Prevalence and spectrum of infectious and inflammatory dermatologic conditions occurring in pediatric heart transplant patients on a predominantly mTOR-based immune suppressive regimen: A retrospective chart review.

INTRODUCTION: Pediatric heart transplant patients are routinely followed in dermatology clinics due to elevated risk of cutaneous malignancy. However, transplant patients may experience other, non-cancer-related dermatologic conditions including skin infections, inflammatory diseases, and drug eruptions that can cause significant medical and psychosocial comorbidity. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all pediatric heart transplant patients at Mayo Clinic Children's Center in Rochester, MN, was performed to determine the prevalence and spectrum of non-cancer dermatologic conditions. Statistical analysis was conducted to look for associations between episodes of rejection and skin condition development. RESULTS: Of the 65 patients who received heart transplants under the age of 18 and were followed at Mayo Clinic, 69% (N = 45) were diagnosed with at least one skin condition between transplant and the time of most recent follow-up. Sixty-two percent (N = 40) of patients were diagnosed with an inflammatory skin condition (most commonly acne and atopic dermatitis), 45% (N = 29) with an infectious skin condition (most commonly warts and dermatophyte infection), and 32% (N = 21) with a drug eruption (most commonly unspecified rash and urticaria). No association was found between presence of skin disease and number of rejection episodes. CONCLUSIONS: Non-cancer dermatologic conditions are prevalent within pediatric heart transplant recipients and may directly impact their medical needs and quality of life. Dermatologist involvement in the care of post-transplant pediatric patients is important, not only for cancer screening but also for diagnosis and treatment of common infectious and inflammatory skin conditions.

No difference in COVID-19 treatment outcomes among current methamphetamine, cannabis and alcohol users.

BACKGROUND: Poor outcomes of COVID-19 have been reported in older males with medical comorbidities including substance use disorder. However, it is unknown whether there is a difference in COVID-19 treatment outcomes between patients who are current cannabis users, excessive alcohol drinkers and those who use a known hazardous stimulant such as methamphetamine (METH). METHODS: Electronic medical records (EMR) of COVID-19 patients with current METH (n = 32), cannabis (n = 46), and heavy alcohol use (n = 44) were reviewed. COVID-19 infection was confirmed by positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test, current drug use was confirmed by positive urine drug testing, and alcohol use was identified by a blood alcohol concentration greater than 11 mg/dl. Multivariate linear regression models as well as the firth logistic regression models were used to examine the effect of substance use group (METH, cannabis, or alcohol) on treatment outcome measures. RESULTS: A total of 122 patients were included in this analysis. There were no significant differences found between drug groups in regards to key SARS-CoV-2 outcomes of interest including ICU admission, length of stay, interval between SARS-CoV-2 positive test and hospital discharge, delirium, intubation and mortality after adjusting for covariates. About one-fifth (21.9% in METH users, 15.2% in cannabis users, and 20.5% in alcohol users) of all patients required ICU admission. As many as 37.5% of METH users, 23.9% of cannabis users, and 29.5% of alcohol users developed delirium (P = 0.4). There were no significant differences between drug groups in COVID-19 specific medication requirements. Eight patients in total died within 10 months of positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. Two patients from the METH group (6.3%), two patients from the cannabis group (4.3%), and four patients from the alcohol group (9.1%) died. DISCUSSION: The study outcomes may have been affected by several limitations. These included the methodology of its retrospective design, relatively small sample size, and the absence of a COVID-19 negative control group. In addition, there was no quantification of substance use and many covariates relied on clinical documentation or patient self-report. Finally, it was difficult to control for all potential confounders particularly given the small sample size. CONCLUSION: Despite these limitations, our results show that current METH, cannabis, and heavy alcohol users in this study have similar treatment outcomes and suffer from high morbidity including in-hospital delirium and high mortality rates within the first-year post COVID-19. The extent to which co-morbid tobacco smoking contributed to the negative outcomes in METH, cannabis, and alcohol users remains to be investigated.

Sex and gender specific health topics in medical student learners: pulse check eight years later.

BACKGROUND: An essential component of patient-centered, individualized medicine is considering how sex and gender affect mechanisms of health and disease. OBJECTIVES: To assess medical students' current knowledge of sex and gender specific health (SGSH) concepts compared to results from the same survey in 2012 to better inform development of curricular materials for medical education. METHODS: A previously designed survey tool, which assessed current knowledge of sex and gender-based medicine of medical students, was emailed to all Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine (MCASOM) students on Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida campuses in 2020. Descriptive and qualitative thematic results were compared to the same survey administered in 2012 to students enrolled in MCASOM. Changes in the inclusion of SGSH topics were assessed over the eight years. RESULTS: One hundred and one of 365 (27.7% response rate) surveys were returned with 2:1 female to male respondents with representation from all 4 years. The definitions of the terms "sex" and "gender" were correctly identified by most respondents (93.1%). However, only 36% (12/33) of questions related to other medical knowledge on SGSH topics had more than a 50% correct response rate. More than half of the students reported that SGSH topics were included in Gynecology, Cardiology, Pediatrics, and Immunology. SGSH topics were reported as not being routinely covered in Neurology and Nephrology, although more students said they were in 2020 then 2012. Sixty-two percent of students favored increasing SGSH in the current curriculum. CONCLUSIONS: Medical students appear to understand the definition of and importance of SGSH in education. While some improvements in coverage by subject matter and topic area appear to have occurred as reported by medical students, opportunity remains to more fully integrate SGSH concepts in medical school curricula.