Brown, Caitlin S.

AbstractBackgroundTransgender and gender‐diverse (TGD) patients experience challenges and disparities when seeking health care across a multitude of settings. Studies have demonstrated that TGD individuals experience bias when interacting with health care providers, including pharmacists in the community and hospital settings. Without proper training, pharmacists are less likely to be prepared to provide equitable and optimal patient care to TGD patients. This quality improvement initiative aimed to identify gaps in pharmacist knowledge and comfort with regard to TGD health care.MethodsA 29‐item reflective questionnaire was designed to collect information on pharmacist training and experiences in caring for TGD patients. The survey was distributed via email to all 490 pharmacists within a single health system and responses were collected from October 23, 2023 to November 3, 2023.ResultsA total of 116 pharmacists completed the survey, for a response rate of 24%. Although 77% of respondents reported caring for a TGD patient, only 21% reported receiving any formal education or training on TGD health care. While 83% of respondents agreed that formal education on TGD health care is important, and 90% indicated that education on gender‐affirming therapy is important, a majority of pharmacists disagreed that they were comfortable with making recommendations and providing counseling on gender‐affirming therapy. A majority of pharmacists were interested in formal education and engaging in departmental initiatives to improve TGD care.ConclusionsThere was a gap in confidence and education in caring for TGD patients among pharmacists practicing in a single academic institution. Pharmacists reported that more education is warranted to bridge current gaps in pharmacist comfort and TGD health care.

Abstract Rationale Propofol is one of the first-line sedative-hypnotic agents for critically ill adults requiring mechanical ventilation. Although propofol can elevate triglyceride levels, and the latter is a risk factor for pancreatitis, the association between propofol and acute pancreatitis is unclear. Objectives We sought to determine the clinical impact and potential associations between propofol infusion, hypertriglyceridemia, and acute pancreatitis. Methods This is an observational multicenter study of adults (⩾18 yr old) who were admitted to an intensive care unit, who required mechanical ventilation and received continuous propofol infusion for at least 24 hours. The primary outcomes were the frequency of hypertriglyceridemia (>400 mg/dl) and acute pancreatitis. Further analyses were done to determine the clinical impact of elevated triglyceride levels (i.e., sedation changes) and risk factors for pancreatitis development. Results Of 11,828 patients included, 33.2% (n = 3,922) had triglyceride levels measured, of whom 21.7% (n = 851) had hypertriglyceridemia at 4.5 days (SD = 6.8) after propofol initiation. Of those still requiring sedation, 70.4% (n = 576/818) received alternative sedatives after developing hypertriglyceridemia. Pancreatitis occurred in 1.2% of patients (n = 47/3,922) and was more frequent in those with hypertriglyceridemia (3.2%, 27/851; vs. 0.7%, 20/3,071; P < 0.001). After adjustment for potential confounding variables, each 100 mg/dl increase in triglyceride levels was associated with an 11% increase in risk of pancreatitis. Propofol dose was not associated with pancreatitis development. Conclusions Acute pancreatitis is uncommon in patients receiving propofol infusion, and it occurs over a wide range of triglyceride levels, indicating a multifactorial pathophysiology. Hypertriglyceridemia frequently prompts the use of alternative sedatives. Further study is needed to determine how to best monitor and treat hypertriglyceridemia in critically ill patients receiving propofol infusion.

AbstractObjectiveTransgender and gender‐diverse (TGD) individuals have a gender identity or expression that differs from the sex assigned to them at birth. They are an underserved population who experience health care inequities. Our primary objective was to identify if there are treatment differences between TGD and cisgender lesbian/gay/bisexual/queer (LGBQ) or heterosexual individuals presenting with abdominal pain to the emergency department (ED).MethodsRetrospective observational cohort study of patients ≥12 years of age presenting to 21 EDs within a health care system with a chief complaint of abdominal pain between 2018 and 2022. TGD patients were matched 1:1:1:1 to cisgender LGBQ women and men and cisgender heterosexual women and men, respectively. Propensity score matching covariates included age, ED site, mental health history, and gastrointestinal history. The primary outcome was pain assessment within 60 min of arrival. The secondary outcome was analgesics administered in the ED.ResultsWe identified 300 TGD patients, of whom 300 TGD patients were successfully matched for a total cohort of 1300 patients. The median (IQR) age was 25 (20–32) years and most patients were treated in a community ED (58.2%). There was no difference between groups in pain assessment within 60 min of arrival (59.0% TGD vs. 63.2% non TGD, p = 0.19). There were no differences in the number of times pain was assessed (median [IQR] 2 [1–3] vs. 2 [1–4], p = 0.31) or the severity of pain between groups (5.5 [4–7] vs. 6 [4–7], p = 0.11). TGD patients were more likely to receive nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (32.0% vs. 24.9%, p = 0.015) and less likely to receive opioids than non‐TGD patients (24.7% vs. 36.9%, p = <0.001). TGD and nonbinary patients, along with LGBQ cisgender women (24.7%) and heterosexual cisgender women (34%), were less likely to receive opioids than LGBQ cisgender men (54%) and heterosexual cisgender men (42.3%, p < 0.01).ConclusionThere was no difference in frequency of pain assessment, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. More cisgender men, compared to TGD and cisgender women, received opioids for their pain.