Social media and postsecondary student adoption of mental health labels: protocol for a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Many postsecondary students use social media at an age when mental health issues often arise for the first time. On social media, students describe their mental states or social interactions using psychiatric language. This is a process of mental health labelling as opposed to receiving a formal diagnosis from a psychiatrist. Despite substantial literature on psychiatric labelling effects such as stigma, little research has addressed the mechanisms and effects of labelling through social media. Our objective is to summarise the existing evidence to address this gap. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review includes articles in English published since 1995 on how postsecondary students interact with mental health labels in their use of social media. We will consider empirical studies and theses. The search strategy includes SCOPUS, PubMed, OVID MEDLINE (to access APA PsycINFO), Web of Science and ProQuest Global Dissertations and Theses. This scoping review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extensions for protocols and Scoping Reviews guidelines. The artificial intelligence application, Connected Papers, will assist in identifying additional references. The outcomes of interest are labelling by self or others and changes in self-concept and presentation associated with these labels. Two researchers will independently identify the included studies and extract data, solving disagreements with a third opinion. We will produce tables and narrative descriptions of the operationalisation and measurement methods of labelling and social media use, reported effects and uses of labelling, and explanatory mechanisms for the adoption of labels. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This literature review does not require ethics approval. The researchers will present their findings for publication in an open-access peer-reviewed journal and at student/scientific conferences. Potential knowledge users include university students, social media users, researchers, mental health professionals and on-campus mental health services.

T-cell Lymphoblastic Lymphoma Presenting as a Pituitary Mass.

Primary pituitary T-lymphoblastic lymphoma is a rare clinical entity. A 45-year-old woman presented with headache, left-eye blurry vision, diplopia, ophthalmoplegia, and ptosis. Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain showed a sellar mass most likely consistent with a pituitary macroadenoma. Laboratory evaluation disclosed secondary hypothyroidism, secondary adrenal insufficiency, and hyperprolactinemia. The mass was removed by transsphenoidal resection, and subsequent immunophenotyping revealed T-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma. Secondary workup confirmed lymphomatous confinement to the central nervous system. Following resection, the patient's headaches improved, but she experienced persistent visual deficits and palsies of cranial nerves III, IV, and VI. The chemotherapy regimen consisted of high-dose methotrexate, followed by alternating cycles of cyclophosphamide, vincristine sulfate, doxorubicin hydrochloride (Adriamycin), dexamethasone (cyclophosphamide, mesna, vincristine sulfate, doxorubicin hydrochloride, dexamethasone), and methotrexate/cytarabine. Since receiving chemotherapy, there has been an improvement in numbness, ptosis, left orbital pressure, and headaches. This case represents only the eighth example of T-cell primary pituitary lymphoma, and the youngest patient to receive the diagnosis.

Establishing low-density lipoprotein apheresis tolerability in patients with prior anaphylactoid reactions to lipoprotein apheresis using magnesium sulfate.

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein apheresis (LA) tolerability is a key factor for the utilization of this therapy. Common reactions to LA are hypotension and nausea. Serious reactions include severe hypotension and anaphylactoid reactions (0.13%-1.3% and 0.2%-0.4%, respectively). The bradykinin response drives these reactions and can worsen with the use of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors. Efforts to mitigate these reactions are necessary for the tolerability of LA with a dextran sulfate-adsorption (DSA) system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In an effort to increase apheresis tolerability, seven patients at The University of Kansas, Department of Clinical Pharmacology, who had prior anaphylactoid reactions (defined as general cutaneous flushing, nausea/vomiting, tongue swelling, lightheadedness, and hypotension) to the DSA despite pharmacologic intervention, were treated with pre-LA intravenous magnesium adapted from a protocol developed by co-author Eliaz. This protocol consists of 1.5 g of magnesium sulfate administered over 45 minutes. All seven patients were treated with intravenous magnesium sulfate immediately before LA. RESULTS: No episodes of anaphylactoid reactions during LA have been reported to date. CONCLUSIONS: Magnesium infusion before DSA can be utilized to establish tolerability in patients with prior anaphylactoid reactions to LA. Proposed mechanisms include temporary stabilization of the negative-positive interactions of the dextran sulfate filter leading to a reduction of circulating bradykinin, reduction of nitric oxide, and reduction of the sympathetic response to LA.

Etiology of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients on dual antiplatelet therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and is thought to cause upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). However, recent reports indicate that the incidence of lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) in patients on DAPT may be increasing. We aimed to compare the endoscopic findings and etiology of GI bleeding between patients on DAPT compared with those not on DAPT. METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-center, case-control study. Cases were 114 consecutive patients admitted with a first episode of GI bleeding while on DAPT who underwent detailed GI evaluation. We chose 114 controls who had GIB but were not on DAPT. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the incidence of UGIB or LGIB between the two groups (UGIB: 53.5% vs 51.3% and LGIB: 46.5% vs 48.7%, P = 0.10) or within groups (DAPT: 53.5% vs 46.5%, P = 0.30 and controls: 51.3% vs 48.7%, P = 0.80). Although the DAPT group had a lower prevalence of the usual UGIB risk factors, it had a higher likelihood of bleeding from varices or upper GI inflammation [odds ratio (OR) 3.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14-92.3; OR 13.98, 95% CI 1.40-140.36]. No etiology of bleeding was identified in a higher percentage of patients on DAPT than those who were not (22.8% vs 5.3%). CONCLUSION: In patients with GI bleeding, the incidences of UGIB and LGIB are similar irrespective of their DAPT use.