Search

Background and aims: There is an incomplete understanding of the full safety profiles of repeated COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Among individuals with IBD, we assessed whether COVID-19 vaccines were associated with serious adverse events of special interest (AESI) and health care utilization [all-cause hospitalizations, Emergency Department (ED) visits, gastroenterology visits, IBD-related visits]. Methods: Using comprehensive administrative health data from Ontario, Canada, adults with IBD who received at least one COVID-19 vaccine from December 2020-January 2022 were included. Self-controlled case series analyses were conducted to evaluate the relative incidence rates of AESI and health care utilization outcomes across post-vaccination risk and control periods. Results: Among 88,407 IBD patients, 99.7% received mRNA vaccines and 75.9% received ≥ 3 doses. Relative to control periods, we did not detect an increase in AESI. IBD patients had fewer all-cause hospitalizations during post-vaccination risk periods. Patients experienced more all-cause ED visits after dose 2 [Relative Incidence (RI):1.08(95%CI:1.04–1.12)] but fewer visits after doses 3 [RI:0.85 (95%CI:0.81–0.90)] and 4 [RI:0.73 (95%CI:0.57–0.92)]. There was no increase in gastroenterologist visits or IBD-related health care utilization post-vaccination. There were fewer IBD-related hospitalizations after dose 1 [RI:0.84 (95%CI:0.72–0.98)] and 3 [RI:0.63 (95%CI:0.52–0.76)], fewer IBD-related ED visits after dose 3 [RI:0.81 (95%CI:0.71–0.91)] and 4 [RI:0.55 (95%CI:0.32–0.96)], and fewer outpatient visits after dose 2 [RI:0.91 (95%CI:0.90–0.93)] and 3 [RI:0.87 (95%CI:0.86–0.89)]. Conclusion: This population-based study did not detect increased AESI, all-cause or IBD-related health care utilization following COVID-19 vaccination, suggesting a lack of association between vaccination and increased disease activity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that is often more severe in older patients. The main clinical features are erythema, telangiectasia, and inflammatory lesions of the face. The pathogenesis of this condition is not fully understood but certainly multifaceted. Immune and inflammatory dysregulation, genetics, neurogenic dysregulation, microbiome dysbiosis, and systemic disease have all been implicated in rosacea pathogenesis. As we better understand the various pathways that lead to rosacea, we acknowledge that the different symptoms may have unique underlying triggers and mechanisms. Aging also impacts rosacea diagnosis and treatment. Older adults have more severe rosacea symptoms while also having more sensitive and fragile skin than younger patients; therefore, rosacea treatments for older patients require a balance between delivering adequate potency while also minimizing skin irritation and other adverse effects. Until recently, rosacea diagnoses were based on concrete subtypes that did not necessarily capture each patient's manifestation of rosacea. There is now an emphasis on more personalized phenotype-based diagnoses and treatments, which allows for more emphasis on treating individual symptoms and accounting for the unique characteristics of older patients. Centrofacial erythema is best treated with brimonidine and oxymetazoline, while phymatous change and telangiectasia are best treated with surgery and laser ablation. Treatment for rosacea papules and pustules ranges from topicals, such as azelaic acid, ivermectin, metronidazole, minocycline, and encapsulated benzoyl peroxide, to systemics, such as doxycycline and isotretinoin. It is important to understand these treatments in relation to adverse effects and drug interactions that may specifically arise in older populations to provide optimal care. As we advance in understanding rosacea's pathogenesis and adopt personalized phenotype-based approaches, optimizing care for older patients becomes crucial. Continued research into novel treatments is essential to address their unique needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a significant public health problem contributing to multiple morbidities. Immigrant women who experience IPV may be disproportionately vulnerable to poor mental health outcomes, including self-harm and suicidal ideation, due to cultural experiences and contextual factors that prevent them from accessing services. While existing studies identify the risks for suicidal ideation amongst survivors of IPV, there is limited knowledge on how to tailor strategies to support immigrant women survivors of IPV who experience suicidal ideation. This study was conducted as part of the formative phase of a longitudinal research project designed to develop and evaluate a safety planning intervention for immigrant women survivors of IPV. Using qualitative in-depth interviews, we explored the perspectives of immigrant women survivors of IPV (n = 46) from various countries of origin, ages, and educational backgrounds on effective strategies for supporting immigrant women who disclose suicidal ideation. Study participants discussed various strategies for supporting survivors including building trust, providing encouragement, strengthening social support networks, and reminding survivors of parental responsibilities. Participants also pointed to the importance of the following services: domestic violence support, faith-based health resources, supportive immigration programs, mental health support, and emergency and medical treatment. These findings are informative for researchers and practitioners who work with immigrant women survivors of IPV, and they can be used to develop appropriate safety protocols and support strategies for survivors who are experiencing or have previously experienced suicidal ideation to mitigate the risk of self-harm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a correction notice for a study published in the journal PLoS ONE. The correction relates to Table 1 in the study, specifically the values in the "reference amount" column. The corrected table provides information on the nutrient thresholds that would determine the display of a front-of-pack symbol according to Canadian front-of-pack labeling regulations. The table includes age groups, reference amounts, thresholds as a percentage of the daily value, and absolute amounts per nutrient for saturated fat, sodium, and sugars. The correction notice does not provide any additional information or analysis beyond the corrected table. [Extracted from the article]