No abstract

No abstract

Pain is one of the main problems for modern society and medicine, being the most common symptom described by almost all patients. When pain becomes chronic, the life of the patients is dramatically affected, being associated with significant emotional distress and/or functional disability. A complex biopsychosocial evaluation is necessary to better understand chronic pain, where good results can be obtained through interconnected biological, psychological, and social factors. The aim of this study was to find the most relevant articles existent in the PubMed database, one of the most comprehensive databases for medical literature, comprising dietary patterns to alleviate chronic pain. Through a combined search using the keywords “chronic pain” and “diet” limited to the last 10 years we obtained 272 results containing the types of diets used for chronic pain published in the PubMed database. Besides classical and alternative methods of treatment described in literature, it was observed that different diets are also a valid solution, due to many components with antioxidant and anti-inflammatory qualities capable to influence chronic pain and to improve the quality of life. Thirty-eight clinical studies and randomized controlled trials are analyzed, in an attempt to characterize present-day dietary patterns and interventions to alleviate chronic pain.

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.

Cardiovascular (CV) engagement in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is a huge determinant of prognosis during the acute phase of the disease. However, little is known about the potential chronic implications of the late phase of COVID‐19 and about the appropriate approach to these patients. Heart failure, type 1 and type 2 myocardial infarction, arrhythmias, myocarditis, pulmonary fibrosis, and thrombosis have been shown to be related to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, and a ‘long COVID‐19’ illness has been recognized with fatigue, chest pain, and dyspnoea among the most frequent symptoms reported after discharge from hospital. This paper focuses on some open questions that cardiologists are going to face during the next months in a general cardiology outpatient clinic, in particular how to evaluate a ‘post‐COVID’ patient during follow‐up of CV complications of the acute phase and how to manage new CV symptoms that could be the consequence, at least in part, of heart/vessels and/or lung involvement of the previous virus infection. Present symptoms and signs, history of previous CV disease (both preceding COVID‐19 and occurring during viral infection), and specific laboratory and imaging measurements during the acute phase may be of interest in focusing on how to approach the clinical evaluation of a post‐COVID patient and how to integrate in our standard of care the new information on COVID‐19, possibly in a multidisciplinary view. Dealing with the increased COVID‐associated CV risk burden and becoming acquainted with potential new e‐cardiology approaches aimed at integrating the cardiology practice are relevant new challenges brought by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and its sequelae.