1. The association between spirituality and religiousness and mental health
Luciano Magalhães Vitorino, Giancarlo Lucchetti, Frederico Camelo Leão, Homero Vallada, Mario Fernando Prieto Peres Sci Rep. 2018 Nov 22;8(1):17233. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-35380-w.
The present study aims to investigate how different levels of spirituality and religiousness (high spirituality and high religiousness -S/R, high spirituality and low religiousness -S/r, low spirituality and high religiousness s/R and low spirituality and low religiousness - s/r) are associated with quality of life, depressive symptoms, anxiety, optimism and happiness among adults. A cross-sectional study was carried out among 1,046 Brazilian adults. Concerning the different levels of spirituality and religiousness, 49.2% had s/r, 26.5% S/R, 17.2% S/r and 7.1% s/R. Participants with S/R had better outcomes as compared to those with s/r and those with S/r in WHOQOL Psychological, Social Relationship and Environment, Optimism and happiness. Participants with s/R had better outcomes as compared to those with s/r in WHOQOL Psychological and Social Relationship, Optimism and happiness. Participants with S/r were different from those with s/r, with higher levels of WHOQOL Environment and happiness but also anxiety. The results revealed that, having higher levels of both spirituality and religiousness were more correlated to better outcomes than having just one of them or none of them. Likewise, having higher levels of religiousness in detriment of higher levels of spirituality was also associated with better outcomes in comparison to others.
2. Spirituality, religiousness, and mental health: A review of the current scientific evidence
Giancarlo Lucchetti, Harold G Koenig, Alessandra Lamas Granero Lucchetti World J Clin Cases. 2021 Sep 16;9(26):7620-7631. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i26.7620.
Research in the field of "Spirituality and Health" has been growing, with spirituality/religiousness (S/R) being consistently related to both physical and mental health. The objective of this article is to provide an updated review of the current scientific evidence on the relationship between S/R and mental health, highlighting the most important studies. As a secondary objective, the mechanisms that explain this relationship and the interventions that utilize this information in treating mental disorders will be discussed. The findings reveal a large body of evidence across numerous psychiatric disorders. Although solid evidence is now available for depression, suicidality, and substance use, other diagnosis, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, psychosis, and anxiety, have also shown promising results. The effects of S/R on mental health are likely bidirectional, and the manner in which religious beliefs are used to cope with distress (i.e. negative and positive), may affect mental health outcomes. Despite these findings, the mechanisms that explain these associations and the role of S/R interventions need further study. Concerning clinical practice, mental health providers should ask patients about S/R that are important in their lives to provide holistic and patient-centered care.
3. How to interpret MICs of antifungal compounds according to the revised clinical breakpoints v. 10.0 European committee on antimicrobial susceptibility testing (EUCAST)
M C Arendrup, et al. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020 Nov;26(11):1464-1472. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.06.007. Epub 2020 Jun 17.
Background: EUCAST has revised the definition of the susceptibility category I from 'Intermediate' to 'Susceptible, Increased exposure'. This implies that I can be used where the drug concentration at the site of infection is high, either because of dose escalation or through other means to ensure efficacy. Consequently, I is no longer used as a buffer zone to prevent technical factors from causing misclassifications and discrepancies in interpretations. Instead, an Area of Technical Uncertainty (ATU) has been introduced for MICs that cannot be categorized without additional information as a warning to the laboratory that decision on how to act has to be made. To implement these changes, the EUCAST-AFST (Subcommittee on Antifungal Susceptibility Testing) reviewed all, and revised some, clinical antifungal breakpoints. Objectives: The aim was to present an overview of the current antifungal breakpoints and supporting evidence behind the changes. Sources: This document is based on the ten recently updated EUCAST rationale documents, clinical breakpoint and breakpoint ECOFF documents. Content: The following breakpoints (in mg/L) have been revised or established for Candida species: micafungin against C. albicans (ATU = 0.03); amphotericin B (S ≤/> R = 1/1), fluconazole (S ≤/> R = 2/4), itraconazole (S ≤/> R = 0.06/0.06), posaconazole (S ≤/> R = 0.06/0.06) and voriconazole (S ≤/> R = 0.06/0.25) against C. dubliniensis; fluconazole against C. glabrata (S ≤/> R = 0.001/16); and anidulafungin (S ≤/> R = 4/4) and micafungin (S ≤/> R = 2/2) against C. parapsilosis. For Aspergillus, new or revised breakpoints include itraconazole (ATU = 2) and isavuconazole against A. flavus (S ≤/> R = 1/2, ATU = 2); amphotericin B (S ≤/> R = 1/1), isavuconazole (S ≤ /> R = 1/2, ATU = 2), itraconazole (S ≤/> R = 1/1, ATU = 2), posaconazole (ATU = 0.25) and voriconazole (S ≤/> R = 1/1, ATU = 2) against A. fumigatus; itraconazole (S ≤/> R = 1/1, ATU = 2) and voriconazole (S ≤/> R = 1/1, ATU = 2) against A. nidulans; amphotericin B against A. niger (S ≤/> R = 1/1); and itraconazole (S ≤/> R = 1/1, ATU = 2) and posaconazole (ATU = 0.25) against A. terreus. Implications: EUCAST-AFST has released ten new documents summarizing existing and new breakpoints and MIC ranges for control strains. A failure to adopt the breakpoint changes may lead to misclassifications and suboptimal or inappropriate therapy of patients with fungal infections.
