elderly, quality of life may be more adversely affected by multimorbidity than uraemic symptoms, thus the dose of dialysis may be less relevant. Higher doses of dialysis may be more difficult to achieve in the elderly and may be less well tolerated. We conclude that the prescription of dialysis in the elderly should be individualized, taking multiple factors into account. An individualized Kt/V may be useful in controlling dialysis dose and detecting problems in delivery. However, achievement of a specified Kt/V may not result in any benefit to an elderly patient and could be counterproductive.

Several randomized trials compared a more versus less intensive blood pressure–lowering strategy on the risk of major cardiovascular events and death. Cumulative meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses can establish whether and when firm evidence favoring a specific intervention has been reached from accrued literature. Therefore, we conducted a cumulative trial sequential analysis of 18 trials that randomly allocated 53 405 patients to a more or less intensive blood pressure–lowering strategy. We sought to ascertain the extent to which trial evidence added to previously accrued data. Outcome measures were stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death. Achieved blood pressure was 7.6/4.5 mm Hg lower with the more intensive than the less intensive blood pressure–lowering strategy. For stroke and myocardial infarction, the cumulative Z curve crossed the efficacy monitoring boundary solely after the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) study, thereby providing firm evidence of superiority of a more intensive over a less intensive blood pressure–lowering strategy. For cardiovascular death and heart failure, the cumulative Z curve crossed the conventional significance boundary, but not the sequential monitoring boundary, after SPRINT. For all-cause death, the SPRINT trial pushed the cumulative Z curve away from the futility area, without reaching the conventional significance boundary. We conclude that evidence accrued to date strongly supports the superiority of a more intensive versus a less intensive blood pressure–lowering strategy for prevention of stroke and myocardial infarction. Cardiovascular death and heart failure are likely to be reduced by a more intensive blood pressure–lowering strategy, but evidence is not yet conclusive.