Fragile X syndrome (FXS) is a genetic condition known to increase the risk of cognitive impairment and socio-emotional challenges in affected males and females. To date, the vast majority of research on FXS has predominantly targeted males, who usually exhibit greater cognitive impairment compared to females. Due to their typically milder phenotype, females may have more potential to attain a higher level of independence and quality of life than their male counterparts. However, the constellation of cognitive, behavioral, and, particularly, socio-emotional challenges present in many females with FXS often preclude them from achieving their full potential. It is, therefore, critical that more research specifically focuses on females with FXS to elucidate the role of genetic, environmental, and socio-emotional factors on outcome in this often-overlooked population.

Cardiac catheterization is not used optimally in patients who present with NSTE ACS. Despite better in-hospital and 1-year outcomes in those patients who are referred for catheterization, many higher-risk patients are not being referred because of the perception that they are not at high enough risk. A significant opportunity remains to improve on accurate risk stratification and adherence to an early invasive strategy for higher-risk patients.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) affects 1–2 per 1000 people in the general population each year. Clinical diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is unreliable, and must be confirmed by compression ultrasonography or venography. A low clinical pretest probability of DVT and negative D‐dimer result reliably exclude the diagnosis, with no need for diagnostic imaging. Initial treatment of DVT is with low‐molecular‐weight heparin or unfractionated heparin for at least 5 days, followed by warfarin (target INR, 2.0–3.0) for at least 3 months. A vena cava filter is indicated in patients who are ineligible for anticoagulant therapy or who experience embolism despite therapeutic anticoagulation. Thrombolysis or surgical embolectomy may be used as a limb‐saving measure in patients with extensive proximal DVT and circulatory compromise that threatens the viability of the leg. Decisions regarding the optimal duration of anticoagulation to prevent recurrent VTE should be individualised and balance the risk of recurrence if warfarin is stopped against the risk of major bleeding and inconvenience of continuing treatment. The risk of recurrence is highest in people with recurrent unprovoked DVT or chronic predisposing factors (eg, cancer) who require indefinite anticoagulant treatment.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) affects 0.5–1 per 1000 people in the general population each year, and is one of the most common preventable causes of death among hospitalised patients. The clinical diagnosis of PE is unreliable and must be confirmed objectively with ventilation perfusion scanning or computed tomography pulmonary angiography. The diagnosis of PE can be reliably excluded, without the need for diagnostic imaging, if the clinical pretest probability for PE is low and the D‐dimer assay result is negative. The initial treatment of PE is low‐molecular‐weight heparin or unfractionated heparin for at least 5 days, followed by warfarin (target international normalised ratio [INR], 2.0–3.0) for at least 3–6 months. Patients with a high clinical pretest probability of PE should commence treatment immediately while awaiting the results of the diagnostic work‐up. Thrombolysis is indicated for patients with objectively confirmed PE who are haemodynamically unstable. Percutaneous transcatheter or surgical embolectomy may be life‐saving in patients ineligible for, or unresponsive to, thrombolytic therapy. Unresolved issues in the management of venous thromboembolism include the roles of thrombophilia testing, thrombolysis for the treatment of stable PE patients who present with right ventricular dysfunction, and new anticoagulants; and the duration of anticoagulation for first unprovoked venous thromboembolism.

Background-Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients in the highest risk categories are least likely to receive evidence-based treatments (EBTs). We sought to determine why physicians do not prescribe EBTs for patients with non-ST-segment-elevation ACSs and the factors determining use of these treatments after 1 year. Methods and Results-One thousand nine hundred fifty-six non-ST-segment-elevation ACS patients were enrolled in the prospective, multicenter Canadian ACS registry II between October 2002 and December 2003. Each patient's physician gave reasons why guideline-indicated medication(s) was not prescribed during hospitalization. Medication use and reason(s) for discontinuation after 1 year were obtained by telephone interview of the patients. The commonest reason for not prescribing EBTs was "not high-enough risk" or "no evidence/guidelines to support use." However, Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events scores of patients not treated for this reason were often similar to or higher than those of patients prescribed such treatment. After 1 year, 77% of patients not on optimal ACS treatment at discharge remained without optimal treatment, and overall antiplatelet, ␤-blocker, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use declined. Approximately one third of patients not taking EBTs had stopped their medication without instruction from their doctor. Conclusions-Nonprovision of EBTs may be due to subjective underestimation of patient risk and hence, likely treatment benefit. Oversights in care delivery were also apparent. Objective risk stratification, combined with efforts to ensure provision and adherence to EBTs, should be encouraged. (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010;3:530-537.)