Hair today, gone tomorrow: How personal protective equipment guidance changed doctor's facial hair during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate how personal protective equipment (PPE) guidance altered the facial hair of hospital doctors and explore the wider impact and implications of these changes. METHODS: A single site uncontrolled before-after survey study examining change in facial hairstyles, and wider implications on doctor's cultural, religious, and personal wellbeing. Outcome measures included change in facial hair between January and April 2020 and whether these changes adhered to guidance set by Public Health England. Participants were also asked about the wider impact of these changes which were thematically analyzed using an inductive approach. RESULTS: Of those who completed the survey, 257 participants met the inclusion criteria. 68% (n = 67) of doctors who could grow facial hair changed their facial hairstyle during the COVID-19 pandemic and 96% (n = 64) reported that the change was in response to PPE guidance. The odds of having a facial hairstyle that complied with PPE guidance before the pandemic was 0.32, which rose to 2.77 after guidance was released, giving an odds ratio of 8.54 (95% CI 4.49-16.23, P < .001). When compared to those who sported a shaven face prepandemic, the odds ratio of a change in style for those with prepandemic full beards was 37.92 (95% CI 7.45-192.8, P < .001), for goatees was 7.22 (95% CI 1.076-48.47, P = .04), for moustaches was 4.33 (95% CI 0.207-90.85, P = .345), and for stubble was 9.06 (95% CI 2.133-38.49, P = .003). Qualitative analysis revealed multiple themes, including skin irritation, loss of identity, and a significant impact on participants required to maintain a beard due to religious or cultural reasons. CONCLUSIONS: Facial hairstyles have changed significantly at our hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic. Facial hair can impact upon doctors' cultural, religious, and personal wellbeing and these factors need to be considered with policy and provision of PPE.

Disorders of gut-brain interaction and the long-term risks of opioids.

Prescription opioid abuse has become a public health crisis. It is often challenging to manage affected patients as their symptoms are often viewed through a prism of complex psychosocial issues. Clinicians are often unaware of the lack of evidence regarding opioid prescribing for non-cancer pain, and these trends in prescribing have been significantly escalated by pharmaceutical companies and prescribing culture in recent years. Opioid prescribing in the context of disorders of gut-brain interaction (formerly known as functional gastrointestinal disorders) can worsen conditions such as centrally-mediated abdominal pain syndrome and narcotic bowel syndrome. Opioids should not be prescribed to these patients as the harm is significantly greater than the benefit. However, in certain patients, such as those being investigated for organic abdominal pain, a trial of opioids may be indicated. In these groups, an opioid contract should be used, in addition to risk tools to identify those most vulnerable to the negative effects of these drugs. Prevention and treatment of the long-term effects of opioids requires a multidisciplinary approach and health-care professionals should all become 'opioid aware'.

Pregabalin-induced urticarial rash and neutropenia in a renal transplant recipient: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Pregabalin is a medication used to treat epilepsy, neuropathic pain and generalised anxiety disorder. The most common side effects of pregabalin include dizziness, drowsiness, weight gain, ataxia and diplopia. On the other hand, neutropenia and rash are rare side effects of pregabalin, and at the time of writing, there are only two documented cases of neutropenia and one of rash in the literature, none of which involved renal transplant recipients. CASE PRESENTATION: We present a 37-year-old renal transplant recipient who was admitted with lethargy, sore throat, urticarial rash and neutropenia after recently being commenced on pregabalin. On physical examination, he had erythematous urticarial rash near his renal transplant scar, on his right elbow, left knee and left wrist. Bacterial/viral serology and immunology were all negative. A blood film confirmed neutropenia and revealed reactive lymphocytes and neutrophil left shift, and those features were compatible with drug reaction. After cessation of the pregabalin, the neutropenia resolved. No other causes of neutropenia or urticarial rash were identified. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, we have described the first case of concomitant pregabalin-induced neutropenia and urticarial rash in a kidney transplant patient. This case report highlights the importance of close monitoring when starting any new medications, particularly in the immunosuppressed population, and is relevant because of the growing usage of pregabalin for treating neuropathic pain in such patients and the risk that a missed pregabalin-related neutropenia could lead to unnecessary modifications of the immunosuppressive treatment.