I suspect that you have heard about or maybe read the recent Associated Press story reporting that four daycare workers in Hamilton, Miss., have been charged with felony child abuse for intentionally scaring the children “who didn’t clean up or act good” by wearing a Halloween mask and yelling in their faces. I can have some sympathy for those among us who choose to spend their days tending a flock of sometimes unruly and mischievous toddlers and preschoolers. But, I think one would be hard pressed to find very many adults who would condone the strategy of these misguided daycare providers. Not surprisingly, the parents of some of these children describe their children as traumatized and having disordered sleep.

The news report of this incident in Mississippi doesn’t tell us if these daycare providers had used this tactic in the past. One wonders whether they had found less dramatic verbal threats just weren’t as effective as they had hoped and so decided to go all out.

How effective is fear in changing behavior? Certainly, we have all experienced situations in which a frightening experience has caused us to avoid places, people, and activities. But, is a fear-focused strategy one that health care providers should include in their quiver as we try to mold patient behavior? As luck would have it, 2 weeks before this news story broke I encountered a global study from 84 countries that sought to answer this question (Affect Sci. 2022 Sep. doi: 10.1007/s42761-022-00128-3).

Using the WHO four-point advice about COVID prevention (stay home/avoid shops/use face covering/isolate if exposed) as a model the researchers around the world reviewed the responses of 16,000 individuals. They found that there was no difference in the effectiveness of the message whether it was framed as a negative (“you have so much to lose”) or a positive (“you have so much to gain”). However, investigators observed that the negatively framed presentations generated significantly more anxiety in the respondents. The authors of the paper conclude that if there is no significant difference in the effectiveness, why would we chose a negatively framed presentation that is likely to generate anxiety that we know is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. From a purely public health perspective, it doesn’t make sense and is counterproductive.

I guess if we look back to the old carrot and stick metaphor we shouldn’t be surprised by the findings in this paper. If one’s only goal is to get a group of young preschoolers to behave by scaring the b’geezes out of them with a mask or a threat of bodily punishment, then go for it. Scare tactics will probably work just as well as offering a well-chosen reward system. However, the devil is in the side effects. It’s the same argument that I give to parents who argue that spanking works. Of course it does, but it has a narrow margin for safety and can set up ripples of negative side effects that can destroy healthy parent-child relationships.

The bottom line of this story is the sad truth that somewhere along the line someone failed to effectively train these four daycare workers. But, do we as health care providers need to rethink our training? Have we forgotten our commitment to “First do no harm?” As we craft our messaging have we thought enough about the potential side effects of our attempts at scaring the public into following our suggestions?

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

I suspect that you have heard about or maybe read the recent Associated Press story reporting that four daycare workers in Hamilton, Miss., have been charged with felony child abuse for intentionally scaring the children “who didn’t clean up or act good” by wearing a Halloween mask and yelling in their faces. I can have some sympathy for those among us who choose to spend their days tending a flock of sometimes unruly and mischievous toddlers and preschoolers. But, I think one would be hard pressed to find very many adults who would condone the strategy of these misguided daycare providers. Not surprisingly, the parents of some of these children describe their children as traumatized and having disordered sleep.

The news report of this incident in Mississippi doesn’t tell us if these daycare providers had used this tactic in the past. One wonders whether they had found less dramatic verbal threats just weren’t as effective as they had hoped and so decided to go all out.

How effective is fear in changing behavior? Certainly, we have all experienced situations in which a frightening experience has caused us to avoid places, people, and activities. But, is a fear-focused strategy one that health care providers should include in their quiver as we try to mold patient behavior? As luck would have it, 2 weeks before this news story broke I encountered a global study from 84 countries that sought to answer this question (Affect Sci. 2022 Sep. doi: 10.1007/s42761-022-00128-3).

Using the WHO four-point advice about COVID prevention (stay home/avoid shops/use face covering/isolate if exposed) as a model the researchers around the world reviewed the responses of 16,000 individuals. They found that there was no difference in the effectiveness of the message whether it was framed as a negative (“you have so much to lose”) or a positive (“you have so much to gain”). However, investigators observed that the negatively framed presentations generated significantly more anxiety in the respondents. The authors of the paper conclude that if there is no significant difference in the effectiveness, why would we chose a negatively framed presentation that is likely to generate anxiety that we know is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. From a purely public health perspective, it doesn’t make sense and is counterproductive.

I guess if we look back to the old carrot and stick metaphor we shouldn’t be surprised by the findings in this paper. If one’s only goal is to get a group of young preschoolers to behave by scaring the b’geezes out of them with a mask or a threat of bodily punishment, then go for it. Scare tactics will probably work just as well as offering a well-chosen reward system. However, the devil is in the side effects. It’s the same argument that I give to parents who argue that spanking works. Of course it does, but it has a narrow margin for safety and can set up ripples of negative side effects that can destroy healthy parent-child relationships.

The bottom line of this story is the sad truth that somewhere along the line someone failed to effectively train these four daycare workers. But, do we as health care providers need to rethink our training? Have we forgotten our commitment to “First do no harm?” As we craft our messaging have we thought enough about the potential side effects of our attempts at scaring the public into following our suggestions?

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

I suspect that you have heard about or maybe read the recent Associated Press story reporting that four daycare workers in Hamilton, Miss., have been charged with felony child abuse for intentionally scaring the children “who didn’t clean up or act good” by wearing a Halloween mask and yelling in their faces. I can have some sympathy for those among us who choose to spend their days tending a flock of sometimes unruly and mischievous toddlers and preschoolers. But, I think one would be hard pressed to find very many adults who would condone the strategy of these misguided daycare providers. Not surprisingly, the parents of some of these children describe their children as traumatized and having disordered sleep.

The news report of this incident in Mississippi doesn’t tell us if these daycare providers had used this tactic in the past. One wonders whether they had found less dramatic verbal threats just weren’t as effective as they had hoped and so decided to go all out.

How effective is fear in changing behavior? Certainly, we have all experienced situations in which a frightening experience has caused us to avoid places, people, and activities. But, is a fear-focused strategy one that health care providers should include in their quiver as we try to mold patient behavior? As luck would have it, 2 weeks before this news story broke I encountered a global study from 84 countries that sought to answer this question (Affect Sci. 2022 Sep. doi: 10.1007/s42761-022-00128-3).

Using the WHO four-point advice about COVID prevention (stay home/avoid shops/use face covering/isolate if exposed) as a model the researchers around the world reviewed the responses of 16,000 individuals. They found that there was no difference in the effectiveness of the message whether it was framed as a negative (“you have so much to lose”) or a positive (“you have so much to gain”). However, investigators observed that the negatively framed presentations generated significantly more anxiety in the respondents. The authors of the paper conclude that if there is no significant difference in the effectiveness, why would we chose a negatively framed presentation that is likely to generate anxiety that we know is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. From a purely public health perspective, it doesn’t make sense and is counterproductive.

I guess if we look back to the old carrot and stick metaphor we shouldn’t be surprised by the findings in this paper. If one’s only goal is to get a group of young preschoolers to behave by scaring the b’geezes out of them with a mask or a threat of bodily punishment, then go for it. Scare tactics will probably work just as well as offering a well-chosen reward system. However, the devil is in the side effects. It’s the same argument that I give to parents who argue that spanking works. Of course it does, but it has a narrow margin for safety and can set up ripples of negative side effects that can destroy healthy parent-child relationships.

The bottom line of this story is the sad truth that somewhere along the line someone failed to effectively train these four daycare workers. But, do we as health care providers need to rethink our training? Have we forgotten our commitment to “First do no harm?” As we craft our messaging have we thought enough about the potential side effects of our attempts at scaring the public into following our suggestions?

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Perineuriomas are benign, slow-growing tumors derived from perineurial cells,¹ which form the structurally supportive perineurium that surrounds individual nerve fascicles.^2,3 Perineuriomas are classified into 2 main forms: intraneural or extraneural.⁴ Intraneural perineuriomas are found within the border of the peripheral nerve,⁵ while extraneural perineuriomas usually are found in soft tissue and skin. Extraneural perineuriomas can be further classified into variants based on their histologic appearance, including reticular, sclerosing, and plexiform subtypes. Extraneural perineuriomas usually present on the extremities or trunk of young to middle-aged adults as a well-circumscribed, painless, subcutaneous masses.¹ These tumors are especially unusual in children.⁴ We present 2 extraneural perineurioma cases in children, and we review the pertinent diagnostic features of perineurioma as well as the presentation in the pediatric population.

Case Reports

Patient 1—A 10-year-old boy with a history of cerebral palsy and related comorbidities presented to the clinic for evaluation of a lesion on the thigh with no associated pain, irritation, erythema, or drainage. Physical examination revealed a soft, pedunculated, mobile nodule on the right medial thigh. An elliptical excision was performed. Gross examination demonstrated a 2.0×2.0×1.8-cm polypoid nodule. Histologic examination showed a dermal-based proliferation of bland spindle cells (Figure 1). The cytomorphology was characterized by elongated tapering nuclei and many areas with delicate bipolar cytoplasmic processes. The constituent cells were arranged in a whorled pattern in a variably myxoid to collagenous stroma. The tumor cells were multifocally positive for CD34; focally positive for smooth muscle actin (SMA); and negative for S-100, epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), GLUT1, claudin-1, STAT6, and desmin. Rb protein was intact. The CD34 immunostain highlighted the cytoplasmic processes. Electron microscopy was performed because the immunohistochemical results were nonspecific despite the favorable histologic features for perineurioma and showed pinocytic vesicles with delicate cytoplasmic processes, characteristic of perineurioma (Figure 2). Follow-up visits were related to the management of multiple comorbidities; no known recurrence of the lesion was documented.

