Menthol versus tobacco e-liquid flavor: Impact on acute subjective effects, puff patterns, and intentions for use among Black and White menthol smokers.

BACKGROUND: The proposed FDA product standard to prohibit menthol as a characterizing flavor in combustible cigarettes has the potential to significantly reduce tobacco-related health disparities. Whether a menthol e-liquid product standard would improve or hinder public health is unknown. No known research has directly examined the impact of menthol vs. tobacco flavored e-liquid use on acute e-cigarette use patterns, subjective experience, behavioral intentions, and craving and withdrawal among menthol cigarette smokers. METHODS: Black (n = 47) and White (n = 4) nicotine-deprived menthol smokers with limited e-cigarette experience completed two counterbalanced in-laboratory 30-minute ad libitum vaping sessions with menthol and tobacco nicotine salt-based e-liquid in a randomized crossover pilot trial design. Questionnaires assessed reductions in craving and withdrawal and post-session subjective experience and behavioral intentions. Puff topography was measured continuously throughout each vaping session. RESULTS: Measures of puff topography did not differ significantly by e-liquid flavor (all p > .40). Similarly, menthol and tobacco flavored e-cigarettes were both rated positively in terms of subjective effects and behavioral intentions (all p > .10) and about 40 % of participants reported a preference for the tobacco-flavored e-liquid. Finally, participants showed comparable reductions in craving (p = .210) and withdrawal (p = .671) from pre- and post-session regardless of e-liquid flavor. CONCLUSIONS: Among menthol smokers in a lab-based setting, findings suggest that menthol vs tobacco e-liquid flavor has little impact on acute changes in puff patterns, subjective experience, behavioral intentions, or craving and withdrawal.

Thromboembolic Disease.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) encompasses deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, both of which can present on a spectrum from subtle symptoms to life- and limb-threatening emergencies. Some risk factors for VTE overlap cardiovascular risk factors and statin therapy can somewhat reduce the VTE risk. When presentations are not life-threatening, clinical prediction scores using the Well's criteria are best used to determine diagnostic testing. The mainstay of VTE treatment is anticoagulant therapy, although life- and limb-threatening presentations can also require thrombolytic therapy.

Does Masking MCAT Scores During Admissions Increase Equity?

PURPOSE: To improve admissions process equity, the Uniformed Services University masked Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) scores at or above the 51st percentile to admissions committee members. This policy was aimed at improving admissions rates for applicants in 2 priority groups: those from races and ethnicities underrepresented in medicine (URM) and those from lower socioeconomic status, represented by first-generation college (FGC) graduates. METHOD: All applicants invited to interview were included: 1,624 applicants from admissions years 2014-2016 before MCAT score masking and 1,668 applicants from admissions years 2018-2020 during MCAT score masking. Logistic regression determined admissions likelihood before and during masking. Independent sample t tests compared average admissions committee scores for all applicants and for those in priority groups. Linear regression determined the weight of MCAT scores on admissions committee scores. RESULTS: Despite there being more priority group applicants during MCAT score masking, the admissions likelihood for an individual priority group applicant decreased during this period. URM applicants had an odds ratio of 0.513 for acceptance during MCAT score masking compared to before masking, and FGC applicants had an odds ratio of 0.695. Masking significantly reduced mean admissions committee scores, which decreased approximately twice as much for priority group applicants as for nonpriority group applicants (0.96 points vs 0.51 points). These score decreases were highest for priority group applicants with MCAT scores above the 67th percentile. Masking reduced the weight of MCAT scores; 10.9% of admissions committee score variance was explained by MCAT scores before masking and only 1.2% during masking. CONCLUSIONS: Despite known disparities in MCAT scores with respect to race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, admissions decisions in this study were more equitable when MCAT scores were included. While masking MCAT scores reduced the influence of the exam in admissions decisions, it also reduced admissions rates for URM and FGC applicants.

Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Rapid Evidence Review.

Lower urinary tract symptoms from benign prostatic hyperplasia affect 25% of U.S. men, nearly one-half of whom have at least moderate symptoms. Sedentary lifestyle, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus increase risk of symptoms. Evaluation is focused on determining severity of symptoms and therapy to improve symptoms. Rectal examination has limited accuracy in evaluating prostate size. Transrectal ultrasonography is preferred to verify size when starting 5-alpha reductase therapy or considering surgery. Serum prostate-specific antigen testing is not recommended in routine evaluation of lower urinary tract symptoms, and shared decision-making should be used for cancer screening decisions. The International Prostate Symptom Score is the best way to track symptoms. Self-management methods, including limiting evening fluid intake, reducing caffeine and alcohol intake, toilet and bladder training, pelvic floor exercises, and mindfulness techniques, can improve symptoms. Although saw palmetto is not effective, the herbal treatments Pygeum africanum and beta-sitosterol may be effective. Primary medical treatment involves alpha blockers or phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors. Alpha blockers offer rapid benefit and can be used for acute urinary retention. Combining alpha blockers and phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors is not beneficial. For uncontrolled symptoms, 5-alpha reductase inhibitors should be started if the prostate volume is 30 mL or greater by ultrasonography. 5-Alpha reductase inhibitors take up to one year to be fully beneficial and are more effective when taken with alpha blockers. Only 1% of patients with lower urinary tract symptoms require surgery. Although transurethral resection of the prostate improves symptoms, many less invasive options with varying effectiveness can be considered.

Clinical Reasoning Curricula in Preclinical Undergraduate Medical Education: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: Clinical reasoning is the process of observing, collecting, analyzing, and interpreting patient information to arrive at a diagnosis and management plan. Although clinical reasoning is foundational in undergraduate medical education (UME), the current literature lacks a clear picture of the clinical reasoning curriculum in preclinical phase of UME. This scoping review explores the mechanisms of clinical reasoning education in preclinical UME. METHOD: A scoping review was performed in accordance with the Arksey and O'Malley framework methodology for scoping reviews and is reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for Scoping Reviews. RESULTS: The initial database search identified 3,062 articles. Of these, 241 articles were selected for a full-text review. Twenty-one articles, each reporting a single clinical reasoning curriculum, were selected for inclusion. Six of the reports included a definition of clinical reasoning, and 7 explicitly reported the theory underlying the curriculum. Reports varied in the identification of clinical reasoning content domains and teaching strategies. Only 4 curricula reported assessment validity evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this scoping review, we recommend 5 key principles for educators to consider when reporting clinical reasoning curricula in preclinical UME: (1) explicitly define clinical reasoning within the report, (2) report clinical reasoning theory(ies) used in the development of the curriculum, (3) clearly identify which clinical reasoning domains are addressed in the curriculum, (4) report validity evidence for assessments when available, and (5) describe how the reported curriculum fits into the larger clinical reasoning education at the institution.