Neuroreflexotherapy intervention seems to be a simple and effective treatment for rapid amelioration of pain episodes in patients with chronic low back pain. At this time, the duration of pain relief beyond 45 days has not been evaluated.

Aims To assess the proportion of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who are eligible for sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) based on the European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration (EMA/FDA) label, the PARADIGM‐HF trial and the 2016 ESC guidelines, and the association between eligibility and outcomes. Methods and results Outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC‐EORP‐HFA Long‐Term Heart Failure (HF‐LT) Registry between March 2011 and November 2013 were considered. Criteria for LCZ696 based on EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM‐HF and ESC guidelines were applied. Of 5443 patients, 2197 and 2373 had complete information for trial and guideline eligibility assessment, and 84%, 12% and 12% met EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM‐HF and guideline criteria, respectively. Absent PARADIGM‐HF criteria were low natriuretic peptides (21%), hyperkalemia (4%), hypotension (7%) and sub‐optimal pharmacotherapy (74%); absent Guidelines criteria were LVEF>35% (23%), insufficient NP levels (30%) and sub‐optimal pharmacotherapy (82%); absent label criteria were absence of symptoms (New York Heart Association class I). When a daily requirement of ACEi/ARB ≥ 10 mg enalapril (instead of ≥ 20 mg) was used, eligibility rose from 12% to 28% based on both PARADIGM‐HF and guidelines. One‐year heart failure hospitalization was higher (12% and 17% vs. 12%) and all‐cause mortality lower (5.3% and 6.5% vs. 7.7%) in registry eligible patients compared to the enalapril arm of PARADIGM‐HF. Conclusions Among outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC‐EORP‐HFA HF‐LT Registry, 84% met label criteria, while only 12% and 28% met PARADIGM‐HF and guideline criteria for LCZ696 if requiring ≥ 20 mg and ≥ 10 mg enalapril, respectively. Registry patients eligible for LCZ696 had greater heart failure hospitalization but lower mortality rates than the PARADIGM‐HF enalapril group.

The objective of the study was to develop evidence-based and practical recommendations for the detection and management of comorbidity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in daily practice. We used a modified RAND/UCLA methodology and systematic review (SR). The process map and specific recommendations, based on the SR, were established in discussion groups. A two round Delphi survey permitted (1) to prioritize the recommendations, (2) to refine them, and (3) to evaluate their agreement by a large group of users. The recommendations cover: (1) which comorbidities should be investigated in clinical practice at the first and following visits (including treatments, risk factors and patient's features that might interfere with RA management); (2) how and when should comorbidities and risk factors be investigated; (3) how to manage specific comorbidities, related or non-related to RA, including major adverse events of RA treatment, and to promote health (general and musculoskeletal health); and (4) specific recommendations to assure an integral care approach for RA patients with any comorbidity, such as health care models for chronic inflammatory patients, early arthritis units, relationships with primary care, specialized nursing care, and self-management. These recommendations are intended to guide rheumatologists, patients, and other stakeholders, on the early diagnosis and management of comorbidity in RA, in order to improve disease outcomes.

Active SLE patients with aPL antibodies on high-dose CS seem at high risk of developing multiple AVN complicated by infection. Avascular necrosis and bone or joint infection by S. aureus in these patients is a major complication that leads to severe joint destruction and disability.

No abstract