Patient 2—A 15-year-old adolescent boy with no notable medical history presented to the pediatric clinic for a bump on the right upper arm of 4 to 5 months’ duration. He did not recall an injury to the area and denied change in size, redness, bruising, or pain of the lesion. Ultrasonography demonstrated a 2.6×2.3×1.3-cm hypoechoic and slightly heterogeneous, well-circumscribed, subcutaneous mass with internal vascularity. The patient was then referred to a pediatric surgeon. The clinical differential included a lipoma, lymphadenopathy, or sebaceous cyst. An excision was performed. Gross inspection demonstrated a 7-g, 2.8×2.6×1.8-cm, homogeneous, tan-pink, rubbery nodule with minimal surrounding soft tissue. Histologic examination showed a bland proliferation of spindle cells with storiform and whorled patterns (Figure 3). No notable nuclear atypia or necrosis was identified. The tumor cells were focally positive for EMA (Figure 4), claudin-1, and CD34 and negative for S-100, SOX10, GLUT1, desmin, STAT6, pankeratin AE1/AE3, and SMA. The diagnosis of perineurioma was rendered. No recurrence of the lesion was appreciated clinically on a 6-month follow-up examination.

Comment

Characteristics of Perineuriomas—On gross evaluation, perineuriomas are firm, gray-white, and well circumscribed but not encapsulated. Histologically, perineuriomas can have a storiform, whorled, or lamellar pattern of spindle cells. Perivascular whorls can be a histologic clue. The spindle cells are bland appearing and typically are elongated and slender but can appear slightly ovoid and plump. The background stroma can be myxoid, collagenous, or mixed. There usually is no atypia, and mitotic figures are rare.^2,3,6,7 Intraneural perineuriomas vary architecturally in that they display a unique onion bulb–like appearance in which whorls of cytoplasmic material of variable sizes surround central axons.³

Diagnosis—The diagnosis of perineuriomas usually requires characteristic immunohistochemical and sometimes ultrastructural features. Perineuriomas are positive for EMA and GLUT1 and variable for CD34.⁶ Approximately 20% to 91% will be positive for claudin-1, a tight junction protein associated with perineuriomas.⁸ Of note, EMA and GLUT1 usually are positive in both neoplastic and nonneoplastic perineurial cells.^9,10 Occasionally, these tumors can be focally positive for SMA and negative for S-100 and glial fibrillary acidic protein. The bipolar, thin, delicate, cytoplasmic processes with long-tapering nuclei may be easier to appreciate on electron microscopy than on conventional light microscopy. In addition, the cells contain pinocytotic vesicles and a discontinuous external lamina, which may be helpful for diagnosis.¹⁰

Genetics—Genetic alterations in perineurioma continue to be elucidated. Although many soft tissue perineuriomas possess deletion of chromosome 22q material, this is not a consistent finding and is not pathognomonic. Notably, the NF2 tumor suppressor gene is found on chromosome 22.¹¹ For the sclerosing variant of perineurioma, rearrangements or deletions of chromosome 10q have been described. A study of 14 soft tissue/extraneural perineuriomas using whole-exome sequencing and single nucleotide polymorphism array showed 6 cases of recurrent chromosome 22q deletions containing the NF2 locus and 4 cases with a previously unreported finding of chromosome 17q deletions containing the NF1 locus that were mutually exclusive events in all but 1 case.¹² Although perineuriomas can harbor NF1 or NF2 mutations, perineuriomas are not considered to be associated with neurofibromatosis type 1 or 2 (NF1 or NF2, respectively). Patients with NF1 or NF2 and perineurioma are exceedingly rare. One pediatric patient with both soft tissue perineurioma and NF1 has been reported in the literature.¹³

Differential Diagnosis—Perineuriomas should be distinguished from other benign neural neoplasms of the skin and soft tissue. Commonly considered in the differential diagnosis is schwannoma and neurofibroma. Schwannomas are encapsulated epineurial nerve sheath tumors comprised of a neoplastic proliferation of Schwann cells. Schwannomas morphologically differ from perineuriomas because of the presence of the hypercellular Antoni A with Verocay bodies and the hypocellular myxoid Antoni B patterns of spindle cells with elongated wavy nuclei and tapered ends. Other features include hyalinized vessels, hemosiderin deposition, cystic degeneration, and/or degenerative atypia.^3,14 Importantly, the constituent cells of schwannomas are positive for S-100 and SOX10 and negative for EMA.³ Neurofibromas consist of fascicles and whorls of Schwann cells in a background myxoid stroma with scattered mast cells, lymphocytes, fibroblasts, and perineurial cells. Similar to schwannomas, neurofibromas also are positive for S-100 and negative for EMA.^3,14 Neurofibromas can have either a somatic or germline mutation of the biallelic NF1 gene on chromosome 17q11.2 with subsequent loss of protein neurofibromin activity.¹⁵ Less common but still a consideration are the hybrid peripheral nerve sheath tumors that may present with a biphasic or intermingled morphology. Combinations include neurofibroma-schwannoma, schwannoma-perineurioma, and neurofibroma-perineurioma. The hybrid schwannoma-perineurioma has a mixture of thin and plump spindle cells with tapered nuclei as well as patchy S-100 positivity corresponding to schwannian areas. Similarly, S-100 will highlight the wavy Schwann cells in neurofibroma-perineurioma as well as CD34-highlighting fibroblasts.^7,15 In both aforementioned hybrid tumors, EMA will be positive in the perineurial areas. Another potential diagnostic consideration that can occur in both pediatric and adult populations is dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP), which is comprised of a dermal proliferation of monomorphic fusiform spindle cells. Although both perineuriomas and DFSP can have a storiform architecture, DFSP is more asymmetric and infiltrative. Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans is recognized in areas of individual adipocyte trapping, referred to as honeycombing. Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans typically does not express EMA, though the sclerosing variant of DFSP has been reported to sometimes demonstrate focal EMA reactivity.^11,14,16 For morphologically challenging cases, cytogenetic studies will show t(17;22) translocation fusing the COL1A1 and PDGFRB genes.¹⁶ Finally, for subcutaneous or deep-seated tumors, one also may consider other mesenchymal neoplasms, including solitary fibrous tumor, low-grade fibromyxoid sarcoma, or low-grade malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST).¹¹

Management—Perineuriomas are considered benign. The presence of mitotic figures, pleomorphism, and degenerative nuclear atypia akin to ancient change, as seen in ancient schwannoma, does not affect their benign clinical behavior. Treatment of a perineurioma typically is surgical excision with conservative margins and minimal chance of recurrence.^1,11 So-called malignant perineuriomas are better classified as MPNSTs with perineural differentiation or perineurial MPNST. They also are positive for EMA and may be distinguished from perineurioma by the presence of major atypia and an infiltrative growth pattern.^17,18

Considerations in the Pediatric Population—Few pediatric soft tissue perineuriomas have been reported. A clinicopathologic analysis by Hornick and Fletcher¹ of patients with soft tissue perineurioma showed that only 6 of 81 patients were younger than 20 years. The youngest reported case of perineurioma occurred as an extraneural perineurioma on the scalp in an infant.¹⁹ Only 1 soft tissue perineural MPNST has been reported in the pediatric population, arising on the face of an 11-year-old boy. In a case series of 11 pediatric perineuriomas, including extraneural and intraneural, there was no evidence of recurrence or metastasis at follow-up.⁴

Conclusion

Perineuriomas are rare benign peripheral nerve sheath tumors with unique histologic and immunohistochemical features. Soft tissue perineuriomas in the pediatric population are an important diagnostic consideration, especially for the pediatrician or dermatologist when encountering a well-circumscribed nodular soft tissue lesion of the extremity or when encountering a neural-appearing tumor in the subcutaneous tissue.

Acknowledgment—We would like to thank Christopher Fletcher, MD (Boston, Massachusetts), for his expertise in outside consultation for patient 1.

Perineuriomas are benign, slow-growing tumors derived from perineurial cells,¹ which form the structurally supportive perineurium that surrounds individual nerve fascicles.^2,3 Perineuriomas are classified into 2 main forms: intraneural or extraneural.⁴ Intraneural perineuriomas are found within the border of the peripheral nerve,⁵ while extraneural perineuriomas usually are found in soft tissue and skin. Extraneural perineuriomas can be further classified into variants based on their histologic appearance, including reticular, sclerosing, and plexiform subtypes. Extraneural perineuriomas usually present on the extremities or trunk of young to middle-aged adults as a well-circumscribed, painless, subcutaneous masses.¹ These tumors are especially unusual in children.⁴ We present 2 extraneural perineurioma cases in children, and we review the pertinent diagnostic features of perineurioma as well as the presentation in the pediatric population.

Case Reports

Patient 1—A 10-year-old boy with a history of cerebral palsy and related comorbidities presented to the clinic for evaluation of a lesion on the thigh with no associated pain, irritation, erythema, or drainage. Physical examination revealed a soft, pedunculated, mobile nodule on the right medial thigh. An elliptical excision was performed. Gross examination demonstrated a 2.0×2.0×1.8-cm polypoid nodule. Histologic examination showed a dermal-based proliferation of bland spindle cells (Figure 1). The cytomorphology was characterized by elongated tapering nuclei and many areas with delicate bipolar cytoplasmic processes. The constituent cells were arranged in a whorled pattern in a variably myxoid to collagenous stroma. The tumor cells were multifocally positive for CD34; focally positive for smooth muscle actin (SMA); and negative for S-100, epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), GLUT1, claudin-1, STAT6, and desmin. Rb protein was intact. The CD34 immunostain highlighted the cytoplasmic processes. Electron microscopy was performed because the immunohistochemical results were nonspecific despite the favorable histologic features for perineurioma and showed pinocytic vesicles with delicate cytoplasmic processes, characteristic of perineurioma (Figure 2). Follow-up visits were related to the management of multiple comorbidities; no known recurrence of the lesion was documented.

Patient 2—A 15-year-old adolescent boy with no notable medical history presented to the pediatric clinic for a bump on the right upper arm of 4 to 5 months’ duration. He did not recall an injury to the area and denied change in size, redness, bruising, or pain of the lesion. Ultrasonography demonstrated a 2.6×2.3×1.3-cm hypoechoic and slightly heterogeneous, well-circumscribed, subcutaneous mass with internal vascularity. The patient was then referred to a pediatric surgeon. The clinical differential included a lipoma, lymphadenopathy, or sebaceous cyst. An excision was performed. Gross inspection demonstrated a 7-g, 2.8×2.6×1.8-cm, homogeneous, tan-pink, rubbery nodule with minimal surrounding soft tissue. Histologic examination showed a bland proliferation of spindle cells with storiform and whorled patterns (Figure 3). No notable nuclear atypia or necrosis was identified. The tumor cells were focally positive for EMA (Figure 4), claudin-1, and CD34 and negative for S-100, SOX10, GLUT1, desmin, STAT6, pankeratin AE1/AE3, and SMA. The diagnosis of perineurioma was rendered. No recurrence of the lesion was appreciated clinically on a 6-month follow-up examination.

