Search

Objective Evidence supports the relationship between the skin barrier and allergic conditions. This narrative review evaluates what role the cutaneous barrier may play in the pathogenesis, disease course, and management of allergic rhinitis (AR). Data Sources A literature review of the MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane, and SCOPUS Sciverse databases was conducted to identify available evidence. Reference lists of pertinent papers were searched using a snowball technique. Study Selections Papers published in English from all years until December 2020 were included. Papers that did not address the relationship between AR and the skin and hypothesis papers were excluded. Results The cutaneous barrier shares histologic characteristics with the sinonasal epithelial barrier, which may explain commonalities between AR and atopic dermatitis. A disruption in the epithelial barrier could be a common pathway in the development of multiple allergic conditions. The skin is a common target for the treatment of AR. Available data that look at the relationship between the skin and AR often include other topics such as other atopic disorders and the role of the epithelial barrier. Increased understanding of how the cutaneous barrier affects AR may lead to new innovations in its management. Conclusion The connection between the cutaneous barrier and AR holds possibilities for further investigation, and these may lead to a better understanding and future innovations for all atopic diseases.

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a rapid shift from in-person to virtual care delivery for many medical specialties across Canada. The purpose of this study was to explore the lived experiences of resident physicians and faculty related to teaching, learning and assessment during ambulatory virtual care encounters within the competency-based medical education model.In this qualitative phenomenological study, we recruited resident physicians (postgraduate year [PGY] 1-5 trainees) and faculty from the Departments of Surgery and Medicine at Queen's University, Ontario, via purposive sampling. Participants were not required to have exposure to virtual care. Interviews were conducted from September 2020 to March 2021 by 1 researcher, and 2 researchers conducted focus groups via Zoom to explore participants' experiences with the transition to virtual care. These were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim; qualitative data were analyzed thematically.There were 18 male and 19 female participants; 20 were resident physicians and 17 were faculty; 19 were from the Department of Surgery and 18 from the Department of Medicine. All faculty participants had participated in virtual care during ambulatory care; 2 PGY-1 residents in surgery had not actively participated in virtual care, although they had participated in clinics where faculty were using virtual care. The mean age of faculty participants was 38 (standard deviation [SD] 8.6) years, and the mean age of resident physicians was 29 (SD 5.4) years. Overall, 28 interviews and 4 focus groups (range 2-3 participants per group) were conducted, and 4 themes emerged: teaching and learning, assessment, logistical considerations, and suggestions. Barriers to teaching included the lack of direct observations and teaching time, and barriers to assessment included an absence of specific Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) and feedback focused on virtual care-related competencies. Logistical challenges included lack of technological infrastructure, insufficient private office space and administrative burdens. Both resident physicians and faculty did not foresee virtual care limiting resident physicians' ability to progress within competency-based medical education. Benefits of virtual care included increased accessibility to patients for follow-up visits, for disclosing patients' results and for out-of-town visits. Suggestions included faculty development, improved access to technology and space, educational guidelines for conducting virtual care encounters, and development of virtual care-specific competencies and EPAs.In the postgraduate program we studied, virtual care imposed substantial barriers on teaching, learning and assessment during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Adapting to new circumstances such as virtual care with suggestions from resident physicians and faculty may help to ensure the continuity of postgraduate medical education throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective: To evaluate which immigrant groups to Canada are at increased risk of diabetes (DM) after gestational diabetes (GDM), including the influence of time since migration. Research Design and Methods: This retrospective cohort study used administrative data within a universal healthcare system. Included were women with GDM who had given birth in Ontario, Canada, 2006-2014. Women from each World region were compared to native-born/long-term residents of Canada for risk of DM using Cox regression. Results were further evaluated by time since immigration (0-5, 5-10, 10-20 years vs. native-born/long-term residents [referent]), adjusting for age at index pregnancy, income, BMI, parity and any hypertensive disorder of pregnancy. Results: A total of 8630 women with GDM were followed for a median of 4.9 years. Relative to native-born/long-term residents (incidence rate 29.2 person-years), the age-adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for DM were higher among women from South Asia (1.28, 95% confidence interval, CI 1.20-1.36), Latin America/the Caribbean (1.42, 95% CI 1.28-1.57), and Sub-Saharan Africa (1.59, 95% CI 1.39-1.83). Relative to native-born/long-term residents, the aHR for DM were 1.42 (95% CI 1.20-1.67) for those residing 0-5 years, 1.19 (95% CI 1.00-1.42) 5-10 years, and 1.41 (95% 1.20-1.65) 10-20 years since immigration. Conclusions: Certain broadly-defined immigrant groups are at a significantly higher future risk of developing diabetes after having GDM, especially those who are recent immigrants. Disclosure J. S. S. Ho: None. L. Lipscombe: None. S. H. Read: Employee; Self; Certara. L. Rosella: None. H. Berger: None. D. Feig: Advisory Panel; Self; Novo Nordisk. K. Fleming: None. J. G. Ray: None. B. R. Shah: None. S. Sarma: None.

Objective Hyperglucagonemia is present in many forms of diabetes and contributes to hyperglycemia, and glucagon suppression can ameliorate diabetes in mice. Leptin, a glucagon suppressor, can also reverse diabetes in rodents. Lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery of small interfering RNA (siRNA) effectively targets the liver and is in clinical trials for the treatment of various diseases. We compared the effectiveness of glucagon receptor (Gcgr)-siRNA delivered via LNPs to leptin in two mouse models of diabetes. Methods Gcgr siRNA encapsulated into LNPs or leptin was administered to mice with diabetes due to injection of the β-cell toxin streptozotocin (STZ) alone or combined with high fat diet (HFD/STZ). Results In STZ-diabetic mice, a single injection of Gcgr siRNA lowered blood glucose levels for 3 weeks, improved glucose tolerance, and normalized plasma ketones levels, while leptin therapy normalized blood glucose levels, oral glucose tolerance, and plasma ketones, and suppressed lipid metabolism. In contrast, in HFD/STZ-diabetic mice, Gcgr siRNA lowered blood glucose levels for 2 months, improved oral glucose tolerance, and reduced HbA1c, while leptin had no beneficial effects. Conclusions While leptin may be more effective than Gcgr siRNA at normalizing both glucose and lipid metabolism in STZ diabetes, Gcgr siRNA is more effective at reducing blood glucose levels in HFD/STZ diabetes., Highlights • Gcgr siRNA improves glucose metabolism but not lipid metabolism in STZ diabetic mice. • Leptin improves both glucose and lipid metabolism in STZ diabetic mice. • Gcgr siRNA improves glucose metabolism in HFD/STZ diabetic mice. • Leptin does not improve glucose metabolism in HFD/STZ diabetic mice.