Since the inception of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society heart failure (HF) guidelines in 2006, much has changed in the care for patients with HF. Over the past decade, the HF Guidelines Committee has published regular updates. However, because of the major changes that have occurred, the Guidelines Committee believes that a comprehensive reassessment of the HF management recommendations is presently needed, with a view to producing a full and complete set of updated guidelines. The primary and secondary Canadian Cardiovascular Society HF panel members as well as external experts have reviewed clinically relevant literature to provide guidance for the practicing clinician. The 2017 HF guidelines provide updated guidance on the diagnosis and management (self-care, pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, device, and referral) that should aid in day-to-day decisions for caring for patients with HF. Among specific issues covered are risk scores, the differences in management for HF with preserved vs reduced ejection fraction, exercise and rehabilitation, implantable devices, revascularization, right ventricular dysfunction, anemia, and iron deficiency, cardiorenal syndrome, sleep apnea, cardiomyopathies, HF in pregnancy, cardio-oncology, and myocarditis. We devoted attention to strategies and treatments to prevent HF, to the organization of HF care, comorbidity management, as well as practical issues around the timing of referral and follow-up care. Recognition and treatment of advanced HF is another important aspect of this update, including how to select advanced therapies as well as end of life considerations. Finally, we acknowledge the remaining gaps in evidence that need to be filled by future research.

BACKGROUND It is unknown whether warfarin or aspirin therapy is superior for patients with heart failure who are in sinus rhythm. METHODS We designed this trial to determine whether warfarin (with a target international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.5) or aspirin (at a dose of 325 mg per day) is a better treatment for patients in sinus rhythm who have a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We followed 2305 patients for up to 6 years (mean [±SD], 3.5±1.8). The primary outcome was the time to the first event in a composite end point of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or death from any cause. RESULTS The rates of the primary outcome were 7.47 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group and 7.93 in the aspirin group (hazard ratio with warfarin, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.10; P = 0.40). Thus, there was no significant overall difference between the two treatments. In a time-varying analysis, the hazard ratio changed over time, slightly favoring warfarin over aspirin by the fourth year of follow-up, but this finding was only marginally significant (P = 0.046). Warfarin, as compared with aspirin, was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of ischemic stroke throughout the follow-up period (0.72 events per 100 patient-years vs. 1.36 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P = 0.005). The rate of major hemorrhage was 1.78 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group as compared with 0.87 in the aspirin group (P<0.001). The rates of intracerebral and intracranial hemorrhage did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (0.27 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin and 0.22 with aspirin, P = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with reduced LVEF who were in sinus rhythm, there was no significant overall difference in the primary outcome between treatment with warfarin and treatment with aspirin. A reduced risk of ischemic stroke with warfarin was offset by an increased risk of major hemorrhage. The choice between warfarin and aspirin should be individualized.

Allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma represent global health problems for all age groups. Asthma and rhinitis frequently coexist in the same subjects. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) was initiated during a World Health Organization workshop in 1999 (published in 2001). ARIA has reclassified AR as mild/moderate-severe and intermittent/persistent. This classification closely reflects patients' needs and underlines the close relationship between rhinitis and asthma. Patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals are confronted with various treatment choices for the management of AR. This contributes to considerable variation in clinical practice, and worldwide, patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals are faced with uncertainty about the relative merits and downsides of the various treatment options. In its 2010 Revision, ARIA developed clinical practice guidelines for the management of AR and asthma comorbidities based on the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. ARIA is disseminated and implemented in more than 50 countries of the world. Ten years after the publication of the ARIA World Health Organization workshop report, it is important to make a summary of its achievements and identify the still unmet clinical, research, and implementation needs to strengthen the 2011 European Union Priority on allergy and asthma in children.

No abstract

No abstract