risk factors

Apolipoprotein (apo) B measurement is a recommended alternative to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)
The 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society guideline on dyslipidemia recommends that physicians may use levels of either non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) or apo B instead of LDL-C for screening and targets of treatment.1 Non-HDL-C represents total cholesterol minus cholesterol from HDL particles; apo B represents the total number of atherogenic particles, since 1 apo B molecule is found on each LDL, very low–density lipoprotein, intermediate-density lipoprotein and lipoprotein(a) particle.2

Importance
Allergic reactions among some individuals who received the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccine discourage patients with allergic conditions from receiving this vaccine and physicians from recommending the vaccine.

Objective
To describe the assessment and immunization of highly allergic individuals with the BNT162b2 vaccine.

Design, Setting, and Participants
In a prospective cohort study from December 27, 2020, to February 22, 2021, 8102 patients with allergies who applied to the COVID 19 vaccine referral center at the Sheba Medical Center underwent risk assessment using an algorithm that included a detailed questionnaire. High-risk patients (n = 429) were considered “highly allergic” and were immunized under medical supervision.

Exposures
Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccine.

Main Outcomes and Measures
Allergic and anaphylactic reactions after the first and second doses of BNT162b2 vaccine among highly allergic patients.

Results
Of the 429 individuals who applied to the COVID-19 referral center and were defined as highly allergic, 304 (70.9%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 52 (16) years. This highly allergic group was referred to receive immunization under medical supervision. After the first dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine, 420 patients (97.9%) had no immediate allergic event, 6 (1.4%) developed minor allergic responses, and 3 (0.7%) had anaphylactic reactions. During the study period, 218 highly allergic patients (50.8%) received the second BNT162b2 vaccine dose, of which 214 (98.2%) had no allergic reactions and 4 patients (1.8%) had minor allergic reactions. Other immediate and late reactions were comparable with those seen in the general population, except for delayed itch and skin eruption, which were more common among allergic patients.

Conclusions and Relevance
The rate of allergic reactions to BNT162b2 vaccine, is higher among patients with allergies, particularly among a subgroup with a history of high-risk allergies. This study suggests that most patients with a history of allergic diseases and, particularly, highly allergic patients can be safely immunized by using an algorithm that can be implemented in different medical facilities and includes a referral center, a risk assessment questionnaire, and a setting for immunization under medical supervision of highly allergic patients. Further studies are required to define more specific risk factors for allergic reactions to the BNT162b2 vaccine.

Background: The presence of blood in the urine, or hematuria, is a common finding in clinical practice and can sometimes be a sign of occult cancer. This article describes the clinical epidemiology of hematuria and the current state of practice and science in this context and provides suggestions for clinicians evaluating patients with hematuria.

Methods: A narrative review of available clinical guidelines and other relevant studies on the evaluation of hematuria was conducted, with particular emphasis on considerations for urologic referral.

High-value care advice 1: Clinicians should include gross hematuria in their routine review of systems and specifically ask all patients with microscopic hematuria about any history of gross hematuria.

High-value care advice 2: Clinicians should not use screening urinalysis for cancer detection in asymptomatic adults.

High-value care advice 3: Clinicians should confirm heme-positive results of dipstick testing with microscopic urinalysis that demonstrates 3 or more erythrocytes per high-powered field before initiating further evaluation in all asymptomatic adults.

High-value care advice 4: Clinicians should refer for further urologic evaluation in all adults with gross hematuria, even if self-limited.

High-value care advice 5: Clinicians should consider urology referral for cystoscopy and imaging in adults with microscopically confirmed hematuria in the absence of some demonstrable benign cause.

High-value care advice 6: Clinicians should pursue evaluation of hematuria even if the patient is receiving antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy.

High-value care advice 7: Clinicians should not obtain urinary cytology or other urine-based molecular markers for bladder cancer detection in the initial evaluation of hematuria.

Background: The misuse of legal and illegal substances has led to an increase in substance use disorder (SUD) in the United States. Although primary prevention strategies have been successfully used to target chronic physical diseases, these strategies have been less effective with SUD, given misconceptions of SUD, shortages in behavioral health professionals, and the population-based focus on specific substances. A developmental approach to the identification and primary prevention of SUD that does not fully rely upon behavioral health workers is needed. The purpose of this paper was to examine age related risk factors for developing SUD and present a novel individualized approach to SUD prevention.

Methods: A literature search was conducted to identify risk factors for SUD among children, young adults, adults, and older adults. We searched CINAHL, PsycINFO, and PubMed between the years 1989-2019, and extracted data, analyzing similarities and differences in risk factors across life stages. Broader categories emerged that were used to group the risk factors.

Results: More than 370 articles were found. Across all age groups, risk factors included adverse childhood experiences, trauma, chronic health diseases, environmental factors, family history, social determinants, and grief and loss. Despite the similarities, the contextual factors and life challenges associated with these risks varied according to the various life stages. We proposed an approach to primary prevention of SUD based on risk factors for developing the disease according to different age groups. This approach emphasizes screening, education, and empowerment (SEE), wherein individuals are screened for risk factors according to their age group, and screening results are used to customize interventions in the form of education and empowerment. Given that trained persons, including non-healthcare providers, close to the at-risk individual could conduct the screening and then educate and mentor the individual according to the risk level, the number of people who develop SUD could decrease.

Conclusions: The risk factors for developing SUD vary across the various life stages, which suggests that individualized approaches that do not overtax behavioral healthcare workers are needed. Using SEE may foster early identification and individualized prevention of SUD.