The goal of this study is to assess the knowledge and attitude of dermatology patients regarding sunscreen use as recommended by the American Academy of Dermatology. Methods: This was an observational cross-sectional study at a university hospital in Riyadh. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire to measure their knowledge and attitude regarding sunscreen use. Results were analyzed using a chi-square test. Results: Most participants heard about sunscreen (93.4%) and had indicated previous sunscreen use (72%). Sunscreen use was higher among women and participants with a postgraduate education. Sunscreen knowledge was higher among women, participants with nonphotosensitive disorders, and participants with Fitzpatrick I, II, and III skin types. A total of 80% knew the worst time for sun exposure, but only 20.5% of the participants knew that sunscreen should be applied daily throughout the year, and 13.5% knew the correct minimum recommended SPF. A total of 34% were aware of the minimum time allowed for sunscreen application before sun exposure, and 20% were aware of the longest period allowed between reapplications. Only 4.5% knew the proper amount of sunscreen to cover the entire body. Conclusion:Our study revealed that most participants had heard of sunscreen, however their knowledge of the guidelines for sunscreen use was poor. Only 33% of the participants had received a recommendation for using sunscreen from their general practitioner or dermatologist. More comprehensive and directed efforts need to be made in counselling and educating these patients on proper sunscreen practice.

Background and objectives The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged healthcare systems worldwide. Various studies have revealed the negative impact of the pandemic on the education and mental health of medical students and residents. In this study, we aimed to explore the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical interns’ educational experience, clinical practice, and mental health. We also engage in a discussion on the compensatory methods that have been adopted to improve medical interns’ learning processes during the ongoing pandemic. Methods This cross-sectional survey-based study was conducted at the King Saud University Medical City (KSUMC) in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) from March to October 2020. The participants consisted of medical interns. The survey collected information on participants’ demographics, training, and the educational and psychological impact of the pandemic. Results The survey was distributed to 480 medical interns, of whom 345 (71.8%) participated. Most of our sample (75.6%) believed that the COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted their cumulative experience. Regarding the pandemic’s impact on training and education, it was found that the emergency department rotation was the most affected rotation (60.3%). The majority of the participants (55.9%) believed that all tracks have received equal education and the volume of patients seen by interns decreased by 91.9%. As for the compensatory methods, 73.3% reported the utilization of remote platforms. Regarding the pandemic’s mental health impact, 36% believed that it has affected their mental health, where increased stress levels were noticed in 47.8% of participants. Statistical significance was found in both Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) scores, which indicated that during the pandemic, 20.6% of the participants suffered from depression, and 13.9% had moderate to severe anxiety. Conclusions This study highlights the negative educational and psychological impact of COVID-19 on medical interns. With emerging infectious diseases on the rise, recognizing the impact of COVID-19 on medical interns is vital to improving interns’ educational experiences and mental health during future crises.

Down syndrome is the most common chromosomal disorder and may present with a combination of dysmorphic features, congenital heart disease, and immunological deficiency. The association between Down syndrome and psoriasis is unclear. The prevalence of psoriasis in patients with Down syndrome ranges from 0.5% to 8%. The safety of biologics in the treatment of Down syndrome-related psoriasis is still debated. Down syndrome results in mild immunological abnormalities; consequently, the risk of infectious complications during immunosuppressive therapy might be higher in this group of patients. We report a case of a 33-year-old male, a case of chronic plaque psoriasis, Down syndrome (DS), asthma, and hepatitis B. The patient was started on Calcipotriene 0.005%betamethasone 0.064% ointment, which failed to control the patient's psoriasis; thus, adalimumab was started. His response to adalimumab was significant, where over 70% improvement of the psoriatic lesions was seen.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: The introduction of biological treatments has revolutionized the management of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Multiple clinical trials have established the efficacy of biological agents in the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Nevertheless, there are no clear indications for optimal monitoring intervals during treatment. OBJECTIVES: Collect and analyze laboratory evaluation data from patients receiving biological therapy to provide a better understanding of the need for laboratory investigations before and during treatment with biological agents, and to analyze adverse events and other factors. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort SETTINGS: Tertiary care center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were collected from the electronic medical records of patients attending the dermatology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology clinics from June 2014 to June 2019. The laboratory parameters of patients who have received one of the TNF-alpha inhibitors (adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab) were collected starting at baseline and up to at least one year from treatment initiation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The time points at which patients developed significantly abnormal laboratory results during treatment with one of the TNF-alpha inhibitors. SAMPLE SIZE: 250 patients RESULTS: Most patients were treated with adalimumab (38.4%); a similar proportion (38%) with infliximab, whereas only 23.6% were treated with etanercept. The majority of the significant abnormal laboratory results occurred at baseline, 3–6 and 9–12 months. Most abnormalities were among patients using infliximab, followed by etanercept, and then adalimumab. The median number of laboratory abnormalities for dermatology patients was significantly lower than that for gastroenterology patients ( P <.001), and for rheumatology patients ( P =.002). CONCLUSIONS: Because dermatology patients showed a lower median number of laboratory abnormalities than patients treated by other specialties in our study, we believe that dermatology patients require less frequent laboratory monitoring. Therefore, we recommend laboratory evaluation at baseline, after 3–6 months, 1 year from the beginning of treatment, and annually thereafter for patients using TNF-alpha inhibitor agents. However, more frequent testing might be warranted according to patient comorbidities, concomitant medications, and physician judgment. LIMITATIONS: Single center and retrospective design. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None.