The causes of most cases of Parkinson's disease (PD) are still poorly understood. Here we show that chronic stress and elevated corticosterone levels exaggerate motor deficits and neurodegenerative events in a Parkinson's disease rat model. Animals were tested in skilled and non-skilled movement while being exposed to daily restraint stress or oral corticosterone treatment. Stress and corticosterone compromised normal motor function and exaggerated motor deficits caused by unilateral 6-hydroxydopamine lesion of the nigrostriatal bundle. Moreover, stress and corticosterone treatments diminished the ability to acquire compensatory strategies in limb use during skilled reaching and skilled walking. In contrast, lesion control animals were able to significantly improve in the ability of skilled limb use during the repeated test sessions. The exaggerated motor impairments in stress-treated animals were related to accelerated loss of midbrain dopamine-producing neurons during the first week postlesion. Correlation analysis revealed a significant connection between loss of tyrosine hydroxylase-positive cells and increase in Fluoro-Jade-positive cells only in stress-and corticosterone-treated animals. Furthermore, stress and elevated corticosterone levels caused greater permanent loss of midbrain neurons than found in non-treated lesion animals. These findings demonstrate that stress and elevated corticosterone levels can exaggerate nigral neuronal loss and motor symptoms in a rat analogue of PD. It is therefore possible that stress represents a key factor in the pathogenesis of human PD by impeding functional and structural compensation and exaggerating neurodegenerative processes.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the type, acceptance rate, and clinical relevance of clinical pharmacist recommendations at the geriatric ward of the Ghent university hospital.MethodsThe clinical pharmacist evaluated drug use during a weekly 2-hour visit for a period of 4 months and, if needed, made recommendations to the prescribing physician. The recommendations were classified according to type, acceptance by the physician, prescribed medication, and underlying drug-related problem. Appropriateness of prescribing was assessed using the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) before and after the recommendations were made. Two clinical pharmacologists and two clinical pharmacists independently and retrospectively evaluated the clinical relevance of the recommendations and rated their own acceptance of them.ResultsThe clinical pharmacist recommended 304 drug therapy changes for 100 patients taking a total of 1137 drugs. The most common underlying drug-related problems concerned incorrect dose, drug–drug interaction, and adverse drug reaction, which appeared most frequently for cardiovascular drugs, drugs for the central nervous system, and drugs for the gastrointestinal tract. The most common type of recommendation concerned adapting the dose, and stopping or changing a drug. In total, 59.7% of the recommendations were accepted by the treating physician. The acceptance rate by the evaluators ranged between 92.4% and 97.0%. The mean clinical relevance of the recommendations was assessed as possibly important (53.4%), possibly low relevance (38.1%), and possibly very important (4.2%). A low interrater agreement concerning clinical relevance between the evaluators was found: kappa values ranged between 0.15 and 0.25. Summated MAI scores significantly improved after the pharmacist recommendations, with mean values decreasing from 9.3 to 6.2 (P < 0.001).ConclusionIn this study, the clinical pharmacist identified a high number of potential drug-related problems in older patients; however, the acceptance of the pharmacotherapy recommendations by the treating physician was lower than by a panel of evaluators. This panel, however, rated most recommendations as possibly important and as possibly having low relevance, with low interrater reliability. As the appropriateness of prescribing seemed to improve with decreased MAI scores, clinical pharmacy services may contribute to the optimization of drug therapy in older inpatients.

Universal health coverage (UHC) aims to ensure that all people have access to health services including essential medicines without risking financial hardship. Yet, in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) inadequate UHC fails to ensure universal access to medicines and protect the poor and vulnerable against catastrophic spending in the event of illness. A human rights approach to essential medicines in national UHC legislation could remedy these inequities. This study identifies and compares legal texts from national UHC legislation that promote universal access to medicines in the legislation of 16 mostly LMICs: Algeria, Chile, Colombia, Ghana, Indonesia, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Philippines, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, Turkey, Tunisia and Uruguay. The assessment tool was developed based on WHO’s policy guidelines for essential medicines and international human rights law; it consists of 12 principles in three domains: legal rights and obligations, good governance, and technical implementation. Relevant legislation was identified, mapped, collected and independently assessed by multi-disciplinary, multi-lingual teams. Legal rights and State obligations toward medicines are frequently codified in UHC law, while most good governance principles are less common. Some technical implementation principles are frequently embedded in national UHC law (i.e. pooled user contributions and financial coverage for the vulnerable), while others are infrequent (i.e. sufficient government financing) to almost absent (i.e. seeking international assistance and cooperation). Generally, upper-middle and high-income countries tended to embed explicit rights and obligations with clear boundaries, and universal mechanisms for accountability and redress in domestic law while less affluent countries took different approaches. This research presents national law makers with both a checklist and a wish list for legal reform for access to medicines, as well as examples of legal texts. It may support goal 7 of the WHO Medicines & Health Products Strategic Programme 2016–30 to develop model legislation for medicines reimbursement.

We finally have a vaccine for the COVID-19 crisis. However, due to the limited numbers of the vaccine, states will have to consider how to prioritise groups who receive the vaccine. In this paper, we argue that the practical implementation of human rights law requires broader consideration of intersectional needs in society and the disproportionate impact that COVID-19 is having on population groups with pre-existing social and medical vulnerabilities. The existing frameworks/mechanisms and proposals for COVID-19 vaccine allocation have shortcomings from a human rights perspective that could be remedied by adopting an intersectional allocative approach. This necessitates that states allocate the first COVID-19 vaccines according to (1) infection risk and severity of pre-existing diseases; (2) social vulnerabilities; and (3) potential financial and social effects of ill health. In line with WHO’s guidelines on universal health coverage, a COVID-19 vaccine allocation strategy that it is more consistent with international human rights law should ensure that vaccines are free at the point of service, give priority to the worst off and be allocated in a transparent, participatory and accountable prioritisation process.