Comment

Characteristics of Perineuriomas—On gross evaluation, perineuriomas are firm, gray-white, and well circumscribed but not encapsulated. Histologically, perineuriomas can have a storiform, whorled, or lamellar pattern of spindle cells. Perivascular whorls can be a histologic clue. The spindle cells are bland appearing and typically are elongated and slender but can appear slightly ovoid and plump. The background stroma can be myxoid, collagenous, or mixed. There usually is no atypia, and mitotic figures are rare.^2,3,6,7 Intraneural perineuriomas vary architecturally in that they display a unique onion bulb–like appearance in which whorls of cytoplasmic material of variable sizes surround central axons.³

Diagnosis—The diagnosis of perineuriomas usually requires characteristic immunohistochemical and sometimes ultrastructural features. Perineuriomas are positive for EMA and GLUT1 and variable for CD34.⁶ Approximately 20% to 91% will be positive for claudin-1, a tight junction protein associated with perineuriomas.⁸ Of note, EMA and GLUT1 usually are positive in both neoplastic and nonneoplastic perineurial cells.^9,10 Occasionally, these tumors can be focally positive for SMA and negative for S-100 and glial fibrillary acidic protein. The bipolar, thin, delicate, cytoplasmic processes with long-tapering nuclei may be easier to appreciate on electron microscopy than on conventional light microscopy. In addition, the cells contain pinocytotic vesicles and a discontinuous external lamina, which may be helpful for diagnosis.¹⁰

Genetics—Genetic alterations in perineurioma continue to be elucidated. Although many soft tissue perineuriomas possess deletion of chromosome 22q material, this is not a consistent finding and is not pathognomonic. Notably, the NF2 tumor suppressor gene is found on chromosome 22.¹¹ For the sclerosing variant of perineurioma, rearrangements or deletions of chromosome 10q have been described. A study of 14 soft tissue/extraneural perineuriomas using whole-exome sequencing and single nucleotide polymorphism array showed 6 cases of recurrent chromosome 22q deletions containing the NF2 locus and 4 cases with a previously unreported finding of chromosome 17q deletions containing the NF1 locus that were mutually exclusive events in all but 1 case.¹² Although perineuriomas can harbor NF1 or NF2 mutations, perineuriomas are not considered to be associated with neurofibromatosis type 1 or 2 (NF1 or NF2, respectively). Patients with NF1 or NF2 and perineurioma are exceedingly rare. One pediatric patient with both soft tissue perineurioma and NF1 has been reported in the literature.¹³

Differential Diagnosis—Perineuriomas should be distinguished from other benign neural neoplasms of the skin and soft tissue. Commonly considered in the differential diagnosis is schwannoma and neurofibroma. Schwannomas are encapsulated epineurial nerve sheath tumors comprised of a neoplastic proliferation of Schwann cells. Schwannomas morphologically differ from perineuriomas because of the presence of the hypercellular Antoni A with Verocay bodies and the hypocellular myxoid Antoni B patterns of spindle cells with elongated wavy nuclei and tapered ends. Other features include hyalinized vessels, hemosiderin deposition, cystic degeneration, and/or degenerative atypia.^3,14 Importantly, the constituent cells of schwannomas are positive for S-100 and SOX10 and negative for EMA.³ Neurofibromas consist of fascicles and whorls of Schwann cells in a background myxoid stroma with scattered mast cells, lymphocytes, fibroblasts, and perineurial cells. Similar to schwannomas, neurofibromas also are positive for S-100 and negative for EMA.^3,14 Neurofibromas can have either a somatic or germline mutation of the biallelic NF1 gene on chromosome 17q11.2 with subsequent loss of protein neurofibromin activity.¹⁵ Less common but still a consideration are the hybrid peripheral nerve sheath tumors that may present with a biphasic or intermingled morphology. Combinations include neurofibroma-schwannoma, schwannoma-perineurioma, and neurofibroma-perineurioma. The hybrid schwannoma-perineurioma has a mixture of thin and plump spindle cells with tapered nuclei as well as patchy S-100 positivity corresponding to schwannian areas. Similarly, S-100 will highlight the wavy Schwann cells in neurofibroma-perineurioma as well as CD34-highlighting fibroblasts.^7,15 In both aforementioned hybrid tumors, EMA will be positive in the perineurial areas. Another potential diagnostic consideration that can occur in both pediatric and adult populations is dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP), which is comprised of a dermal proliferation of monomorphic fusiform spindle cells. Although both perineuriomas and DFSP can have a storiform architecture, DFSP is more asymmetric and infiltrative. Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans is recognized in areas of individual adipocyte trapping, referred to as honeycombing. Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans typically does not express EMA, though the sclerosing variant of DFSP has been reported to sometimes demonstrate focal EMA reactivity.^11,14,16 For morphologically challenging cases, cytogenetic studies will show t(17;22) translocation fusing the COL1A1 and PDGFRB genes.¹⁶ Finally, for subcutaneous or deep-seated tumors, one also may consider other mesenchymal neoplasms, including solitary fibrous tumor, low-grade fibromyxoid sarcoma, or low-grade malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST).¹¹

Management—Perineuriomas are considered benign. The presence of mitotic figures, pleomorphism, and degenerative nuclear atypia akin to ancient change, as seen in ancient schwannoma, does not affect their benign clinical behavior. Treatment of a perineurioma typically is surgical excision with conservative margins and minimal chance of recurrence.^1,11 So-called malignant perineuriomas are better classified as MPNSTs with perineural differentiation or perineurial MPNST. They also are positive for EMA and may be distinguished from perineurioma by the presence of major atypia and an infiltrative growth pattern.^17,18

Considerations in the Pediatric Population—Few pediatric soft tissue perineuriomas have been reported. A clinicopathologic analysis by Hornick and Fletcher¹ of patients with soft tissue perineurioma showed that only 6 of 81 patients were younger than 20 years. The youngest reported case of perineurioma occurred as an extraneural perineurioma on the scalp in an infant.¹⁹ Only 1 soft tissue perineural MPNST has been reported in the pediatric population, arising on the face of an 11-year-old boy. In a case series of 11 pediatric perineuriomas, including extraneural and intraneural, there was no evidence of recurrence or metastasis at follow-up.⁴

Conclusion

Perineuriomas are rare benign peripheral nerve sheath tumors with unique histologic and immunohistochemical features. Soft tissue perineuriomas in the pediatric population are an important diagnostic consideration, especially for the pediatrician or dermatologist when encountering a well-circumscribed nodular soft tissue lesion of the extremity or when encountering a neural-appearing tumor in the subcutaneous tissue.

Acknowledgment—We would like to thank Christopher Fletcher, MD (Boston, Massachusetts), for his expertise in outside consultation for patient 1.

Perineuriomas are benign, slow-growing tumors derived from perineurial cells,¹ which form the structurally supportive perineurium that surrounds individual nerve fascicles.^2,3 Perineuriomas are classified into 2 main forms: intraneural or extraneural.⁴ Intraneural perineuriomas are found within the border of the peripheral nerve,⁵ while extraneural perineuriomas usually are found in soft tissue and skin. Extraneural perineuriomas can be further classified into variants based on their histologic appearance, including reticular, sclerosing, and plexiform subtypes. Extraneural perineuriomas usually present on the extremities or trunk of young to middle-aged adults as a well-circumscribed, painless, subcutaneous masses.¹ These tumors are especially unusual in children.⁴ We present 2 extraneural perineurioma cases in children, and we review the pertinent diagnostic features of perineurioma as well as the presentation in the pediatric population.

Case Reports

Patient 1—A 10-year-old boy with a history of cerebral palsy and related comorbidities presented to the clinic for evaluation of a lesion on the thigh with no associated pain, irritation, erythema, or drainage. Physical examination revealed a soft, pedunculated, mobile nodule on the right medial thigh. An elliptical excision was performed. Gross examination demonstrated a 2.0×2.0×1.8-cm polypoid nodule. Histologic examination showed a dermal-based proliferation of bland spindle cells (Figure 1). The cytomorphology was characterized by elongated tapering nuclei and many areas with delicate bipolar cytoplasmic processes. The constituent cells were arranged in a whorled pattern in a variably myxoid to collagenous stroma. The tumor cells were multifocally positive for CD34; focally positive for smooth muscle actin (SMA); and negative for S-100, epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), GLUT1, claudin-1, STAT6, and desmin. Rb protein was intact. The CD34 immunostain highlighted the cytoplasmic processes. Electron microscopy was performed because the immunohistochemical results were nonspecific despite the favorable histologic features for perineurioma and showed pinocytic vesicles with delicate cytoplasmic processes, characteristic of perineurioma (Figure 2). Follow-up visits were related to the management of multiple comorbidities; no known recurrence of the lesion was documented.

Patient 2—A 15-year-old adolescent boy with no notable medical history presented to the pediatric clinic for a bump on the right upper arm of 4 to 5 months’ duration. He did not recall an injury to the area and denied change in size, redness, bruising, or pain of the lesion. Ultrasonography demonstrated a 2.6×2.3×1.3-cm hypoechoic and slightly heterogeneous, well-circumscribed, subcutaneous mass with internal vascularity. The patient was then referred to a pediatric surgeon. The clinical differential included a lipoma, lymphadenopathy, or sebaceous cyst. An excision was performed. Gross inspection demonstrated a 7-g, 2.8×2.6×1.8-cm, homogeneous, tan-pink, rubbery nodule with minimal surrounding soft tissue. Histologic examination showed a bland proliferation of spindle cells with storiform and whorled patterns (Figure 3). No notable nuclear atypia or necrosis was identified. The tumor cells were focally positive for EMA (Figure 4), claudin-1, and CD34 and negative for S-100, SOX10, GLUT1, desmin, STAT6, pankeratin AE1/AE3, and SMA. The diagnosis of perineurioma was rendered. No recurrence of the lesion was appreciated clinically on a 6-month follow-up examination.

