Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) has been regarded as an infective-inflammatory disease, which affects mainly lungs. More recently, a multi-organ involvement has been highlighted, with different pathways of injury. A hemoglobinopathy, hypoxia and cell iron overload might have a possible additional role. Scientific literature has pointed out two potential pathophysiological mechanisms: i) severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) interaction with hemoglobin molecule, through CD147, CD26 and other receptors located on erythrocyte and/or blood cell precursors; ii) hepcidin-mimetic action of a viral spike protein, inducing ferroportin blockage. In this translational medicine-based narrative review, the following pathologic metabolic pathways, deriving from hemoglobin denaturation and iron metabolism dysregulation, are highlighted: i) decrease of functioning hemoglobin quote; ii) iron overload in cell/tissue (hyperferritinemia); iii) release of free toxic circulating heme; iv) hypoxemia and systemic hypoxia; v) reduction of nitric oxide; vi) coagulation activation; vii) ferroptosis with oxidative stress and lipoperoxidation; viii) mitochondrial degeneration and apoptosis. A few clinical syndromes may follow, such as pulmonary edema based on arterial vasoconstriction and altered alveolo-capillary barrier, sideroblastic-like anemia, endotheliitis, vasospastic acrosyndrome, and arterio- venous thromboembolism. We speculated that in COVID-19, beyond the classical pulmonary immune-inflammation view, the occurrence of an oxygen-deprived blood disease, with iron metabolism dysregulation, should be taken in consideration. A more comprehensive diagnostic/therapeutic approach to COVID-19 is proposed, including potential adjuvant interventions aimed at improving hemoglobin dysfunction, iron over-deposit and generalized hypoxic state.

More than one year has passed since the first cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV-2 coronavirus were reported in Wuhan (China), rapidly evolving into a global pandemic. This infectious disease has become a major public health challenge in the world. Unfortunately, to date, no specific antivirals have been proven to be effective against COVID-19, and although a few vaccines are available, the mortality rate is not decreasing but is still increasing. One therapeutic strategy has been focused on infection prevention and control measures. In this regard, the use of nutraceutical supports may play a role against some aspect of the infection, particularly the inflammatory state and the immune system function of patients, thus representing a strategy to control the worst outcomes of this pandemic. For this reason, we performed an overview including meta-analyses and systematic reviews to assess the association among melatonin, vitamin C, vitamin D, zinc supplementation and inflammatory markers using three databases, namely, MEDLINE, PubMed Central and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews. According to the evidence available, an intake of 50,000 IU/month of vitamin D showed efficacy in CRP. An amount of 1 to 2 g per day of vitamin C demonstrated efficacy both in CRP and endothelial function, and a dosage of melatonin ranging from 5 to 25 mg /day showed good evidence of efficacy in CRP, TNF and IL6. A dose of 50 mg/day of elemental zinc supplementation showed positive results in CRP. Based on the data reported in this review, the public health system could consider whether it is possible to supplement the current limited preventive measures through targeted nutraceutical large-scale administration.

Background: Sclerotherapy is a non-invasive procedure commonly used to treat superficial venous disease, vascular malformations and other ectatic vascular lesions. While extremely rare, sclerotherapy may be complicated by serious adverse events. Objectives: To categorise contraindications to sclerotherapy based on the available scientific evidence. Methods: An international, multi-disciplinary panel of phlebologists reviewed the available scientific evidence and developed consensus where evidence was lacking or limited. Results: Absolute Contraindications to sclerotherapy where the risk of harm would outweigh any benefits include known hypersensitivity to sclerosing agents; acute venous thromboembolism (VTE); severe neurological or cardiac adverse events complicating a previous sclerotherapy treatment; severe acute systemic illness or infection; and critical limb ischaemia. Relative Contraindications to sclerotherapy where the potential benefits of the proposed treatment would outweigh the risk of harm or the risks may be mitigated by other measures include pregnancy, postpartum and breastfeeding; hypercoagulable states with risk of VTE; risk of neurological adverse events; risk of cardiac adverse events and poorly controlled chronic systemic illness. Conditions and circumstances where Warnings and Precautions should be considered before proceeding with sclerotherapy include risk of cutaneous necrosis or cosmetic complications such as pigmentation and telangiectatic matting; intake of medications such as the oral contraceptive and other exogenous oestrogens, disulfiram and minocycline; and psychosocial factors and psychiatric comorbidities that may increase the risk of adverse events or compromise optimal treatment outcomes. Conclusions: Sclerotherapy can achieve safe clinical outcomes provided that (1) patient-related risk factors and in particular all material risks are (1a) adequately identified and the risk benefit ratio is clearly and openly discussed with treatment candidates within a reasonable timeframe prior to the actual procedure; (1b) when an individual is not a suitable candidate for the proposed intervention, conservative treatment options including the option of ‘ no intervention as a treatment option’ are discussed; (1c) complex cases are referred for treatment in controlled and standardised settings and by practitioners with more expertise in the field; (1d) only suitable individuals with no absolute contraindications or those with relative contraindications where the benefits outweigh the risks are offered intervention; (1e) if proceeding with intervention, appropriate prophylactic measures and other risk-mitigating strategies are adopted and appropriate follow-up is organised; and (2) procedure-related risk factors are minimised by ensuring the treating physicians (2a) have adequate training in general phlebology with additional training in duplex ultrasound, procedural phlebology and in particular sclerotherapy; (2b) maintain their knowledge and competency over time and (2c) review and optimise their treatment strategies and techniques on a regular basis to keep up with the ongoing progress in medical technology and contemporary scientific evidence.

