Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Dermatology Research Fellowship Funding.

Dermatology is a competitive field for applicants pursuing a residency, and many applicants turn to dedicated research years to try and increase their competitiveness. Our study aimed to determine the financial costs of a research year and uncover how the costs of a research year vary for different demographic groups. We administered an anonymous survey through various dermatology listservs and social media platforms to prior, current, and future dermatology applicants who had completed a research fellowship during or after medical school. We found the median total fellowship cost ($26,443.20) was higher than the median fellowship income ($23,625.00). Furthermore, we found minority respondents had significantly lower total income, lower fellowship income, and higher net fellowship cost (p<0.05). Ninety participants completed surveys, and over half reported their research year as financially stressful. The majority did state that if given the opportunity, they would choose to do their research year again. Given the overall high costs of research years and the disparity in funding of these years, steps should be taken to address the disparities in fellowship funding or de-emphasize the importance of research fellowships in the dermatology residency selection process.

Strategies for improving colorectal cancer detection with routine computed tomography.

PURPOSE: To report the detection rate of colorectal tumors with computed tomography (CT) performed within 1 year before diagnosis for indications other than colon abnormalities. Strategies to improve cancer detection are reported. METHODS: Two board-certified, subspecialty-trained abdominal radiologists retrospectively reviewed patient health records and CT images with knowledge of tumor location/size. Patients were classified into 3 groups: prospective (colon abnormality suggesting neoplasm documented in radiologic report), retrospective (not documented in radiologic report but detected in our retrospective review of CT images), and undetected (neither prospectively nor retrospectively detected). Retrospective detection confidence and morphologic characteristics of each tumor were also recorded. RESULTS: Of 209 included patients, 106 (50.7%) had prospectively detected tumors, 66 (31.6%) had retrospectively detected tumors, and 37 (17.7%) had undetected tumors. Asymmetric bowel wall thickening and polypoid masses were present more often in the retrospective group than in the prospective group (27% vs. 10.5% and 26% vs. 17.1%, respectively). Tumors in the ascending colon were more likely to be detected retrospectively than prospectively (odds ratio, 2.75; 95% CI 1.07-7.08; P = 0.04). Undetected tumors were smaller on average (2.9 cm) than prospective (6.0 cm) and retrospective (4.9 cm) tumors (P = 0.03). Detection confidence was lower for retrospectively detected tumors than for prospectively detected tumors (P = 0.03). Indications other than abdominal pain were most common for retrospectively detected tumors (P = 0.03). Use of intravenous contrast material was lowest in the undetected group (P = 0.003). The prospective group had more pericolonic abnormalities, regional/retroperitoneal lymph node involvement (P < 0.001), and distant metastases than did the retrospective group (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Half of all colorectal tumors were not detected prospectively. Radiologists should perform meticulous colon tracking regardless of the indication for CT. The right colon merits additional examination. Polypoid and asymmetric morphologic characteristics were most often overlooked, but these characteristics can be learned to improve detection.

Ruxolitinib Cream in the Treatment of Cutaneous Lichen Planus: A Prospective, Open-Label Study.

Ruxolitinib is a Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor that blocks signal transduction of interferon-gamma, a critical cytokine involved in the pathogenesis of cutaneous lichen planus (LP). In this prospective phase II study, we investigated the efficacy of topical ruxolitinib in cutaneous LP and performed transcriptomic analysis before and after therapy. Twelve patients with cutaneous LP applied topical ruxolitinib twice daily for 8 weeks. Primary endpoints were changes in total lesion count and changes in modified Composite Assessment of Index Lesion Severity score in index treated and untreated index control lesions at week 4. Total lesion count decreased by a median of 50 lesions (interquartile range 25, 723; P < 0.001). modified Composite Assessment of Index Lesion Severity scores decreased by a mean difference of 7.6 (standard deviation 8.8, P = 0.016) between index treated and control lesions. Type I and II interferon pathways were enriched in LP, and responsive disease displayed downregulation of interferon-stimulated genes. In this small pilot study, topical ruxolitinib was highly effective in the treatment of cutaneous LP. Transcriptomic analysis confirmed LP as an interferon-driven disease and downregulation of interferon-stimulated genes correlated with disease response.

Impact of timing of preoperative gabapentin administration on postoperative somnolence.