Comment

Characteristics of Perineuriomas—On gross evaluation, perineuriomas are firm, gray-white, and well circumscribed but not encapsulated. Histologically, perineuriomas can have a storiform, whorled, or lamellar pattern of spindle cells. Perivascular whorls can be a histologic clue. The spindle cells are bland appearing and typically are elongated and slender but can appear slightly ovoid and plump. The background stroma can be myxoid, collagenous, or mixed. There usually is no atypia, and mitotic figures are rare.^2,3,6,7 Intraneural perineuriomas vary architecturally in that they display a unique onion bulb–like appearance in which whorls of cytoplasmic material of variable sizes surround central axons.³

Diagnosis—The diagnosis of perineuriomas usually requires characteristic immunohistochemical and sometimes ultrastructural features. Perineuriomas are positive for EMA and GLUT1 and variable for CD34.⁶ Approximately 20% to 91% will be positive for claudin-1, a tight junction protein associated with perineuriomas.⁸ Of note, EMA and GLUT1 usually are positive in both neoplastic and nonneoplastic perineurial cells.^9,10 Occasionally, these tumors can be focally positive for SMA and negative for S-100 and glial fibrillary acidic protein. The bipolar, thin, delicate, cytoplasmic processes with long-tapering nuclei may be easier to appreciate on electron microscopy than on conventional light microscopy. In addition, the cells contain pinocytotic vesicles and a discontinuous external lamina, which may be helpful for diagnosis.¹⁰

Genetics—Genetic alterations in perineurioma continue to be elucidated. Although many soft tissue perineuriomas possess deletion of chromosome 22q material, this is not a consistent finding and is not pathognomonic. Notably, the NF2 tumor suppressor gene is found on chromosome 22.¹¹ For the sclerosing variant of perineurioma, rearrangements or deletions of chromosome 10q have been described. A study of 14 soft tissue/extraneural perineuriomas using whole-exome sequencing and single nucleotide polymorphism array showed 6 cases of recurrent chromosome 22q deletions containing the NF2 locus and 4 cases with a previously unreported finding of chromosome 17q deletions containing the NF1 locus that were mutually exclusive events in all but 1 case.¹² Although perineuriomas can harbor NF1 or NF2 mutations, perineuriomas are not considered to be associated with neurofibromatosis type 1 or 2 (NF1 or NF2, respectively). Patients with NF1 or NF2 and perineurioma are exceedingly rare. One pediatric patient with both soft tissue perineurioma and NF1 has been reported in the literature.¹³

Differential Diagnosis—Perineuriomas should be distinguished from other benign neural neoplasms of the skin and soft tissue. Commonly considered in the differential diagnosis is schwannoma and neurofibroma. Schwannomas are encapsulated epineurial nerve sheath tumors comprised of a neoplastic proliferation of Schwann cells. Schwannomas morphologically differ from perineuriomas because of the presence of the hypercellular Antoni A with Verocay bodies and the hypocellular myxoid Antoni B patterns of spindle cells with elongated wavy nuclei and tapered ends. Other features include hyalinized vessels, hemosiderin deposition, cystic degeneration, and/or degenerative atypia.^3,14 Importantly, the constituent cells of schwannomas are positive for S-100 and SOX10 and negative for EMA.³ Neurofibromas consist of fascicles and whorls of Schwann cells in a background myxoid stroma with scattered mast cells, lymphocytes, fibroblasts, and perineurial cells. Similar to schwannomas, neurofibromas also are positive for S-100 and negative for EMA.^3,14 Neurofibromas can have either a somatic or germline mutation of the biallelic NF1 gene on chromosome 17q11.2 with subsequent loss of protein neurofibromin activity.¹⁵ Less common but still a consideration are the hybrid peripheral nerve sheath tumors that may present with a biphasic or intermingled morphology. Combinations include neurofibroma-schwannoma, schwannoma-perineurioma, and neurofibroma-perineurioma. The hybrid schwannoma-perineurioma has a mixture of thin and plump spindle cells with tapered nuclei as well as patchy S-100 positivity corresponding to schwannian areas. Similarly, S-100 will highlight the wavy Schwann cells in neurofibroma-perineurioma as well as CD34-highlighting fibroblasts.^7,15 In both aforementioned hybrid tumors, EMA will be positive in the perineurial areas. Another potential diagnostic consideration that can occur in both pediatric and adult populations is dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP), which is comprised of a dermal proliferation of monomorphic fusiform spindle cells. Although both perineuriomas and DFSP can have a storiform architecture, DFSP is more asymmetric and infiltrative. Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans is recognized in areas of individual adipocyte trapping, referred to as honeycombing. Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans typically does not express EMA, though the sclerosing variant of DFSP has been reported to sometimes demonstrate focal EMA reactivity.^11,14,16 For morphologically challenging cases, cytogenetic studies will show t(17;22) translocation fusing the COL1A1 and PDGFRB genes.¹⁶ Finally, for subcutaneous or deep-seated tumors, one also may consider other mesenchymal neoplasms, including solitary fibrous tumor, low-grade fibromyxoid sarcoma, or low-grade malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST).¹¹

Management—Perineuriomas are considered benign. The presence of mitotic figures, pleomorphism, and degenerative nuclear atypia akin to ancient change, as seen in ancient schwannoma, does not affect their benign clinical behavior. Treatment of a perineurioma typically is surgical excision with conservative margins and minimal chance of recurrence.^1,11 So-called malignant perineuriomas are better classified as MPNSTs with perineural differentiation or perineurial MPNST. They also are positive for EMA and may be distinguished from perineurioma by the presence of major atypia and an infiltrative growth pattern.^17,18

Considerations in the Pediatric Population—Few pediatric soft tissue perineuriomas have been reported. A clinicopathologic analysis by Hornick and Fletcher¹ of patients with soft tissue perineurioma showed that only 6 of 81 patients were younger than 20 years. The youngest reported case of perineurioma occurred as an extraneural perineurioma on the scalp in an infant.¹⁹ Only 1 soft tissue perineural MPNST has been reported in the pediatric population, arising on the face of an 11-year-old boy. In a case series of 11 pediatric perineuriomas, including extraneural and intraneural, there was no evidence of recurrence or metastasis at follow-up.⁴

Conclusion

Perineuriomas are rare benign peripheral nerve sheath tumors with unique histologic and immunohistochemical features. Soft tissue perineuriomas in the pediatric population are an important diagnostic consideration, especially for the pediatrician or dermatologist when encountering a well-circumscribed nodular soft tissue lesion of the extremity or when encountering a neural-appearing tumor in the subcutaneous tissue.

Acknowledgment—We would like to thank Christopher Fletcher, MD (Boston, Massachusetts), for his expertise in outside consultation for patient 1.

Atopic dermatitis (AD), or eczema, is a common inflammatory skin disease notorious for its chronic, relapsing, and often frustrating disease course. Although as many as 25% of children in the United States are affected by this condition and its impact on the quality of life of affected patients and families is profound,^1-3 therapeutic advances in the pediatric population have been fairly limited until recently.

Over the last 10 years, there has been robust investigation into pediatric AD therapeutics, with many topical and systemic medications either recently approved or under clinical investigation. These developments are changing the landscape of the management of pediatric AD and raise a set of fascinating questions about how early and aggressive intervention might change the course of this disease. We discuss current limitations in the field that may be addressed with additional research.

New Topical Medications

In the last several years, there has been a rapid increase in efforts to develop new topical agents to manage AD. Until the beginning of the 21st century, the dermatologist’s arsenal was limited to topical corticosteroids (TCs). In the early 2000s, attention shifted to topical calcineurin inhibitors as nonsteroidal alternatives when the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved topical tacrolimus and pimecrolimus for AD. In 2016, crisaborole (a phosphodiesterase-4 [PDE4] inhibitor) was approved by the FDA for use in mild to moderate AD in patients 2 years and older, marking a new age of development for topical AD therapies. In 2021, the FDA approved ruxolitinib (a topical Janus kinase [JAK] 1/2 inhibitor) for use in mild to moderate AD in patients 12 years and older.

Roflumilast (ARQ-151) and difamilast (OPA-15406)(members of the PDE4 inhibitor class) are undergoing investigation for pediatric AD. A phase 3 clinical trial for roflumilast for AD is underway (ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT04845620); it is already approved for psoriasis in patients 12 years and older. A phase 3 trial of difamilast (NCT03911401) was recently completed, with results supporting the drug’s safety and efficacy in AD management.⁴ Efforts to synthesize new better-targeted PDE4 inhibitors are ongoing.⁵

Tapinarof (a novel aryl hydrocarbon receptor-modulating agent) is approved for psoriasis in adults, and a phase 3 trial for management of pediatric AD is underway (NCT05032859) after phase 2 trials revealed promising results.⁶

Lastly, the microbiome is a target for AD topical therapies. A recently completed phase 1 trial of bacteriotherapy with Staphylococcus hominis A9 transplant lotion showed promising results (NCT03151148).⁷ Although this bacteriotherapy technique is early in development and has been studied only in adult patients, results are exciting because they represent a gateway to a largely unexplored realm of potential future therapies.

Standard of Care—How will these new topical therapies impact our standard of care for pediatric AD patients? Topical corticosteroids are still a pillar of topical AD therapy, but the potential for nonsteroidal topical agents as alternatives and used in combination therapeutic regimens has expanded exponentially. It is uncertain how we might individualize regimens tailored to patient-specific factors because the standard approach has been to test drugs as monotherapy, with vehicle comparisons or with reference medications in Europe.

