\n\nMethods: After a review of the scientific evidence, a scientific committee formulated 87 recommendations related to atherogenic dyslipidemia, which were grouped into 5 subject areas: general concepts (10 items),

impact and epidemiology (4 items), cardiovascular risk (32 items), detection and diagnosis (19 items), and treatment (22 items). A 2-round modified Delphi method was conducted to compare the opinions of a panel of 65 specialists in cardiology (23%), endocrinology (24.6%), family medicine (27.7%), and internal medicine (24.6%) on these issues.\n\nResults: After the first round, the panel reached consensus on 65 of the 87 items discussed, and agreed on 5-Fluoracil research buy 76 items by the end of the second round. Insufficient consensus was reached on 3 items related click here to the detection and diagnosis of atherogenic dyslipidemia

and 3 items related to the therapeutic goals to be achieved in these patients.\n\nConclusions: The external assessment conducted by experts on atherogenic dyslipidemia showed a high level of professional agreement with the proposed clinical recommendations. These recommendations represent a useful tool for improving the clinical management of patients with atherogenic dyslipidemia. A detailed analysis of the current scientific evidence is required for those statements that eluded consensus. (C) 2013 Sociedad Espanola de Cardiologia. selleck products Published by Elsevier Espana,

S. L. All rights reserved.”
“Objective: Access to rheumatology care can expedite diagnosis and treatment of rheumatic diseases and reduce disparities. We surveyed community health center (CHC) medical directors to evaluate rheumatology care in underserved areas and potential strategies for improvement.\n\nMethods: We identified 77 Massachusetts CHCs that provide adult medical services and sent a 40-item survey to their physician medical directors. Survey questions assessed the centers’ prevalence of rheumatic diseases, prescribing practices of immunosuppressive medications, and possible interventions to improve care. We compared CHC characteristics and rheumatology-specific items and then stratified our data by the response to whether improved access to rheumatology care was needed. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically.\n\nResults: Thirty-six CHC physician medical directors returned surveys (47% response rate). Fifty-five percent indicated a need for better access to rheumatology care. Eighty-six percent of CHC physicians would not start a patient with rheumatoid arthritis on a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug; 94% would not start a patient with systemic lupus erythematosus on an immunosuppressant.