Although oral manifestations of sarcoidosis are unusual, physicians should be aware that this specific localization is frequently the first manifestation of the disease. Treatment modalities range from observation in asymptomatic patients to immunosuppressants for severe involvement.

Objective The present study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy of 2 educational tools for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by comparing a newly developed video tool, including storylines and testimonials, combined with a written booklet to the same written booklet alone. Methods We conducted a randomized controlled trial. Our primary outcome was disease knowledge. Secondary outcomes were decisional conflict, self‐efficacy, effective health care management, and satisfaction. Outcomes were measured before and after reviewing the materials, and 3 and 6 months later. Linear mixed‐effects models were performed to evaluate changes over time. Results In total, 221 participants received an educational video and booklet (n = 111) or a booklet alone (n = 110). The mean age was 50.8 years, mean disease duration was 4.8 years, 85% were female, and 24% had limited health literacy levels. Within groups, most outcomes improved between baseline and follow‐up, but there were no statistically significant differences across groups. Patients receiving the video and booklet were more likely than those receiving the booklet alone to rate the presentation as excellent for providing information about the impact of RA, medication options, evidence about medications, benefits of medication, and self‐care options. Factors significantly associated with greater improvements in knowledge and decisional conflict from baseline to 6 months included limited health literacy, lower educational level, and shorter disease duration. Conclusion Regardless of the delivery method, outcomes were improved up to 6 months after educational materials were delivered. Our findings support the implementation of self‐administered educational materials in clinical settings, as they can result in sustained improvements in disease knowledge and decisional conflict.

IMPORTANCE Hospitals can face significant clinical and financial challenges in caring for patients with social risk factors. Currently the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program stratifies hospitals by proportion of patients eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid when calculating payment penalties to account for the patient population. However, additional social risk factors should be considered. OBJECTIVE To evaluate 7 different definitions of social risk and understand the degree to which differing definitions identify the same hospitals caring for a high proportion of patients with social risk factors. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Across 18 publicly reported Centers for Medicare &Medicaid Services (CMS) hospital performance measures, highly disadvantaged hospitals were identified by the the proportion of patients with social risk factors using the following 7 commonly used definitions of social risk: living below the US poverty line, educational attainment of less than high school, unemployment, living in a crowded household, African American race (as a proxy for the social risk factor of exposure to racism), Medicaid coverage, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality index of socioeconomic status score. In this cross-sectional study, social risk factors were evaluated by measure because hospitals may serve a disadvantaged patient population for one measure but not another. Data were collected from

Objective: To propose and evaluate a novel approach for measuring hospital-level disparities according to the effect of a continuous, polysocial risk factor on those outcomes.Study Setting: Our cohort consisted of Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) patients 65 years and older admitted to acute care hospitals for one of six common conditions or procedures. Medicare administrative claims data for six hospital readmission measures including hospitalizations from July 2015 to June 2018 were used.Study Design: We adapted existing methodologies that were developed to report hospital-level disparities using dichotomous social risk factors (SRFs). The existing methods report disparities within and across hospitals; we developed and tested modified approaches for both methods using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Socioeconomic Status Index. We applied the adapted methodologies to six 30-day hospital readmission measures included in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program measures. We compared the within-and across-hospital results for each to those obtained from using the original methods and dichotomizing the AHRQ SES Index into "low" and "high" scores.Data Collection: We used Medicare FFS administrative claims data linked to U.S. Census data.Principal Findings: For all six readmission measures we find that, when compared with the existing methods, the methods for continuous SRFs provide disparity results for more facilities though across a narrower range of values. Measures of disparity based on this approach are moderately to highly correlated with those based on a dichotomous version of the same risk factor, while reflecting a fuller spectrum of risk. This approach represents an opportunity for detection of provider-level results that more closely align with underlying social risk. Conclusion:We have demonstrated the feasibility and utility of estimating hospital disparities of care using a continuous, polysocial risk factor. This approach expands the potential for reporting hospital-level disparities while better accounting for the multifactorial nature of social risk on hospital outcomes.

This study analyses new information on gene mutations in paragangliomas and puts them into a clinical context. A suspicion of malignancy is critical to determine the workup and surgical approach in adrenal (A-PGL) and extra-adrenal (E-PGL) paragangliomas (PGLs). Malignancy rates vary with location, family history, and gene tests results. Currently there is no algorithm incorporating the above information for clinical use. A sum of 1,821 articles were retrieved from PubMed using the search terms "paraganglioma genetics". Thirty-seven articles were selected of which 9 were analyzed. It was found that 599/2,487 (24%) patients affected with paragangliomas had a germline mutation. Of these 30.2% were mutations in SDHB, 25% VHL, 19.4% RET, 18.4% SDHD, 5.0% NF1, and 2.0% SDHC genes. A family history was positive in 18.1-64.3% of patients. Adrenal PGLs accounted for 55.1% in mutation (+) and 81.0% in mutation (-) patients (RR 1.2, p < 0.0001). Bilateral A-PGLs accounted for 56.4% in mutation (+) and 3.2% in mutation (-) patients (RR 8.7, p < 0.0001). E-PGL were found in 33.6% of mut+ and 17.3% of mut- (RR 1.7, p < 0.0001). In mutation (+) patients PGLs malignancy varied with location, adrenal (6.4%) thoraco-abdominal E-PGL (38%), H & N E-PGL (10%). Malignancy rates were 8.2% in mutation (-) and lower in mutation (+) PGLs except for SDHB 36.5% and SDHC 8.3%. Exclusion of a mutation lowered the probability of malignancy significantly in E-PGL (RR 0.03 (95% CI 0.1-0.6); p < 0.001). Mutation analysis provides valuable preoperative information to assess the risk of malignancy in A-PG and E-PGLs and should be considered in the work up of all E-PGL lesions.