Newer topical nonsteroidal agents may offer several opportunities. First, they may help avoid local and systemic adverse effects that often limit the use of current standard therapy.⁸ This capability may prove essential in bridging TC treatments and serving as long-term maintenance therapies to decrease the frequency of eczema flares. Second, they can alleviate the need for different medication strengths for different body regions, thereby allowing for simplification of regimens and potentially increased adherence and decreased disease burden—a boon to affected patients and caregivers.

Although the efficacy and long-term safety profile of these new drugs require further study, it does not seem unreasonable to look forward to achieving levels of optimization and individualization with topical regimens for AD in the near future that makes flares in patients with mild to moderate AD a phenomenon of the past.

Advances in Systemic Therapy

Systemic therapeutics in pediatric AD also recently entered an exciting era of development. Traditional systemic agents, including cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, and mycophenolate mofetil, have existed for decades but have not been widely utilized for moderate to severe AD in the United States, especially in the pediatric population, likely because these drugs lacked FDA approval and they can cause a range of adverse effects, including notable immunosuppression.⁹

Introduction and approval of dupilumab in 2017 by the FDA was revolutionary in this field. As a monoclonal antibody targeted against IL-4 and IL-13, dupilumab has consistently demonstrated strong long-term efficacy for pediatric AD and has an acceptable safety profile in children and adolescents.^10-14 Expansion of the label to include children as young as 6 months with moderate to severe AD seems an important milestone in pediatric AD care.

Since the approval of dupilumab for adolescents and children aged 6 to 12 years, global experience has supported expanded use of systemic agents for patients who have an inadequate response to TCs and previously approved nonsteroidal topical agents. How expansive the use of systemics will be in younger children depends on how their long-term use impacts the disease course, whether therapy is disease modifying, and whether early use can curb the development of comorbidities.

Investigations into targeted systemic therapeutics for eczematous dermatitis are not limited to dupilumab. In a study of adolescents as young as 12 years, tralokinumab (an IL-13 pathway inhibitor) demonstrated an Eczema Area Severity Index-75 of 27.8% to 28.6% and a mean decrease in the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis index of 27.5 to 29.1, with minimal adverse effects.¹⁵ Lebrikizumab, another biologic IL-13 inhibitor with strong published safety and efficacy data in adults, has completed short- and longer-term studies in adolescents (NCT04178967 and NCT04146363).¹⁶ The drug received FDA Fast Track designation for moderate to severe AD in patients 12 years and older after showing positive data.¹⁷

This push to targeted therapy stretches beyond monoclonal antibodies. In the last few years, oral JAK inhibitors have emerged as a new class of systemic therapy for eczematous dermatitis. Upadacitinib, a JAK1 selective inhibitor, was approved by the FDA in 2022 for patients 12 years and older with AD and has data that supports its efficacy in adolescents and adults.¹⁸ Other JAK inhibitors including the selective JAK1 inhibitor abrocitinib and the combined JAK1/2 inhibitor baricitinib are being studied for pediatric AD (NCT04564755, NCT03422822, and NCT03952559), with most evidence to date supporting their safety and efficacy, at least over the short-term.¹⁹

The study of these and other advanced systemic therapies for eczematous dermatitis is transforming the toolbox for pediatric AD care. Although long-term data are lacking for some of these medications, it is possible that newer agents may decrease reliance on older immunosuppressants, such as systemic corticosteroids, cyclosporine, and methotrexate. Unanswered questions include: How and which systemic medications may alter the course of the disease? What is the disease modification for AD? What is the impact on comorbidities over time?

What’s Missing?

The field of pediatric AD has experienced exciting new developments with the emergence of targeted therapeutics, but those new agents require more long-term study, though we already have longer-term data on crisaborole and dupilumab.^10-14,20 Studies of the long-term use of these new treatments on comorbidities of pediatric AD—mental health outcomes, cardiovascular disease, effects on the family, and other allergic conditions—are needed.²¹ Furthermore, clinical guidelines that address indications, timing of use, tapering, and discontinuation of new treatments depend on long-term experience and data collection.

Therefore, it is prudent that investigators, companies, payers, patients, and families support phase 4, long-term extension, and registry studies, which will expand our knowledge of AD medications and their impact on the disease over time.

Final Thoughts

Medications to treat AD are reaching a new level of advancement—from topical agents that target novel pathways to revolutionary biologics and systemic medications. Although there are knowledge gaps on these new therapeutics, the standard of care is already rapidly changing as the expectations of clinicians, patients, and families advance with each addition to the provider’s toolbox.

Atopic dermatitis (AD), or eczema, is a common inflammatory skin disease notorious for its chronic, relapsing, and often frustrating disease course. Although as many as 25% of children in the United States are affected by this condition and its impact on the quality of life of affected patients and families is profound,^1-3 therapeutic advances in the pediatric population have been fairly limited until recently.

Over the last 10 years, there has been robust investigation into pediatric AD therapeutics, with many topical and systemic medications either recently approved or under clinical investigation. These developments are changing the landscape of the management of pediatric AD and raise a set of fascinating questions about how early and aggressive intervention might change the course of this disease. We discuss current limitations in the field that may be addressed with additional research.

New Topical Medications

In the last several years, there has been a rapid increase in efforts to develop new topical agents to manage AD. Until the beginning of the 21st century, the dermatologist’s arsenal was limited to topical corticosteroids (TCs). In the early 2000s, attention shifted to topical calcineurin inhibitors as nonsteroidal alternatives when the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved topical tacrolimus and pimecrolimus for AD. In 2016, crisaborole (a phosphodiesterase-4 [PDE4] inhibitor) was approved by the FDA for use in mild to moderate AD in patients 2 years and older, marking a new age of development for topical AD therapies. In 2021, the FDA approved ruxolitinib (a topical Janus kinase [JAK] 1/2 inhibitor) for use in mild to moderate AD in patients 12 years and older.

Roflumilast (ARQ-151) and difamilast (OPA-15406)(members of the PDE4 inhibitor class) are undergoing investigation for pediatric AD. A phase 3 clinical trial for roflumilast for AD is underway (ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT04845620); it is already approved for psoriasis in patients 12 years and older. A phase 3 trial of difamilast (NCT03911401) was recently completed, with results supporting the drug’s safety and efficacy in AD management.⁴ Efforts to synthesize new better-targeted PDE4 inhibitors are ongoing.⁵

Tapinarof (a novel aryl hydrocarbon receptor-modulating agent) is approved for psoriasis in adults, and a phase 3 trial for management of pediatric AD is underway (NCT05032859) after phase 2 trials revealed promising results.⁶

Lastly, the microbiome is a target for AD topical therapies. A recently completed phase 1 trial of bacteriotherapy with Staphylococcus hominis A9 transplant lotion showed promising results (NCT03151148).⁷ Although this bacteriotherapy technique is early in development and has been studied only in adult patients, results are exciting because they represent a gateway to a largely unexplored realm of potential future therapies.

Standard of Care—How will these new topical therapies impact our standard of care for pediatric AD patients? Topical corticosteroids are still a pillar of topical AD therapy, but the potential for nonsteroidal topical agents as alternatives and used in combination therapeutic regimens has expanded exponentially. It is uncertain how we might individualize regimens tailored to patient-specific factors because the standard approach has been to test drugs as monotherapy, with vehicle comparisons or with reference medications in Europe.

Newer topical nonsteroidal agents may offer several opportunities. First, they may help avoid local and systemic adverse effects that often limit the use of current standard therapy.⁸ This capability may prove essential in bridging TC treatments and serving as long-term maintenance therapies to decrease the frequency of eczema flares. Second, they can alleviate the need for different medication strengths for different body regions, thereby allowing for simplification of regimens and potentially increased adherence and decreased disease burden—a boon to affected patients and caregivers.

Although the efficacy and long-term safety profile of these new drugs require further study, it does not seem unreasonable to look forward to achieving levels of optimization and individualization with topical regimens for AD in the near future that makes flares in patients with mild to moderate AD a phenomenon of the past.

Advances in Systemic Therapy

Systemic therapeutics in pediatric AD also recently entered an exciting era of development. Traditional systemic agents, including cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, and mycophenolate mofetil, have existed for decades but have not been widely utilized for moderate to severe AD in the United States, especially in the pediatric population, likely because these drugs lacked FDA approval and they can cause a range of adverse effects, including notable immunosuppression.⁹

Introduction and approval of dupilumab in 2017 by the FDA was revolutionary in this field. As a monoclonal antibody targeted against IL-4 and IL-13, dupilumab has consistently demonstrated strong long-term efficacy for pediatric AD and has an acceptable safety profile in children and adolescents.^10-14 Expansion of the label to include children as young as 6 months with moderate to severe AD seems an important milestone in pediatric AD care.

Since the approval of dupilumab for adolescents and children aged 6 to 12 years, global experience has supported expanded use of systemic agents for patients who have an inadequate response to TCs and previously approved nonsteroidal topical agents. How expansive the use of systemics will be in younger children depends on how their long-term use impacts the disease course, whether therapy is disease modifying, and whether early use can curb the development of comorbidities.

Investigations into targeted systemic therapeutics for eczematous dermatitis are not limited to dupilumab. In a study of adolescents as young as 12 years, tralokinumab (an IL-13 pathway inhibitor) demonstrated an Eczema Area Severity Index-75 of 27.8% to 28.6% and a mean decrease in the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis index of 27.5 to 29.1, with minimal adverse effects.¹⁵ Lebrikizumab, another biologic IL-13 inhibitor with strong published safety and efficacy data in adults, has completed short- and longer-term studies in adolescents (NCT04178967 and NCT04146363).¹⁶ The drug received FDA Fast Track designation for moderate to severe AD in patients 12 years and older after showing positive data.¹⁷

This push to targeted therapy stretches beyond monoclonal antibodies. In the last few years, oral JAK inhibitors have emerged as a new class of systemic therapy for eczematous dermatitis. Upadacitinib, a JAK1 selective inhibitor, was approved by the FDA in 2022 for patients 12 years and older with AD and has data that supports its efficacy in adolescents and adults.¹⁸ Other JAK inhibitors including the selective JAK1 inhibitor abrocitinib and the combined JAK1/2 inhibitor baricitinib are being studied for pediatric AD (NCT04564755, NCT03422822, and NCT03952559), with most evidence to date supporting their safety and efficacy, at least over the short-term.¹⁹

The study of these and other advanced systemic therapies for eczematous dermatitis is transforming the toolbox for pediatric AD care. Although long-term data are lacking for some of these medications, it is possible that newer agents may decrease reliance on older immunosuppressants, such as systemic corticosteroids, cyclosporine, and methotrexate. Unanswered questions include: How and which systemic medications may alter the course of the disease? What is the disease modification for AD? What is the impact on comorbidities over time?