CONTEXT: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal protocol aimed to improve quality of postoperative recovery, minimize complications, and optimize overall self-regulation. Preoperative gabapentin decreases postoperative pain but can be associated with prolonged postoperative somnolence and respiratory depression risk. Although it is known that gabapentin affects the postoperative course, it is unclear if the timing of preoperative administration affects this finding. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess the optimal preoperative timing for gabapentin administration in patients undergoing gynecologic surgery to minimize postoperative somnolence risk. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study evaluated patients who underwent major gynecologic surgery and received preoperative gabapentin. Patients were grouped based on timing from gabapentin administration to surgical incision (<4 h group vs. ≥4 h group). Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were abstracted and compared. Univariate associations between the timing of gabapentin administration and the patient and surgical characteristics and outcomes were tested utilizing two-sample equal-variance t-tests, linear model ANOVA, or Fisher's exact tests. Associations between the timing of gabapentin administration and the time until the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) score of 0 were modeled utilizing linear regression, adjusted for age, initial postoperative anesthesia care unit (PACU), RASS score, and postoperative narcotics. RESULTS: Each group contained 127 patients. Demographics were similar except for age (<4 h group mean=44.2 years; ≥4 h group mean=40.5 years; p=0.021), chronic pain (<4 h group=17.6%; ≥4 h group=43.3%; p<0.001), and surgical indication (<4 h group=pelvic pain [29.1%]; ≥4 h group=pelvic pain [51.2%]; p=0.007). The <4 h group had a similar postoperative narcotic administration (<4 h group mean morphine milligram equivalents [MME]=3.667; ≥4 h group mean MME=4.833; p=0.185). The minutes from surgical closure until the patient received a RASS score of 0 and initial PACU pain score (Visual Analogue Scale [VAS]) were similar. The initial PACU oxygen administration volume, hours from surgical closure until the patient transitioned to room air, and initial PACU respiratory rate were similar. The PACU duration, admission secondary to somnolence, and initial PACU Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score showed no difference. Postoperative nausea/vomiting was decreased in the ≥4 h group (<4 h group=24.4%; ≥4 h group=13.4%; p-value=0.036), and urinary retention (<4 h group=14.2%; ≥4 h group=5.5%; p-value=0.033) was decreased in the ≥4 h group. CONCLUSIONS: The timing of gabapentin administration less than or more than 4 h preoperatively in patients ≥18 years does not significantly affect postoperative somnolence or respiratory depression. Further, it does not have a significant effect on GCS scores or VAS scores.

Real-world efficacy, tolerability, and safety of ubrogepant.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the real-world efficacy, tolerability, and safety of ubrogepant in a tertiary headache center. BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine were established in phase 3 randomized controlled trials. However, there is no real-world data of patient experience with ubrogepant in a population in which the majority of patients have chronic migraine, multiple prior unsuccessful treatments, complex medical comorbidities, and concurrent use of other migraine-specific medications. METHOD: This was a post-market cohort study conducted at Mayo Clinic Arizona. All patients prescribed ubrogepant were tracked and contacted 1-3 months after the prescription to answer a list of standardized questions. Demographic information and additional headache history were obtained from chart review. RESULTS: We obtained eligible questionnaire responses from 106 patients. Chronic migraine accounted for 92/106 (86.8%) of the population. Complete headache freedom (from mild/moderate/severe to no pain) and headache relief (from moderate/severe to mild/no pain or mild to no pain) for ≥75% of all treated attacks at 2 hours after taking ubrogepant were achieved in 20/105 (19.0%) and 50/105 (47.6%) patients, respectively. A total of 33/106 (31.1%) patients reported being "very satisfied" with ubrogepant. Adverse events were reported in 42/106 (39.6%) patients, including fatigue in 29/106 (27.4%), dry mouth in 8/106 (7.5%), nausea/vomiting in 7/106 (6.6%), constipation in 5/106 (4.7%), dizziness in 3/106 (2.8%), and other adverse events in 7/106 (6.6%). Predictive factors for being a "good responder" to ubrogepant, defined as headache relief for ≥75% of all treated attacks at 2 hours after taking ubrogepant, included migraine with aura, episodic migraine, <5 prior unsuccessful preventive or acute treatment trials. Additionally, prior treatment responses to a CGRP monoclonal antibody and onabotulinumtoxinA injections are predictive of treatment responses and patient satisfaction to ubrogepant. For the 62/106 (58.5%) patients concurrently using a CGRP monoclonal antibody, there was no difference in the "good responder" rate or adverse event rate compared to those who were not on a CGRP monoclonal antibody, though the rate of moderate, as opposed to mild adverse events was higher, 11/62 (47.8%) versus 3/44 (17.6%), p = 0.048. Additionally, 16 patients had a history of significant cardiovascular or cerebrovascular diseases. No severe adverse events were reported in any patient. CONCLUSION: Our study confirms and extends the efficacy profile and tolerability of ubrogepant in a real-world tertiary headache clinic and identifies factors that may predict efficacy. Adverse event rates were higher than reported in clinical trials. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of ubrogepant.