Citations

AbstractIntroductionPediatric 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionsNon‐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.

AbstractLanguage has been shown to influence the ability to form categories. Nevertheless, in most prior work, the effects of language could have been bolstered by the fact that linguistic labels were introduced by the experimenter prior to the categorization task in ways that could have highlighted their relevance for the task. Here, we compared the potency of labels to that of other non‐linguistic cues on how people categorized novel, perceptually ambiguous natural kinds (e.g., flowers or birds). Importantly, we varied whether these cues were explicitly presented as relevant to the categorization task. In Experiment 1, we compared labels, numbers, and symbols: One group of participants was told to pay attention to these cues because they would be helpful (Relevant condition), a second group was told that the cues were irrelevant and should be ignored (Irrelevant condition), and a third group was told nothing about the cues (Neutral condition). Even though task relevance affected overall reliance on cues during categorization, participants were more likely to use labels to determine category boundaries, compared to numbers or symbols. In Experiments 2 and 3, we replicated and fine‐tuned the advantage of labels in more stringent categorization tasks. These results offer novel evidence for the position that labels offer unique indications of category membership, compared to non‐linguistic cues.

Selpercatinib is indicated for locally advanced/metastatic RET-activated solid tumors after progression or following prior systemic therapies. Until the recently published data from LIBRETTO-431 and LIBRETTO-531, there were limited effectiveness data comparing selpercatinib with other first-line treatments in RET-activated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), medullary thyroid cancer (MTC), and thyroid cancer (TC). This study analyzed patient data from LIBRETTO-001 and compared the outcomes (time to treatment discontinuation {TTD}, time to next treatment or death {TTNT-D}, time to progression {TTP}, and the objective response rate {ORR}) of first-line selpercatinib (selpercatinib arm) use with the outcomes of first-line standard therapies in patients who then received selpercatinib in later lines of treatment (comparator arm). Overall, the first-line selpercatinib arm had a longer TTD, TTNT-D, and TTP versus the first-line comparator arm. The hazard ratios (HRs) for TTD were 0.29 (NSCLC), 0.15 (MTC), 0.08 (TC); for TTNT-D, the HRs were 0.48 (NSCLC), 0.11 (MTC), 0.09 (TC); and for TTP, the HRs were 0.54 (NSCLC), 0.15 (MTC), and 0.12 (TC). The ORR was higher for first-line selpercatinib versus the first-line comparator (NSCLC: 85.3% vs. 39.7%; MTC: 82.6% vs. 15.2%; and TC: 81.8% vs. 31.8%). First-line selpercatinib use is associated with improved outcomes compared to first-line comparator therapies for patients with advanced/metastatic RET-activated cancers.

AbstractThis systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of fluvoxamine for the outpatient management of COVID‐19. We conducted this review in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, CINAHL, Web of Science, and CENTRAL up to 14 September 2023. Outcomes included incidence of hospitalisation, healthcare utilization (emergency room visits and/or hospitalisation), mortality, supplemental oxygen and mechanical ventilation requirements, serious adverse events (SAEs) and non‐adherence. Fluvoxamine 100 mg twice a day was associated with reductions in the risk of hospitalisation (risk ratio [RR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58–0.97; I 2 = 0%) and reductions in the risk of healthcare utilization (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53–0.86; I 2 = 0%). While no increased SAEs were observed, fluvoxamine 100 mg twice a day was associated with higher treatment non‐adherence compared to placebo (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.22–2.14; I 2 = 53%). In subgroup analyses, fluvoxamine reduced healthcare utilization in outpatients with BMI ≥30 kg/m2, but not in those with lower BMIs. While fluvoxamine offers potential benefits in reducing healthcare utilization, its efficacy may be most pronounced in high‐risk patient populations. The observed non‐adherence rates highlight the need for better patient education and counselling. Future investigations should reassess trial endpoints to include outcomes relating to post‐COVID sequelaes. Registration: This review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023463829).

ObjectiveJuvenile localized scleroderma (jLS) is a chronic autoimmune disease commonly associated with poor outcomes, including contractures, hemiatrophy, uveitis, and seizures. Despite improvements in treatment, >25% of patients with jLS have functional impairment. To improve patient evaluation, our workgroup developed the Localized scleroderma Total Severity Scale (LoTSS), an overall disease severity measure.MethodsLoTSS was developed as a weighted measure by a consensus process involving literature review, surveys, case vignettes, and multicriteria decision analysis. Feasibility was assessed in larger Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance groups. Construct validity with physician assessment and inter‐rater reliability was assessed using case vignettes. Additional evaluation was performed in a prospective patient cohort initiating treatment.ResultsLoTSS severity items were organized into modules that reflect jLS disease patterns, with modules for skin, extracutaneous, and craniofacial manifestations. Construct validity of LoTSS was supported by a strong positive correlation with the Physician Global Assessment (PGA) of severity and damage and weak positive correlation with PGA‐Activity, as expected. LoTSS was responsive, with a small effect size identified. Moderate‐to‐excellent inter‐rater reliability was demonstrated. LoTSS was able to discriminate between patient subsets, with higher scores identified in those with greater disease burden and functional limitation.ConclusionWe developed a new LS measure for assessing cutaneous and extracutaneous severity and have shown it to be reliable, valid, and responsive. LoTSS is the first measure that assesses and scores all the major extracutaneous manifestations in LS. Our findings suggest LoTSS could aid assessment and management of patients and facilitate outcome evaluation in treatment studies.image

Objective: To identify links between Participatory Health Informatics (PHI) and the One Digital Health framework (ODH) and to show how PHI could be used as a catalyst or contributor to ODH. Methods: We have analyzed the addressed topics within the ODH framework in previous IMIA Yearbook contributions from our working group during the last 10 years. We have matched main themes with the ODH's framework three perspectives (individual health and wellbeing, population and society, and ecosystem). Results: PHI catalysts ODH individual health and wellbeing perspective by providing a more comprehensive view on human health, attitudes, and relations between human health and animal health. Integration of specific behavior change techniques or gamification strategies in digital solutions are effective to change behaviors which address the P5 paradigm. PHI supports the population and society perspective through the engagement of the various stakeholders in healthcare. At the same time, PHI might increase a risk for health inequities due to technologies inaccessible to all equally and challenges associated with this. PHI is a catalyst for the ecosystem perspective by contributing data into the digital health data ecosystem allowing for analysis of interrelations between the various data which in turn might provide links among all components of the healthcare ecosystem. Conclusion: Our results suggest that PHI can and will involve topics relating to ODH. As the ODH concept crystalizes and becomes increasingly influential, its themes will permeate and become embedded in PHI even more. We look forward to these developments and co-evolution of the two frameworks.