What’s Missing?

The field of pediatric AD has experienced exciting new developments with the emergence of targeted therapeutics, but those new agents require more long-term study, though we already have longer-term data on crisaborole and dupilumab.^10-14,20 Studies of the long-term use of these new treatments on comorbidities of pediatric AD—mental health outcomes, cardiovascular disease, effects on the family, and other allergic conditions—are needed.²¹ Furthermore, clinical guidelines that address indications, timing of use, tapering, and discontinuation of new treatments depend on long-term experience and data collection.

Therefore, it is prudent that investigators, companies, payers, patients, and families support phase 4, long-term extension, and registry studies, which will expand our knowledge of AD medications and their impact on the disease over time.

Final Thoughts

Medications to treat AD are reaching a new level of advancement—from topical agents that target novel pathways to revolutionary biologics and systemic medications. Although there are knowledge gaps on these new therapeutics, the standard of care is already rapidly changing as the expectations of clinicians, patients, and families advance with each addition to the provider’s toolbox.

Atopic dermatitis (AD), or eczema, is a common inflammatory skin disease notorious for its chronic, relapsing, and often frustrating disease course. Although as many as 25% of children in the United States are affected by this condition and its impact on the quality of life of affected patients and families is profound,^1-3 therapeutic advances in the pediatric population have been fairly limited until recently.

Over the last 10 years, there has been robust investigation into pediatric AD therapeutics, with many topical and systemic medications either recently approved or under clinical investigation. These developments are changing the landscape of the management of pediatric AD and raise a set of fascinating questions about how early and aggressive intervention might change the course of this disease. We discuss current limitations in the field that may be addressed with additional research.

New Topical Medications

In the last several years, there has been a rapid increase in efforts to develop new topical agents to manage AD. Until the beginning of the 21st century, the dermatologist’s arsenal was limited to topical corticosteroids (TCs). In the early 2000s, attention shifted to topical calcineurin inhibitors as nonsteroidal alternatives when the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved topical tacrolimus and pimecrolimus for AD. In 2016, crisaborole (a phosphodiesterase-4 [PDE4] inhibitor) was approved by the FDA for use in mild to moderate AD in patients 2 years and older, marking a new age of development for topical AD therapies. In 2021, the FDA approved ruxolitinib (a topical Janus kinase [JAK] 1/2 inhibitor) for use in mild to moderate AD in patients 12 years and older.

Roflumilast (ARQ-151) and difamilast (OPA-15406)(members of the PDE4 inhibitor class) are undergoing investigation for pediatric AD. A phase 3 clinical trial for roflumilast for AD is underway (ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT04845620); it is already approved for psoriasis in patients 12 years and older. A phase 3 trial of difamilast (NCT03911401) was recently completed, with results supporting the drug’s safety and efficacy in AD management.⁴ Efforts to synthesize new better-targeted PDE4 inhibitors are ongoing.⁵

Tapinarof (a novel aryl hydrocarbon receptor-modulating agent) is approved for psoriasis in adults, and a phase 3 trial for management of pediatric AD is underway (NCT05032859) after phase 2 trials revealed promising results.⁶

Lastly, the microbiome is a target for AD topical therapies. A recently completed phase 1 trial of bacteriotherapy with Staphylococcus hominis A9 transplant lotion showed promising results (NCT03151148).⁷ Although this bacteriotherapy technique is early in development and has been studied only in adult patients, results are exciting because they represent a gateway to a largely unexplored realm of potential future therapies.

Standard of Care—How will these new topical therapies impact our standard of care for pediatric AD patients? Topical corticosteroids are still a pillar of topical AD therapy, but the potential for nonsteroidal topical agents as alternatives and used in combination therapeutic regimens has expanded exponentially. It is uncertain how we might individualize regimens tailored to patient-specific factors because the standard approach has been to test drugs as monotherapy, with vehicle comparisons or with reference medications in Europe.

Newer topical nonsteroidal agents may offer several opportunities. First, they may help avoid local and systemic adverse effects that often limit the use of current standard therapy.⁸ This capability may prove essential in bridging TC treatments and serving as long-term maintenance therapies to decrease the frequency of eczema flares. Second, they can alleviate the need for different medication strengths for different body regions, thereby allowing for simplification of regimens and potentially increased adherence and decreased disease burden—a boon to affected patients and caregivers.

Although the efficacy and long-term safety profile of these new drugs require further study, it does not seem unreasonable to look forward to achieving levels of optimization and individualization with topical regimens for AD in the near future that makes flares in patients with mild to moderate AD a phenomenon of the past.

Advances in Systemic Therapy

Systemic therapeutics in pediatric AD also recently entered an exciting era of development. Traditional systemic agents, including cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, and mycophenolate mofetil, have existed for decades but have not been widely utilized for moderate to severe AD in the United States, especially in the pediatric population, likely because these drugs lacked FDA approval and they can cause a range of adverse effects, including notable immunosuppression.⁹

Introduction and approval of dupilumab in 2017 by the FDA was revolutionary in this field. As a monoclonal antibody targeted against IL-4 and IL-13, dupilumab has consistently demonstrated strong long-term efficacy for pediatric AD and has an acceptable safety profile in children and adolescents.^10-14 Expansion of the label to include children as young as 6 months with moderate to severe AD seems an important milestone in pediatric AD care.

Since the approval of dupilumab for adolescents and children aged 6 to 12 years, global experience has supported expanded use of systemic agents for patients who have an inadequate response to TCs and previously approved nonsteroidal topical agents. How expansive the use of systemics will be in younger children depends on how their long-term use impacts the disease course, whether therapy is disease modifying, and whether early use can curb the development of comorbidities.

Investigations into targeted systemic therapeutics for eczematous dermatitis are not limited to dupilumab. In a study of adolescents as young as 12 years, tralokinumab (an IL-13 pathway inhibitor) demonstrated an Eczema Area Severity Index-75 of 27.8% to 28.6% and a mean decrease in the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis index of 27.5 to 29.1, with minimal adverse effects.¹⁵ Lebrikizumab, another biologic IL-13 inhibitor with strong published safety and efficacy data in adults, has completed short- and longer-term studies in adolescents (NCT04178967 and NCT04146363).¹⁶ The drug received FDA Fast Track designation for moderate to severe AD in patients 12 years and older after showing positive data.¹⁷

This push to targeted therapy stretches beyond monoclonal antibodies. In the last few years, oral JAK inhibitors have emerged as a new class of systemic therapy for eczematous dermatitis. Upadacitinib, a JAK1 selective inhibitor, was approved by the FDA in 2022 for patients 12 years and older with AD and has data that supports its efficacy in adolescents and adults.¹⁸ Other JAK inhibitors including the selective JAK1 inhibitor abrocitinib and the combined JAK1/2 inhibitor baricitinib are being studied for pediatric AD (NCT04564755, NCT03422822, and NCT03952559), with most evidence to date supporting their safety and efficacy, at least over the short-term.¹⁹

The study of these and other advanced systemic therapies for eczematous dermatitis is transforming the toolbox for pediatric AD care. Although long-term data are lacking for some of these medications, it is possible that newer agents may decrease reliance on older immunosuppressants, such as systemic corticosteroids, cyclosporine, and methotrexate. Unanswered questions include: How and which systemic medications may alter the course of the disease? What is the disease modification for AD? What is the impact on comorbidities over time?

What’s Missing?

The field of pediatric AD has experienced exciting new developments with the emergence of targeted therapeutics, but those new agents require more long-term study, though we already have longer-term data on crisaborole and dupilumab.^10-14,20 Studies of the long-term use of these new treatments on comorbidities of pediatric AD—mental health outcomes, cardiovascular disease, effects on the family, and other allergic conditions—are needed.²¹ Furthermore, clinical guidelines that address indications, timing of use, tapering, and discontinuation of new treatments depend on long-term experience and data collection.

Therefore, it is prudent that investigators, companies, payers, patients, and families support phase 4, long-term extension, and registry studies, which will expand our knowledge of AD medications and their impact on the disease over time.

Final Thoughts

Medications to treat AD are reaching a new level of advancement—from topical agents that target novel pathways to revolutionary biologics and systemic medications. Although there are knowledge gaps on these new therapeutics, the standard of care is already rapidly changing as the expectations of clinicians, patients, and families advance with each addition to the provider’s toolbox.

Acrodermatitis enteropathica (AE) is a rare disorder of zinc metabolism that typically presents in infancy.¹ Although it is clinically characterized by acral and periorificial dermatitis, alopecia, and diarrhea, only 20% of cases present with this triad.² Zinc deficiency in AE can either be acquired or inborn (congenital). Acquired forms can occur from dietary inadequacy or malabsorption, whereas genetic causes are related to an autosomal-recessive disorder affecting zinc transporters.¹ We report a case of a 3-month-old female infant with acquired AE who was successfully treated with zinc supplementation over the course of 3 weeks.

Case Report

A 3-month-old female infant presented to the emergency department with a rash of 2 weeks’ duration. She was born full term with no birth complications. The patient’s mother reported that the rash started on the cheeks, then enlarged and spread to the neck, back, and perineum. The patient also had been having diarrhea during this time. She previously had received mupirocin and cephalexin with no response to treatment. Maternal history was negative for lupus, and the mother’s diet consisted of a variety of foods but not many vegetables. The patient was exclusively breastfed, and there was no pertinent history of similar rashes occurring in other family members.

Physical examination revealed the patient had annular and polycyclic, hyperkeratotic, crusted papules and plaques on the cheeks, neck, back, and axillae, as well as the perineum/groin and perianal regions (Figure 1). The differential diagnosis at the time included neonatal lupus, zinc deficiency, and syphilis. Relevant laboratory testing and a shave biopsy of the left axilla were obtained.

