IMPORTANCE Opioid addiction affects approximately 2.4 million Americans. Nearly 1 million individuals, including a growing subset of 21 000 minors, abuse heroin. Its annual cost within the United States amounts to $51 billion. Inhaled heroin use represents a global phenomenon and is approaching epidemic levels east of the Mississippi River as well as among urban youth. Chasing the dragon (CTD) by heating heroin and inhaling its fumes is particularly concerning, because this method of heroin usage has greater availability, greater ease of administration, and impressive intensity of subjective experience (high) compared with sniffing or snorting, although it also has a safer infectious profile compared with heroin injection. This is relevant owing to peculiar and often catastrophic brain complications. Following the American Medical Association Opioid Task Force mandate, we contribute a description of the pharmacology, pathophysiology, clinical spectrum, neuroimaging, and neuropathology of CTD leukoencephalopathy, as distinct from other heroin abuse modalities.OBSERVATIONS The unique spectrum of CTD-associated health outcomes includes an aggressive toxic leukoencephalopathy with pathognomonic neuropathologic features, along with sporadic instances of movement disorders and hydrocephalus. Clinical CTD severity is predominantly moderate at admission, frequently unmodified at discharge, and largely improved in the long term. Mild cases survive with minor sequelae, while moderate to severe presentations might deteriorate and progress to death. Other methods of heroin use may complicate with stroke, seizure, obstructive hydrocephalus, and (uncharacteristically) leukoencephalopathy. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThe distinct pharmacology of CTD correlates with its specific clinical and radiological features and prompts grave concern for potential morbidity and long-term disability costs. Proposed diagnostic criteria and standardized reporting would ameliorate the limitations of CTD literature and facilitate patient selection for a coenzyme Q10 therapeutic trial.

Although the long-term results of this randomized trial do not support the use of infliximab compared with placebo for lumbar radicular pain in patients with disc herniation-induced sciatica, further study in a subgroup of patients with L4-L5 or L3-L4 herniations, especially in the presence of Modic changes, appears to be warranted.

We investigate a range of clinical factors and anti-rheumatic treatments, for their degree of association with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) fatigue in 557 patients. A range of clinical measures concerning disability, pain and disease activity together with drug history were recorded as part of routine clinical visits. Fatigue was measured using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT-F) questionnaire. Spearman's correlation (p < 0.05) evaluated FACIT-F against the other clinical measures. Mean FACIT-F was compared between the treatment groups. Multivariate linear regression analysis investigated association between the clinical measures and FACIT-F in more detail. Correlation (p < 0.05) with FACIT-F was the strongest for Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) (r = -0.68), patient global (r = -0.64) and pain (r = -0.62) visual analogue scores. In multivariate models, DAS28, HAQ and pain explained variability in fatigue the best (R(2) = 0.54). Further analyses, looking at the sub components of DAS28, show that fatigue is mainly associated with tender joint counts and pain rather than swollen joint counts or erythrocyte sedimentation rate. RA fatigue levels were not significantly different between patients on no treatment, disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs or biologics. Fatigue in established RA is not specifically influenced by the type of treatment used but is associated with tender joint counts, pain and disability. This finding is in contrast to recent trials in early RA that suggest biologics are better than traditional disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for fatigue. This difference in result may be because the origins of fatigue are not the same in early compared with established RA.

Both IA hylastan injection regimens were effective in relieving pain with an acceptable safety profile. IA hylastan did not show a difference versus IA corticosteroid; therefore, the hypothesis of superior pain relief was not met. Further research is needed to compare the efficacy and safety of hylastan with other viscosupplements.