2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: The Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC.

ACC/AHA
: American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association
ACCF/AHA
: American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association
ACE
: angiotensin-converting enzyme
ACEI
: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor
ACS
: acute coronary syndrome
AF
: atrial fibrillation

/pdf/2016-esc-guidelines-for-the-diagnosis-and-treatment-of-acute-z18hg30pp1.pdf

2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure

/pdf/2016-esc-guidelines-for-the-diagnosis-and-treatment-of-acute-53v7yllhiz.pdf

Prospective Cohort Study

Importance Primary care clinicians find managing chronic pain challenging. Evidence of long-term efficacy of opioids for chronic pain is limited. Opioid use is associated with serious risks, including opioid use disorder and overdose. Objective To provide recommendations about opioid prescribing for primary care clinicians treating adult patients with chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care. Process The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated a 2014 systematic review on effectiveness and risks of opioids and conducted a supplemental review on benefits and harms, values and preferences, and costs. CDC used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess evidence type and determine the recommendation category. Evidence Synthesis Evidence consisted of observational studies or randomized clinical trials with notable limitations, characterized as low quality using GRADE methodology. Meta-analysis was not attempted due to the limited number of studies, variability in study designs and clinical heterogeneity, and methodological shortcomings of studies. No study evaluated long-term (≥1 year) benefit of opioids for chronic pain. Opioids were associated with increased risks, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death, with dose-dependent effects. Recommendations There are 12 recommendations. Of primary importance, nonopioid therapy is preferred for treatment of chronic pain. Opioids should be used only when benefits for pain and function are expected to outweigh risks. Before starting opioids, clinicians should establish treatment goals with patients and consider how opioids will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh risks. When opioids are used, clinicians should prescribe the lowest effective dosage, carefully reassess benefits and risks when considering increasing dosage to 50 morphine milligram equivalents or more per day, and avoid concurrent opioids and benzodiazepines whenever possible. Clinicians should evaluate benefits and harms of continued opioid therapy with patients every 3 months or more frequently and review prescription drug monitoring program data, when available, for high-risk combinations or dosages. For patients with opioid use disorder, clinicians should offer or arrange evidence-based treatment, such as medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine or methadone. Conclusions and Relevance The guideline is intended to improve communication about benefits and risks of opioids for chronic pain, improve safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce risks associated with long-term opioid therapy.

/pdf/cdc-guideline-for-prescribing-opioids-for-chronic-pain-j4r6nt5nmj.pdf

CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain—United States, 2016

Integrin-regulated secretion of interleukin 4

IL-4 inhibition of cartilage breakdown in bovine articular explants.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is the commonest form of chronic inflammatory joint disease and a major target for symptom-modifying and disease-modifying drug therapy. New approaches to the treatment of RA using biological agents targeted to cellular receptors, cytokines and other mediators of inflammation, together with the availability of new methods of outcome assessment, make it timely to reconsider the classification of anti-rheumatic drugs and the requirements for the registration of new drug entities. Under the auspices of GREES (Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science), a European Working Group of clinicians with experience in rheumatology, scientists and representatives from industry and national drug licensing authorities have formulated recommendations for the requirements for registration of anti-rheumatic drugs designed for symptom modification, structural modification and the suppression of inflammation, with particular emphasis placed on quality of life assessment by generic and disease-specific validated methods. This paper outlines the group's advice for pre clinical testing, and Phase I, Phase II and Phase III trials to allow licences to be granted for each indication, while recognizing that a single drug may have reason to be approved under several headings.

Recommendations for the registration of drugs used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

/pdf/apatite-associated-arthritis-1p7ysr6wpg.pdf

Apatite associated arthritis

The objective of the study was to assess the impact of direct access DXA scanning (DADS) upon GPs' management decisions in patients considered to be at risk of osteoporosis. It was designed as a randomized, prospective, parallel group trial, set within the primary care environment and a university teaching hospital. The participants were 330 patients aged 31 to 89 years from 18 general practices in Edinburgh. Patients were randomized to either DADS or to the current system of specialist referral (controls). The primary outcome measure was frequency of change of management after DXA scanning. Secondary outcome measures were: change in health status, adherence to therapy, clinical events and resource use at one-year follow-up. The primary outcome was that 60% each of DADS patients (98/165) and controls (99/165) had changes in management following DXA scanning. In 30% of patients (12/41) in whom GPs had proposed changing management even in the absence of a scan, different therapy was chosen after the scan (no difference between DADS and control groups). There was an improvement in health utility (p =0.014 for both groups combined), differing slightly between the two groups even after age correction (p =0.014). 68% of the DADS group and 70% of controls were adherent to therapy after one year. In terms of clinical events, at one year there was one major adverse event (control group patient), 5 new fractures in the DADS group and 3 in controls - there were no hip fractures in this study. With regard to resource use, there were 24 referrals to hospital specialist after DXA scanning among the DADS group, vs 12 among controls (p < 0.05). The total number of visits to health professionals was 525 in DADS and 585 in controls (p=ns); mean waiting time from randomization to receipt of report/clinic letter was 4 weeks for DADS vs 13 weeks for controls( p < 0.0001). In conclusion, DXA scanning resulted in management change in at least 60% of cases. Direct access does not result in a clinical outcome significantly different from a consultant led service, and is more economically efficient than the current model of hospital referral.

The effect of DXA scanning on clinical decision making by general practitioners: a randomized, prospective trial of direct access versus referral to a hospital consultant

George Nuki

Papers

Integrin-regulated secretion of interleukin 4

IL-4 inhibition of cartilage breakdown in bovine articular explants.

Recommendations for the registration of drugs used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Apatite associated arthritis

The effect of DXA scanning on clinical decision making by general practitioners: a randomized, prospective trial of direct access versus referral to a hospital consultant