Comment

Etiology of AE—Acrodermatitis enteropathica was first identified in 1942 as an acral rash associated with diarrhea³; in 1973, Barnes and Moynahan⁴ discovered zinc deficiency as a causal agent for these findings. The causes of AE are further subclassified as either an acquired or inborn etiology. Congenital causes commonly are seen in infants within the first few months of life, whereas acquired forms are seen at any age. Acquired forms in infants can occur from failure of the mother to secrete zinc in breast milk, low maternal serum zinc levels, or other reasons causing low nutritional intake. A single mutation in the SLC30A2 gene has been found to markedly reduce zinc concentrations in breast milk, thus causing zinc deficiency in breastfed infants.⁵ Other acquired forms can be caused by malabsorption, sometimes after surgery such as intestinal bypass or from intravenous nutrition without sufficient zinc.¹ The congenital form of AE is an autosomal-recessive disorder occurring from mutations in the SLC39A4 gene located on band 8q24.3. Affected individuals have a decreased ability to absorb zinc in the small intestine because of defects in zinc transporters ZIP and ZnT.⁶ Based on our patient’s laboratory findings and history, it is believed that the zinc deficiency was acquired, as the condition normalized with repletion and has not required any supplementation in the year of follow-up. In addition, the absence of a pertinent family history supported an acquired diagnosis, which has various etiologies, whereas the congenital form primarily is a genetic disease.

Diagnosis of AE—The characteristic clinical features of AE include erythematous, dry, scaly papules and plaques that may evolve into crusted, erosive, pustular lesions. These lesions typically are distributed in a periorificial and acral pattern.^1,2 Although AE includes the clinical triad of acral and periorificial dermatitis, alopecia, and diarrhea, most cases present with only partial features of this syndrome, as seen in our patient, who presented with only 2 symptoms—dermatitis and diarrhea. The diagnosis of AE is based on clinical and laboratory abnormalities, especially a low serum zinc level. Low levels of zinc-dependent enzymes, such as alkaline phosphatase, may support the diagnosis, as seen in our patient. Histologic evaluation is characteristic but is not diagnostic, as the same findings can be seen in other nutritional disorders. Such findings include confluent parakeratosis associated with a reduced granular layer in early lesions and subsequent ballooning of subcorneal keratinocytes, upper epidermal pallor, and intraepidermal clefts. Late lesions exhibit psoriasiform hyperplasia of the epidermis with less epidermal pallor.⁷

Acrodermatitis enteropathica (AE) is a rare disorder of zinc metabolism that typically presents in infancy.¹ Although it is clinically characterized by acral and periorificial dermatitis, alopecia, and diarrhea, only 20% of cases present with this triad.² Zinc deficiency in AE can either be acquired or inborn (congenital). Acquired forms can occur from dietary inadequacy or malabsorption, whereas genetic causes are related to an autosomal-recessive disorder affecting zinc transporters.¹ We report a case of a 3-month-old female infant with acquired AE who was successfully treated with zinc supplementation over the course of 3 weeks.

Case Report

A 3-month-old female infant presented to the emergency department with a rash of 2 weeks’ duration. She was born full term with no birth complications. The patient’s mother reported that the rash started on the cheeks, then enlarged and spread to the neck, back, and perineum. The patient also had been having diarrhea during this time. She previously had received mupirocin and cephalexin with no response to treatment. Maternal history was negative for lupus, and the mother’s diet consisted of a variety of foods but not many vegetables. The patient was exclusively breastfed, and there was no pertinent history of similar rashes occurring in other family members.

Physical examination revealed the patient had annular and polycyclic, hyperkeratotic, crusted papules and plaques on the cheeks, neck, back, and axillae, as well as the perineum/groin and perianal regions (Figure 1). The differential diagnosis at the time included neonatal lupus, zinc deficiency, and syphilis. Relevant laboratory testing and a shave biopsy of the left axilla were obtained.

Comment

Etiology of AE—Acrodermatitis enteropathica was first identified in 1942 as an acral rash associated with diarrhea³; in 1973, Barnes and Moynahan⁴ discovered zinc deficiency as a causal agent for these findings. The causes of AE are further subclassified as either an acquired or inborn etiology. Congenital causes commonly are seen in infants within the first few months of life, whereas acquired forms are seen at any age. Acquired forms in infants can occur from failure of the mother to secrete zinc in breast milk, low maternal serum zinc levels, or other reasons causing low nutritional intake. A single mutation in the SLC30A2 gene has been found to markedly reduce zinc concentrations in breast milk, thus causing zinc deficiency in breastfed infants.⁵ Other acquired forms can be caused by malabsorption, sometimes after surgery such as intestinal bypass or from intravenous nutrition without sufficient zinc.¹ The congenital form of AE is an autosomal-recessive disorder occurring from mutations in the SLC39A4 gene located on band 8q24.3. Affected individuals have a decreased ability to absorb zinc in the small intestine because of defects in zinc transporters ZIP and ZnT.⁶ Based on our patient’s laboratory findings and history, it is believed that the zinc deficiency was acquired, as the condition normalized with repletion and has not required any supplementation in the year of follow-up. In addition, the absence of a pertinent family history supported an acquired diagnosis, which has various etiologies, whereas the congenital form primarily is a genetic disease.

Diagnosis of AE—The characteristic clinical features of AE include erythematous, dry, scaly papules and plaques that may evolve into crusted, erosive, pustular lesions. These lesions typically are distributed in a periorificial and acral pattern.^1,2 Although AE includes the clinical triad of acral and periorificial dermatitis, alopecia, and diarrhea, most cases present with only partial features of this syndrome, as seen in our patient, who presented with only 2 symptoms—dermatitis and diarrhea. The diagnosis of AE is based on clinical and laboratory abnormalities, especially a low serum zinc level. Low levels of zinc-dependent enzymes, such as alkaline phosphatase, may support the diagnosis, as seen in our patient. Histologic evaluation is characteristic but is not diagnostic, as the same findings can be seen in other nutritional disorders. Such findings include confluent parakeratosis associated with a reduced granular layer in early lesions and subsequent ballooning of subcorneal keratinocytes, upper epidermal pallor, and intraepidermal clefts. Late lesions exhibit psoriasiform hyperplasia of the epidermis with less epidermal pallor.⁷

Acrodermatitis enteropathica (AE) is a rare disorder of zinc metabolism that typically presents in infancy.¹ Although it is clinically characterized by acral and periorificial dermatitis, alopecia, and diarrhea, only 20% of cases present with this triad.² Zinc deficiency in AE can either be acquired or inborn (congenital). Acquired forms can occur from dietary inadequacy or malabsorption, whereas genetic causes are related to an autosomal-recessive disorder affecting zinc transporters.¹ We report a case of a 3-month-old female infant with acquired AE who was successfully treated with zinc supplementation over the course of 3 weeks.

Case Report

A 3-month-old female infant presented to the emergency department with a rash of 2 weeks’ duration. She was born full term with no birth complications. The patient’s mother reported that the rash started on the cheeks, then enlarged and spread to the neck, back, and perineum. The patient also had been having diarrhea during this time. She previously had received mupirocin and cephalexin with no response to treatment. Maternal history was negative for lupus, and the mother’s diet consisted of a variety of foods but not many vegetables. The patient was exclusively breastfed, and there was no pertinent history of similar rashes occurring in other family members.

Physical examination revealed the patient had annular and polycyclic, hyperkeratotic, crusted papules and plaques on the cheeks, neck, back, and axillae, as well as the perineum/groin and perianal regions (Figure 1). The differential diagnosis at the time included neonatal lupus, zinc deficiency, and syphilis. Relevant laboratory testing and a shave biopsy of the left axilla were obtained.

Comment

Etiology of AE—Acrodermatitis enteropathica was first identified in 1942 as an acral rash associated with diarrhea³; in 1973, Barnes and Moynahan⁴ discovered zinc deficiency as a causal agent for these findings. The causes of AE are further subclassified as either an acquired or inborn etiology. Congenital causes commonly are seen in infants within the first few months of life, whereas acquired forms are seen at any age. Acquired forms in infants can occur from failure of the mother to secrete zinc in breast milk, low maternal serum zinc levels, or other reasons causing low nutritional intake. A single mutation in the SLC30A2 gene has been found to markedly reduce zinc concentrations in breast milk, thus causing zinc deficiency in breastfed infants.⁵ Other acquired forms can be caused by malabsorption, sometimes after surgery such as intestinal bypass or from intravenous nutrition without sufficient zinc.¹ The congenital form of AE is an autosomal-recessive disorder occurring from mutations in the SLC39A4 gene located on band 8q24.3. Affected individuals have a decreased ability to absorb zinc in the small intestine because of defects in zinc transporters ZIP and ZnT.⁶ Based on our patient’s laboratory findings and history, it is believed that the zinc deficiency was acquired, as the condition normalized with repletion and has not required any supplementation in the year of follow-up. In addition, the absence of a pertinent family history supported an acquired diagnosis, which has various etiologies, whereas the congenital form primarily is a genetic disease.

Diagnosis of AE—The characteristic clinical features of AE include erythematous, dry, scaly papules and plaques that may evolve into crusted, erosive, pustular lesions. These lesions typically are distributed in a periorificial and acral pattern.^1,2 Although AE includes the clinical triad of acral and periorificial dermatitis, alopecia, and diarrhea, most cases present with only partial features of this syndrome, as seen in our patient, who presented with only 2 symptoms—dermatitis and diarrhea. The diagnosis of AE is based on clinical and laboratory abnormalities, especially a low serum zinc level. Low levels of zinc-dependent enzymes, such as alkaline phosphatase, may support the diagnosis, as seen in our patient. Histologic evaluation is characteristic but is not diagnostic, as the same findings can be seen in other nutritional disorders. Such findings include confluent parakeratosis associated with a reduced granular layer in early lesions and subsequent ballooning of subcorneal keratinocytes, upper epidermal pallor, and intraepidermal clefts. Late lesions exhibit psoriasiform hyperplasia of the epidermis with less epidermal pallor.⁷

Photoallergic contact dermatitis (PACD), a subtype of allergic contact dermatitis that occurs because of the specific combination of exposure to an exogenous chemical applied topically to the skin and UV radiation, may be more common than was once thought.¹ Although the incidence in the general population is unknown, current research points to approximately 20% to 40% of patients with suspected photosensitivity having a PACD diagnosis.² Recently, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) reported that 21% of 373 patients undergoing photopatch testing (PPT) were diagnosed with PACD²; however, PPT is not routinely performed, which may contribute to underdiagnosis.

