RESUMEN
Along with the standard therapies for glioblastoma, patients are commonly prescribed trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) and dexamethasone for preventing infections and reducing cerebral edema, respectively. Because the gut microbiota impacts the efficacy of cancer therapies, it is important to understand how these medications impact the gut microbiota of patients. Using mice that have been colonized with human microbiota, this study sought to examine how TMP-SMX and dexamethasone affect the gut microbiome. Two lines of humanized microbiota (HuM) Rag1-/- mice, HuM1Rag and HuM2Rag, were treated with either TMP-SMX or dexamethasone via oral gavage once a day for a week. Fecal samples were collected pre-treatment (pre-txt), one week after treatment initiation (1 wk post txt), and three weeks post-treatment (3 wk post txt), and bacterial DNA was analyzed using 16S rRNA-sequencing. The HuM1Rag mice treated with TMP-SMX had significant shifts in alpha diversity, beta diversity, and functional pathways at all time points, whereas in the HuM2Rag mice, it resulted in minimal changes in the microbiome. Likewise, dexamethasone treatment resulted in significant changes in the microbiome of the HuM1Rag mice, whereas the microbiome of the HuM2Rag mice was mostly unaffected. The results of our study show that routine medications used during glioblastoma treatment can perturb gut microbiota, with some microbiome compositions being more sensitive than others, and these treatments could potentially affect the overall efficacy of standard-of-care therapy.
RESUMEN
Background: Access to dermatologists is limited for disadvantaged patients, who may receive suboptimal dermatologic care from nonspecialists. We assessed if teledermatology could improve primary care provider (PCP)-delivered care for cutaneous disease at a clinic serving uninsured patients. Materials and Methods: Utilizing the American Academy of Dermatology's free AccessDerm program, we offered store-and-forward teledermatology to PCPs, who initiated consultations at will during clinical care independent of the study. We retrospectively analyzed all consultations from 2013 to 2017 and collected patient age/sex, teledermatologist diagnosis, time to teledermatologist reply, time to next dermatology appointment, as well as PCP- and teledermatologist-proposed care plans. Results: Retrospective analysis of 131 consults revealed a 37-h mean teledermatology response-time versus a 14-day appointment wait (p < 0.00001). Teledermatologists provided a definitive care plan without in-person evaluation for 82 (65%) of completed consults and recommended interim treatments while awaiting appointments in 15 cases, thus accelerating care plan delivery in 97 cases (76%). The triage decision rate differed among diagnostic categories; deferral to in-person evaluation was more frequent for neoplasms (p < 0.0001). When PCPs specified preconsult treatment plans, 82% differed from teledermatologist-advised management. Following teledermatologist recommendations would have changed the clinical course in 70% of cases, potentially avoiding suboptimal care, including inappropriate corticosteroids, antimicrobials, and emergency room referrals. Conclusions: We found teledermatology can effectively guide PCPs in resource-limited settings by accelerating delivery of dermatologist-recommended care plans for uninsured patients. Expanding teledermatology for PCPs in under-resourced clinics has the potential to improve treatment of cutaneous disease by nonspecialists and to mitigate suboptimal care for disadvantaged patients.
