BackgroundPsychological discomfort, physical disability and functional limitations of the orofacial system have a major impact on everyday life of patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). In this study we sought to determine short and long term effects of stabilization splint (SS) in treatment of TMDs, and to identify factors influencing its efficacy.MethodsMEDLINE, Web of Science and EMBASE were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SS to: non-occluding splint, occlusal oral appliances, physiotherapy, behavioral therapy, counseling and no treatment. Random effects method was used to summarize outcomes. The effect estimates were expressed as odds ratio (OR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval. Subgroup analyses were carried out according to the use of Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC/TMD) and TMDs origin. Strength of evidence was assessed by GRADE. Meta-regression was applied.ResultsThirty three eligible RCTs were included in meta-analysis. In short term, SS presented positive overall effect on pain reduction (OR 2.08; p = 0.01) and pain intensity (SMD -0.33; p = 0.02). Subgroup analyses confirmed SS effect in studies used RDC/TMD and revealed its effect in patients with TMDs of muscular origin. Important decrease of muscle tenderness (OR 1.97; p = 0.03) and improvement of mouth opening (SMD -0.30; p = 0.04) were found. SS in comparison to oral appliances showed no difference (OR 0.74; p = 0.24). Meta-regression identified continuous use of SS during the day as a factor influencing efficacy (p = 0.01). Long term results showed no difference in observed outcomes between groups. Low quality of evidence was found for primary outcomes.ConclusionSS presented short term benefit for patients with TMDs. In long term follow up, the effect is equalized with other therapeutic modalities. Further studies based on appropriate use of standardized criteria for patient recruitment and outcomes under assessment are needed to better define SS effect persistence in long term.

BACKGROUND Guidelines recommend nonstatin lipid-lowering agents in patients at very high risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) if low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) remains ≥70 mg/dL on maximum tolerated statin treatment. It is uncertain if this approach benefits patients with LDL-C near 70 mg/dL. Lipoprotein(a) levels may influence residual risk. OBJECTIVES In a post hoc analysis of the ODYSSEY Outcomes (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) trial, the authors evaluated the benefit of adding the proprotein subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor alirocumab to optimized statin treatment in patients with LDL-C levels near 70 mg/dL. Effects were evaluated according to concurrent lipoprotein(a) levels. METHODS ODYSSEY Outcomes compared alirocumab with placebo in 18,924 patients with recent acute coronary syndromes receiving optimized statin treatment. In 4,351 patients (23.0%), screening or randomization LDL-C was <70 mg/dL (median 69.4 mg/dL; interquartile range: 64.3–74.0 mg/dL); in 14,573 patients (77.0%), both determinations were ≥70 mg/dL (median 94.0 mg/dL; interquartile range: 83.2–111.0 mg/dL). RESULTS In the lower LDL-C subgroup, MACE rates were 4.2 and 3.1 per 100 patient-years among placebo-treated patients with baseline lipoprotein(a) greater than or less than or equal to the median (13.7 mg/dL). Corresponding adjusted treatment hazard ratios were 0.68 (95% confidence interval [Cl]: 0.52–0.90) and 1.11 (95% Cl: 0.83–1.49), with treatment-lipoprotein(a) interaction on MACE ( P interaction = 0.017). In the higher LDL-C subgroup, MACE rates were 4.7 and 3.8 per 100 patient-years among placebo-treated patients with lipoprotein(a) >13.7 mg/dL or ≤13.7 mg/dL; corresponding adjusted treatment hazard ratios were 0.82 (95% Cl: 0.72–0.92) and 0.89 (95% Cl: 0.75–1.06), with P interaction = 0.43. CONCLUSIONS In patients with recent acute coronary syndromes and LDL-C near 70 mg/dL on optimized statin therapy, proprotein subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibition provides incremental clinical benefit only when lipoprotein(a) concentration is at least mildly elevated. (ODYSSEY Outcomes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab; NCT01663402 )

The greatest dimensional changes of addition and condensation silicone impressions appear in the first hour after their separation from the model.

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.

Background-Blocking the tubuloglomerular feedback mechanism with adenosine A1 receptor antagonists seems to improve diuresis and sodium excretion without compromising the glomerular filtration rate in patients with heart failure. However, the direct cardiac effects of this compound class have not been investigated to date. Methods and Results-In total, 111 patients (109 men and 2 women) received a 1-hour infusion of 5, 10, and 15 mg SLV320, an adenosine A1 receptor antagonist, placebo, or 40 mg furosemide. Mean age was 57.9 years, mean ejection fraction was 28.1%, 82 patients were of New York Heart Association class II, and 29 patients were of New York Heart Association class III. Hemodynamic parameters (heart rate, blood pressure, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, mean pulmonary arterial pressure, systemic vascular resistance, right atrial pressure, and cardiac output) were determined. Kidney function was assessed by cystatin C measurements and by analysis of urine output and urine electrolytes. In addition, pharmacokinetics of SLV320 and ex vivo inhibition of adenosine A1 receptor activity were performed. SLV320 was well tolerated, and no serious adverse events were observed. Heart rate, blood pressure, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, mean pulmonary arterial pressure, right atrial pressure, and cardiac output were not altered by any dose of SLV320. Pulmonary capillary wedge pressure was significantly (Pϭ0.04) decreased by furosemide (Ϫ6.2Ϯ5.9 mm Hg). Systemic vascular resistance was significantly (Pϭ0.04) increased in the furosemide group (ϩ166.70Ϯ261.87 dynes ⅐ s Ϫ1 ⅐ cm