Background: Both natural immunity and vaccine-induced immunity to COVID-19 may be useful to reduce the mortality/morbidity of this disease, but still a lot of controversy exists. Aims: This narrative review analyzes the literature regarding these two immunitary processes and more specifically: (a) the duration of natural immunity; (b) cellular immunity; (c) cross-reactivity; (d) the duration of post-vaccination immune protection; (e) the probability of reinfection and its clinical manifestations in the recovered patients; (f) the comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated as to the possible reinfections; (g) the role of hybrid immunity; (h) the effectiveness of natural and vaccine-induced immunity against Omicron variant; (i) the comparative incidence of adverse effects after vaccination in recovered individuals vs. COVID-19-naïve subjects. Material and Methods: through multiple search engines we investigated COVID-19 literature related to the aims of the review, published since April 2020 through July 2022, including also the previous articles pertinent to the investigated topics. Results: nearly 900 studies were collected, and 246 pertinent articles were included. It was highlighted that the vast majority of the individuals after suffering from COVID-19 develop a natural immunity both of cell-mediated and humoral type, which is effective over time and provides protection against both reinfection and serious illness. Vaccine-induced immunity was shown to decay faster than natural immunity. In general, the severity of the symptoms of reinfection is significantly lower than in the primary infection, with a lower degree of hospitalizations (0.06%) and an extremely low mortality. Conclusions: this extensive narrative review regarding a vast number of articles highlighted the valuable protection induced by the natural immunity after COVID-19, which seems comparable or superior to the one induced by anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Consequently, vaccination of the unvaccinated COVID-19-recovered subjects may not be indicated. Further research is needed in order to: (a) measure the durability of immunity over time; (b) evaluate both the impacts of Omicron BA.5 on vaccinated and healed subjects and the role of hybrid immunity.

Objectives: To compare two different medical compression stockings after varicose vein treatment. Patients and methods: A randomized single-blind controlled study on two compression regimes after saphenous catheter foam sclerotherapy + phlebectomy was performed. After pads and 5 mmHg contention sock, 23 mmHg (group A, Struva 23®) or 35 mmHg (group B, Struva 35®) medical compression stocking was applied 24 h/day for seven days; subsequently 21–23 mmHg medical compression stocking in daytime. Symptoms, compliance, skin findings, and bioimpedance spectroscopy parameters were assessed. Results: A total of 94 patients (48 and 49 limbs in groups A and B, respectively) were enrolled. Three (T3) and seven (T7) days post-operatively, most symptoms were significantly milder in group B, especially pain and heaviness at T7 and at day 40 (T40). Ambulation, medical compression stocking stability/tolerability and skin healing were significantly better in group B, with p = 0.046, 0.021/0.060, and 0.010, respectively, at T7. Bioimpedance parameters increased at T7 and decreased at T40 in both groups; leg reactance and limb L-Dex improved in group B at T7 and T40, respectively (p = 0.039 and 0.012). Conclusions: Compression with 23 and 35 mmHg medical compression stocking after catheter foam sclerotherapy + phlebectomy was effective and well tolerated at immediate/short term. Compression with 35 mmHg medical compression stocking provided less adverse post-operative symptoms and better tissue healing. Bioimpedance results confirmed a slightly better edema improvement with 35 mmHg medical compression stocking.