To date, the patent foramen ovale (PFO) does not get the deserved medical attention. The PFO poses a serious threat to health and even life of mankind. The first respective case report in the medical literature dates back to the 19th century. It led to death. The fact that a PFO is present in roughly 25% of people underscores its overall potential to do harm. Yet at the same time by the sheer number, it discourages the medical community from screening for it and from treating it. About 5% of the population have particularly dangerous forms of PFOs. Such PFOs portray a high enough risk for clinical events, the likes of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or ocular, visceral, and peripheral embolism, to justify screening for them. Highly significant health incidents being at stake, it appears obvious that PFO closure should be used for primary prevention. This is supported by the fact that closing a PFO is the simplest intervention in cardiology, with presumably the highest clinical yield. Being mainly a preventive measure, PFO closure represents a mechanical vaccination. When closing PFOs for one of the rarer therapeutic indications (migraine, platypnea orthodeoxia, etc.), patients automatically profit from the collateral benefit of getting at the same time mechanically vaccinated for life against paradoxical embolism. Vice versa, closing a PFO for prevention of paradoxical embolism not infrequently betters or cures migraine or exercise dyspnea, thereby improving quality of life as a collateral benefit.

KLEPTOSE® CRYSMEB is a methylated cyclodextrin derivative displaying less methylated group substitution than randomly methylated cyclodextrin. It has demonstrated an impact on atherosclerosis and neurological diseases. linked in part to cholesterol complexation and immune response, but the impact on inflammatory cascade pathways was not clear. Thus, the impact of KLEPTOSE® CRYSMEB on various pharmacological targets was assessed using human umbilical vein endothelial cells in physiological and inflammatory conditions, followed by screening against twelve human primary cell-based systems designed to model complex human tissue and disease biology of the vasculature, skin, lung, and inflammatory tissues using the BioMAP® Diversity PLUS® Panel. Finally, the anti-inflammatory mechanism was investigated on peripheral blood mononuclear cells to evaluate anti-inflammatory or pro-resolving properties. The results showed that KLEPTOSE® CRYSMEB can modulate the immune system in vitro and potentially manage vascular issues by stimulating the expression of molecules involved in the crosstalk between immune cells and other cell types. It showed anti-inflammatory effects driven by pro-inflammatory cytokine secretion inhibition and could have different impacts on different tissue types. Moreover, this cyclodextrin showed no clear impact on pro-resolving lipid mediators. Finally, it appeared that the mechanism of action of KLEPTOSE® CRYSMEB seems to not be shared by well-known anti-inflammatory molecules.

While Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) provides satisfaction to almost 2/3 of Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome-Type 2 (PSPS-T2) patients implanted for refractory chronic back and/or leg pain when not adequately addressed the back pain component, leaves patients in a therapeutic cul-de-sac. Peripheral Nerve field Stimulation (PNfS) has shown interesting results addressing back pain in the same population. Far from placing these two techniques in opposition, we suggest that these approaches could be combined to better treat PSPS-T2 patients. We designed a RCT (CUMPNS), with a 12-month follow-up, to assess the potential added value of PNfS, as a salvage therapy, in PSPS-T2 patients experiencing a “Failed SCS Syndrome” in the back pain component. Fourteen patients were included in this study and randomized into 2 groups (“SCS + PNfS” group/n=6 vs “SCS only” group/n=8). The primary objective of the study was to compare the percentage of back pain surface decrease after 3 months, using a computerized interface to obtain quantitative pain mappings, combined with multi-dimensional SCS outcomes. Back pain surface decreased significantly greater for the ”SCS+PNfS” group (80.2% ± 21.3%) compared to the “SCS only” group (13.2% ± 94.8%) (p=0.012), highlighting the clinical interest of SCS+PNfS, in cases where SCS fails to address back pain.

Without protective and/or therapeutic agents the SARS-CoV-2 infection known as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is quickly spreading worldwide. It has surprising transmissibility potential, since it could infect all ages, gender, and human sectors. It attacks respiratory, gastrointestinal, urinary, hepatic, and endovascular systems and can reach the peripheral nervous system (PNS) and central nervous system (CNS) through known and unknown mechanisms. The reports on the neurological manifestations and complications of the SARS-CoV-2 infection are increasing exponentially. Herein, we enumerate seven candidate routes, which the mature or immature SARS-CoV-2 components could use to reach the CNS and PNS, utilizing the within-body crosstalk between organs. The majority of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients suffer from some neurological manifestations (e.g., confusion, anosmia, and ageusia). It seems that although the mature virus did not reach the CNS or PNS of the majority of patients, its unassembled components and/or the accompanying immune-mediated responses may be responsible for the observed neurological symptoms. The viral particles and/or its components have been specifically documented in endothelial cells of lung, kidney, skin, and CNS. This means that the blood-endothelial-barrier may be considered as the main route for SARS-CoV-2 entry into the nervous system, with the barrier disruption being more logical than barrier permeability, as evidenced by postmortem analyses.