N Punjabi

There is ongoing scientific interest regarding comorbidities associated with the metabolic syndrome (MeTS). MeTS comprises a combination of parameters that predispose individuals to the development of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Three or more of the following criteria are necessary: fasting glucose > 110 mg/dl (5.6 mmol/l), hypertriglyceridemia > 150 mg/dl (1.7 mmol/l), HDL levels < 40 mg/dl (men)/< 50 mg/dl (women), blood pressure > 130/85 mmHg, waist circumference (values for Mediterranean populations > 94 cm (men)/> 89 cm (women). In this review we attempted to summarize relevant data by searching dermatological literature regarding associations between various skin conditions and MeTS. A multitude of studies was retrieved and a further goal of the present article is to present plausible mechanistic connections. The severity of skin conditions like psoriasis has been linked with MeTS. Parameters of MeTS like insulin resistance are present in patients with early onset androgenic alopecia, hidradenitis suppurativa acne and rosacea. Since MeTS can lead to CVD and type 2 diabetes early detection of patients would be very important. Also therapeutic intervention on MeTS could lead to improvement on the severity of skin conditions. This reciprocal relationship between skin diseases and MeTS in our opinion holds great interest for further investigation.

BACKGROUND: Stratifying risk of postoperative pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery allows clinicians to modify risk through targeted interventions and enhanced monitoring. In this study, we aimed to identify and validate prognostic models against a new consensus definition of postoperative pulmonary complications. METHODS: We did a systematic review and international external validation cohort study. The systematic review was done in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched MEDLINE and Embase on March 1, 2020, for articles published in English that reported on risk prediction models for postoperative pulmonary complications following abdominal surgery. External validation of existing models was done within a prospective international cohort study of adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing major abdominal surgery. Data were collected between Jan 1, 2019, and April 30, 2019, in the UK, Ireland, and Australia. Discriminative ability and prognostic accuracy summary statistics were compared between models for the 30-day postoperative pulmonary complication rate as defined by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine Core Outcome Measures in Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (StEP-COMPAC). Model performance was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC). FINDINGS: In total, we identified 2903 records from our literature search; of which, 2514 (86·6%) unique records were screened, 121 (4·8%) of 2514 full texts were assessed for eligibility, and 29 unique prognostic models were identified. Nine (31·0%) of 29 models had score development reported only, 19 (65·5%) had undergone internal validation, and only four (13·8%) had been externally validated. Data to validate six eligible models were collected in the international external validation cohort study. Data from 11 591 patients were available, with an overall postoperative pulmonary complication rate of 7·8% (n=903). None of the six models showed good discrimination (defined as AUROCC ≥0·70) for identifying postoperative pulmonary complications, with the Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia score showing the best discrimination (AUROCC 0·700 [95% CI 0·683-0·717]). INTERPRETATION: In the pre-COVID-19 pandemic data, variability in the risk of pulmonary complications (StEP-COMPAC definition) following major abdominal surgery was poorly described by existing prognostication tools. To improve surgical safety during the COVID-19 pandemic recovery and beyond, novel risk stratification tools are required. FUNDING: British Journal of Surgery Society.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the impact of pulmonary complications on death after surgery both before and during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. METHODS: This was a patient-level, comparative analysis of two, international prospective cohort studies: one before the pandemic (January-October 2019) and the second during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (local emergence of COVID-19 up to 19 April 2020). Both included patients undergoing elective resection of an intra-abdominal cancer with curative intent across five surgical oncology disciplines. Patient selection and rates of 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications were compared. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative mortality. Mediation analysis using a natural-effects model was used to estimate the proportion of deaths during the pandemic attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: This study included 7402 patients from 50 countries; 3031 (40.9 per cent) underwent surgery before and 4371 (59.1 per cent) during the pandemic. Overall, 4.3 per cent (187 of 4371) developed postoperative SARS-CoV-2 in the pandemic cohort. The pulmonary complication rate was similar (7.1 per cent (216 of 3031) versus 6.3 per cent (274 of 4371); P = 0.158) but the mortality rate was significantly higher (0.7 per cent (20 of 3031) versus 2.0 per cent (87 of 4371); P < 0.001) among patients who had surgery during the pandemic. The adjusted odds of death were higher during than before the pandemic (odds ratio (OR) 2.72, 95 per cent c.i. 1.58 to 4.67; P < 0.001). In mediation analysis, 54.8 per cent of excess postoperative deaths during the pandemic were estimated to be attributable to SARS-CoV-2 (OR 1.73, 1.40 to 2.13; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although providers may have selected patients with a lower risk profile for surgery during the pandemic, this did not mitigate the likelihood of death through SARS-CoV-2 infection. Care providers must act urgently to protect surgical patients from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Several benefits of peer tutoring in medical school teaching have been described. However, there is a lack of research on the perceptions of peer tutoring, particularly from tutees who partake in a long-term clinical skills scheme integrated into the medical school curriculum. This study evaluates the opinions of preclinical tutees at the end of a 2-year peer-tutored clinical skills program and peer tutors themselves. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in a UK-based medical school that primarily utilizes peer tutoring for clinical skills teaching. A questionnaire was designed to assess the views of preclinical tutees and peer tutors. Likert scales were used to grade responses and comment boxes to collect qualitative data. RESULTS: Sixty-five questionnaires were collected (52 tutees, 13 peer tutors). Seventy-nine percent of students felt satisfied with their teaching, and 70% felt adequately prepared for clinical placements. Furthermore, 79% believed that peer tutoring is the most effective method for clinical skills teaching. When compared to faculty teaching, tutees preferred being taught by peer tutors (63%), felt more confident (73%), and were more willing to engage (77%). All peer tutors felt that teaching made them more confident in their Objective Structured Clinical Examination performance, and 91% agreed that being a tutor made them consider pursuing teaching in the future. Thematic analysis of qualitative data identified 3 themes regarding peer tutoring: a more comfortable environment (69%), a more personalized teaching approach (34%), and variation in content taught (14%). CONCLUSION: Preclinical tutees prefer being taught clinical skills by peer tutors compared to faculty, with the peer tutors also benefitting. Studies such as this, looking at long-term schemes, further validate peer tutoring and may encourage more medical schools to adopt this method as an effective way of clinical skills teaching.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics of high-cost high-need children and young people (CYP) (0-24 years) in England. METHODS: Retrospective observational study using data from the Clinical Practice Research Database linked to Hospital Episode Statistics in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016. Healthcare utilisation of primary and secondary care services were calculated, and costs were estimated using Healthcare Resource Group for secondary care and Personal Social Services Research Unit for primary care. High-cost high-need CYP were defined as the top 5% of users by cost. RESULTS: 3891 of 73 392 CYP made up the top 5% that were classified as high-cost high-need, and this group accounted for 54% of total annual costs. In this population, 7.3% were males <5 years and 11.0% were females 20-24 years. Inpatient care (acute) accounted for 63% of known spending in high-cost high-need patients. Total mean monthly cost per patient was 22.7 times greater in the high-cost high-need group compared with all other patients (£4417 vs £195). 29% of CYP in the high-cost high-need group in 2014/2015 were also classified as high-cost high-need in the following year. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate the importance of further understanding and anticipating trends in CYP health spending to optimise care, reduce costs and inform new models of care. This includes integrated services, a further look into societal factors in reducing health inequalities and a particular focus of mental health services, the demand of which increases with age.