Remifentanil is a newly synthesized 4-anilido-piperidine with an ester side chain susceptible to esterase metabolism. We evaluated the safety, analgesic efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of remifentanil in 48 male volunteers. Volunteers were randomized to receive increasing doses of remifentanil, alfentanil, or placebo. Analgesic efficacy was evaluated by increasing tolerance to a spring-loaded rod measured at the tibia and sternum at multiple time points. Respiratory depression was measured by changes in arterial blood gas tensions and peripheral hemoglobin oxygen saturation. Hemodynamics were continuously monitored by means of an intra-arterial catheter. Both remifentanil and alfentanil produced a dose-dependent increase in analgesia and respiratory depression. Remifentanil was 20 to 30 times more potent (milligram to milligram) than alfentanil when assessed by either analgesic efficacy or respiratory measures. The pharmacokinetics of remifentanil were best described by a biexponential decay curve. Remifentanil had a small volume of distribution of 0.39 (SD, +/- 0.25) L/kg (alfentanil, 0.52 +/- 2 L/kg), with a rapid distribution phase of 0.94 (SD, +/- 0.57) min and an extremely short elimination half-life of 9.5 (SD, +/- 4) min compared with an elimination half-life of alfentanil of 58 (SD, +/- 7.6) min. The t1/2 ke0 (half-time for equilibration between plasma and the effect compartment) of remifentanil for analgesia was calculated as 1.3 min. Thus, remifentanil appears to have a pharmacologic profile similar to other potent mu agonists, but with exceptionally short-lasting pharmacokinetics, which is likely to make it a very useful opioid for clinical practice.

Objectives: To investigate stakeholder perspectives on how patient preference studies (PPS) should be designed and conducted to allow for inclusion of patient preferences in decision-making along the medical product life cycle (MPLC), and how patient preferences can be used in such decision-making.Methods: Two literature reviews and semi-structured interviews (n = 143) with healthcare stakeholders in Europe and the US were conducted; results of these informed the design of focus group guides. Eight focus groups were conducted with European patients, industry representatives and regulators, and with US regulators and European/Canadian health technology assessment (HTA) representatives. Focus groups were analyzed thematically using NVivo.Results: Stakeholder perspectives on how PPS should be designed and conducted were as follows: 1) study design should be informed by the research questions and patient population; 2) preferred treatment attributes and levels, as well as trade-offs among attributes and levels should be investigated; 3) the patient sample and method should match the MPLC phase; 4) different stakeholders should collaborate; and 5) results from PPS should be shared with relevant stakeholders. The value of patient preferences in decision-making was found to increase with the level of patient preference sensitivity of decisions on medical products. Stakeholders mentioned that patient preferences are hardly used in current decision-making. Potential applications for patient preferences across industry, regulatory and HTA processes were identified. Four applications seemed most promising for systematic integration of patient preferences: 1) benefit-risk assessment by industry and regulators at the marketing-authorization phase; 2) assessment of major contribution to patient care by European regulators; 3) cost-effectiveness analysis; and 4) multi criteria decision analysis in HTA.Conclusions: The value of patient preferences for decision-making depends on the level of collaboration across stakeholders; the match between the research question, MPLC phase, sample, and preference method used in PPS; and the sensitivity of the decision regarding a medical product to patient preferences. Promising applications for patient preferences should be further explored with stakeholders to optimize their inclusion in decision-making.

Patient empowerment is a multi-factorial concept and its relevance has led to a growing body of literature; despite this attention, there is still no agreement regarding the elements that define its expression. While several studies have already investigated the positive effect of empowerment interventions on the care process outcome, the aim of this study is to investigate which factors can foster an empowered management of the cancer condition from the patient's perspective. To examine patients' perception of empowerment enablers, we asked for participants' input on the role of three factors frequently cited as positively affected by empowerment: care quality, perception of direct control and relationships within the care context, during the care process. Three focus groups were conducted with 34 cancer patients. The results highlight the perception of direct control on their treatment as the least valued element (2.87, SD 0.566) when compared with care quality (3.75, SD 0.649) and relational support in the care context (3.91, SD 0.274).Unlike traditional approaches to empowerment, patient's expression of empowerment does not mainly reside in the direct control of their condition as much as in an active role within the relationship with caretakers, such as the ability to choose the doctor, the care team or the health organisation in charge of their healthcare. Emerging aspects from this analysis of patient's perspective are central in order to adequately consider empowerment in the care process and to provide more effective care strategies.

The study aimed to investigate the mental health and emotional reaction of physicians working during phase 1 of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. Methods: A total of 458 Italian Health Care Workers (HCWs) working during phases 1 of the COVID-19 outbreak were voluntarily enlisted in the study and recruited with the snowball technique through an online survey. We examined our variables with the General Health Questionnaire-12 and with Visual Analog Scales. Results: The sample has a high level of psychological distress 21.26 (SD = 4.46), the emotional reaction was characterized by high level of fear for family members and cohabitants (M = 77.67, SD = 27.16) and patients (M = 67.16, SD = 27.71). Perceived control, fear for patients, and for family members and cohabitants, feeling alone and anger all contribute to a decreased mental health in Italian physicians (R 2 = 0.285, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Italian HCWs' mental health and emotional reaction have to be considered to prevent high risk of burnout and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). It becomes pivotal in the next months to implement a tailored psychological intervention to take care of HCWs and to prevent costly consequences for them, patients, and the healthcare system.