Dyslipidemias and stroke prevention: recommendations of the Study Group of Cerebrovascular Diseases of the Spanish Society of Neurology

Objetivo: Actualizar las recomendaciones de la Sociedad Española de Neurología para la prevención del ictus, tanto primaria como secundaria, en pacientes con dislipidemia. Desarrollo: Se ha realizado una revisión sistemática en Pubmed evaluando los principales aspectos relacionados con el manejo de las dislipidemias en la prevención primaria y secundaria del ictus, elaborándose una serie de recomendaciones relacionadas con los mismos. Conclusiones: En prevención primaria se recomienda determinar el riesgo vascular del paciente con el fin de definir los objetivos de LDLc. En prevención secundaria tras un ictus de origen aterotrombótico se recomienda un objetivo de LDLc < 55 mg/dl, mientras que en ictus isquémicos de origen no aterotrombótico, dado que su relación con dislipidemias es incierta, se establecerán los objetivos en función del grupo de riesgo vascular de cada paciente. Tanto en prevención primaria como secundaria las estatinas son los fármacos de primera elección, pudiendo asociarse ezetimiba y/o inhibidores de PCSK9 en aquellos casos que no alcancen los objetivos terapéuticosObjective We present an update of the Spanish Society of Neurology's recommendations for prevention of both primary and secondary stroke in patients with dyslipidaemia. Development We performed a systematic review to evaluate the main aspects of the management of dyslipidaemias in primary and secondary stroke prevention and establish a series of recommendations. Conclusions In primary prevention, the patient's vascular risk should be determined in order to define target values for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. In secondary prevention after an atherothrombotic stroke, a target value < 55 mg/dL is recommended; in non-atherothombotic ischaemic strokes, given the unclear relationship with dyslipidaemia, target value should be established according to the vascular risk group of each patient. In both primary and secondary prevention, statins are the drugs of first choice, and ezetimibe and/or PCSK9 inhibitors may be added in patients not achieving the target valu

Epidemiological Differences between Localized and Nonlocalized Low Back Pain

Study Design. A cross-sectional survey with a longitudinal follow-up. Objectives. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that pain, which is localized to the low back, differs epidemiologically from that which occurs simultaneously or close in time to pain at other anatomical sites Summary of Background Data. Low back pain (LBP) often occurs in combination with other regional pain, with which it shares similar psychological and psychosocial risk factors. However, few previous epidemiological studies of LBP have distinguished pain that is confined to the low back from that which occurs as part of a wider distribution of pain. Methods. We analyzed data from CUPID, a cohort study that used baseline and follow-up questionnaires to collect information about musculoskeletal pain, associated disability, and potential risk factors, in 47 occupational groups (office workers, nurses, and others) from 18 countries. Results. Among 12,197 subjects at baseline, 609 (4.9%) reported localized LBP in the past month, and 3820 (31.3%) nonlocalized LBP. Nonlocalized LBP was more frequently associated with sciatica in the past month (48.1% vs. 30.0% of cases), occurred on more days in the past month and past year, was more often disabling for everyday activities (64.1% vs. 47.3% of cases), and had more frequently led to medical consultation and sickness absence from work. It was also more often persistent when participants were followed up after a mean of 14 months (65.6% vs. 54.1% of cases). In adjusted Poisson regression analyses, nonlocalized LBP was differentially associated with risk factors, particularly female sex, older age, and somatizing tendency. There were also marked differences in the relative prevalence of localized and nonlocalized LBP by occupational group. Conclusion. Future epidemiological studies should distinguish where possible between pain that is limited to the low back and LBP that occurs in association with pain at other anatomical locations

Lung adenocarcinoma promotion by air pollutants

A complete understanding of how exposure to environmental substances promotes cancer formation is lacking. More than 70 years ago, tumorigenesis was proposed to occur in a two-step process: an initiating step that induces mutations in healthy cells, followed by a promoter step that triggers cancer development1. Here we propose that environmental particulate matter measuring ≤2.5 μm (PM2.5), known to be associated with lung cancer risk, promotes lung cancer by acting on cells that harbour pre-existing oncogenic mutations in healthy lung tissue. Focusing on EGFR-driven lung cancer, which is more common in never-smokers or light smokers, we found a significant association between PM2.5 levels and the incidence of lung cancer for 32,957 EGFR-driven lung cancer cases in four within-country cohorts. Functional mouse models revealed that air pollutants cause an influx of macrophages into the lung and release of interleukin-1β. This process results in a progenitor-like cell state within EGFR mutant lung alveolar type II epithelial cells that fuels tumorigenesis. Ultradeep mutational profiling of histologically normal lung tissue from 295 individuals across 3 clinical cohorts revealed oncogenic EGFR and KRAS driver mutations in 18% and 53% of healthy tissue samples, respectively. These findings collectively support a tumour-promoting role for PM2.5 air pollutants and provide impetus for public health policy initiatives to address air pollution to reduce disease burden