Mechanism of Disease

Similar to allergic contact dermatitis, PACD is a delayed type IV hypersensitivity reaction; however, it only occurs when an exogenous chemical is applied topically to the skin with concomitant exposure to UV radiation, usually in the UVA range (315–400 nm).^3,4 When exposed to UV radiation, it is thought that the exogenous chemical combines with a protein in the skin and transforms into a photoantigen. In the sensitization phase, the photoantigen is taken up by antigen-presenting cells in the epidermis and transported to local lymph nodes where antigen-specific T cells are generated.⁵ In the elicitation phase, the inflammatory reaction of PACD occurs upon subsequent exposure to the same chemical plus UV radiation.⁴ Development of PACD does not necessarily depend on the dose of the chemical or the amount of UV radiation.⁶ Why certain individuals may be more susceptible is unknown, though major histocompatibility complex haplotypes could be influential.^7,8

Clinical Manifestations

Photoallergic contact dermatitis primarily presents in sun-exposed areas of the skin (eg, face, neck, V area of the chest, dorsal upper extremities) with sparing of naturally photoprotected sites, such as the upper eyelids and nasolabial and retroauricular folds. Other than its characteristic photodistribution, PACD often is clinically indistinguishable from routine allergic contact dermatitis. It manifests as a pruritic, poorly demarcated, eczematous or sometimes vesiculobullous eruption that develops in a delayed fashion—24 to 72 hours after sun exposure. The dermatitis may extend to other parts of the body either through spread of the chemical agent by the hands or clothing or due to the systemic nature of the immune response. The severity of the presentation can vary depending on multiple factors, such as concentration and absorption of the agent, length of exposure, intensity and duration of UV radiation exposure, and individual susceptibility.⁴ Chronic PACD may become lichenified. Generally, rashes resolve after discontinuation of the causative agent; however, long-term exposure may lead to development of chronic actinic dermatitis, with persistent photodistributed eczema regardless of contact with the initial inciting agent.⁹

Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis for patients presenting with photodistributed dermatitis is broad; therefore, taking a thorough history is important. Considerations include age of onset, timing and persistence of reactions, use of topical and systemic medications (both prescription and over-the-counter [OTC]), personal care products, occupation, and hobbies, as well as a thorough review of systems.

It is important to distinguish PACD from phototoxic contact dermatitis (PTCD)(also known as photoirritant contact dermatitis)(Table). Asking about the onset and timing of the eruption may be critical for distinction, as PTCD can occur within minutes to hours of the first exposure to a chemical and UV radiation, while there is a sensitization delay in PACD.⁶ Phytophotodermatitis is a well-known type of PTCD caused by exposure to furocoumarin-containing plants, most commonly limes.¹⁰ Other causes of PTCD include tar products and certain medications.¹¹ Importantly, PPT to a known phototoxic chemical should never be performed because it will cause a strong reaction in anyone tested, regardless of exposure history.

Diagnosis

Histologically, PACD presents similarly to allergic contact dermatitis with spongiotic dermatitis; therefore, biopsy cannot be relied upon to make the diagnosis.⁶ Photopatch testing is required for definitive diagnosis. It is reasonable to perform PPT in any patient with chronic dermatitis primarily affecting sun-exposed areas without a clear alternative diagnosis.^14,15 Of note, at present there are no North American consensus guidelines for PPT, but typically duplicate sets of photoallergens are applied to both sides of the patient’s back and one side is exposed to UVA radiation. The reactions are compared after 48 to 96 hours.¹⁵ A positive reaction only at the irradiated site is consistent with photoallergy, while a reaction of equal strength at both the irradiated and nonirradiated sites indicates regular contact allergy. The case of a reaction occurring at both sites with a stronger response at the irradiated site is known as photoaggravated contact allergy, which can be thought of as allergic contact dermatitis that worsens but does not solely occur with exposure to sunlight.

Although PPT is necessary for the accurate diagnosis of PACD, it is infrequently used. Two surveys of 112 and 117 American Contact Dermatitis Society members, respectively, have revealed that only around half performed PPT, most of them testing fewer than 20 times per year.^16,17 Additionally, there was variability in the test methodology and allergens employed. Nevertheless, most respondents tested sunscreens, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), fragrances, and their patients’ own products.^16,17 The most common reasons for not performing PPT were lack of equipment, insufficient skills, rare clinical suspicion, and cost. Dermatologists at academic centers performed more PPT than those in other practice settings, including multispecialty group practices and private offices.¹⁶ These findings highlight multiple factors that may contribute to reduced patient access to PPT and thus potential underdiagnosis of PACD.

Common Photoallergens

The most common photoallergens change over time in response to market trends; for example, fragrance was once a top photoallergen in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s but declined in prominence after musk ambrette—the primary allergen associated with PACD at the time—was removed as an ingredient in fragrances.¹⁸

In the largest and most recent PPT series from North America (1999-2009),² sunscreens comprised 7 of the top 10 most common photoallergens, which is consistent with other studies showing sunscreens to be the most common North American photoallergens.^19-22 The frequency of PACD due to sunscreens likely relates to their increasing use worldwide as awareness of photocarcinogenesis and photoaging grows, as well as the common use of UV filters in nonsunscreen personal care products, ranging from lip balms to perfumes and bodywashes. Chemical (organic) UV filters—in particular oxybenzone (benzophenone-3) and avobenzone (butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane)—are the most common sunscreen photoallergens.^2,23 Para-aminobenzoic acid was once a common photoallergen, but it is no longer used in US sunscreens due to safety concerns.^19,20 The physical (inorganic) UV filters zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are not known photosensitizers.

Methylisothiazolinone (MI) is a highly allergenic preservative commonly used in a wide array of personal care products, including sunscreens.²⁴ In the most recent NACDG patch test data, MI was the second most common contact allergen.²⁵ Allergic contact dermatitis caused by MI in sunscreen can mimic PACD.²⁶ In addition, MI can cause photoaggravated contact dermatitis, with some affected patients experiencing ongoing photosensitivity even after avoiding this allergen.^26-30 The European Union and Canada have introduced restrictions on the use of MI in personal care products, but no such regulatory measures have been taken in the United States to date.^25,31,32

After sunscreens, another common cause of PACD are topical NSAIDs, which are frequently used for musculoskeletal pain relief. These are of particular concern in Europe, where a variety of formulations are widely available OTC.³³ Ketoprofen and etofenamate are responsible for the largest number of PACD reactions in Europe.^2,34,35 Meanwhile, the only OTC topical NSAID available in the United States is diclofenac gel, which was approved in 2020. Cases of PACD due to use of diclofenac gel have been reported in the literature, but testing in larger populations is needed.^36-39

Notably, ketoprofen may co- or cross-react with certain UV filters—oxybenzone and octocrylene—and the lipid-lowering agent fenofibrate due to chemical similarities.^40-43 Despite the relatively high number of photoallergic reactions to ketoprofen in the NACDG photopatch series, only 25% (5/20) were considered clinically relevant (ie, the allergen could not be verified as present in the known skin contactants of the patient, and the patient was not exposed to circumstances in which contact with materials known to contain the allergen would likely occur), which suggests that they likely represented cross-reactions in patients sensitized to sunscreens.²

Other agents that may cause PACD include antimicrobials, plants and plant derivatives, and pesticides.^2,4,18 The antimicrobial fentichlor is a common cause of positive PPT reactions, but it rarely is clinically relevant.⁴⁴

Treatment

The primary management of PACD centers on identification of the causative photoallergen to avoid future exposure. Patients should be educated on the various names by which the causative allergen can be identified on product labels and should be given a list of safe products that are free from relevant allergens and cross-reacting chemicals.⁴⁵ Additionally, sun protection education should be provided. Exposure to UVA radiation can occur through windows, making the use of broad-spectrum sunscreens and protective clothing crucial. In cases of sunscreen-induced PACD, the responsible chemical UV filter(s) should be avoided, or alternatively, patients may use physical sunscreens containing only zinc oxide and/or titanium dioxide as active ingredients, as these are not known to cause PACD.⁴

When avoidance alone is insufficient, topical corticosteroids are the usual first-line treatment for localized PACD. When steroid-sparing treatments are preferred, topical calcineurin inhibitors such as tacrolimus and pimecrolimus may be used. If PACD is more widespread and severe, systemic therapy using steroids or steroid-sparing agents may be necessary to provide symptomatic relief.⁴

Final Interpretation

Photoallergic contact dermatitis is not uncommon, particularly among photosensitive patients. Most cases are due to sunscreens or topical NSAIDs. Consideration of PPT should be given in any patient with a chronic photodistributed dermatitis to evaluate for the possibility of PACD.

Photoallergic contact dermatitis (PACD), a subtype of allergic contact dermatitis that occurs because of the specific combination of exposure to an exogenous chemical applied topically to the skin and UV radiation, may be more common than was once thought.¹ Although the incidence in the general population is unknown, current research points to approximately 20% to 40% of patients with suspected photosensitivity having a PACD diagnosis.² Recently, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) reported that 21% of 373 patients undergoing photopatch testing (PPT) were diagnosed with PACD²; however, PPT is not routinely performed, which may contribute to underdiagnosis.

Mechanism of Disease

Similar to allergic contact dermatitis, PACD is a delayed type IV hypersensitivity reaction; however, it only occurs when an exogenous chemical is applied topically to the skin with concomitant exposure to UV radiation, usually in the UVA range (315–400 nm).^3,4 When exposed to UV radiation, it is thought that the exogenous chemical combines with a protein in the skin and transforms into a photoantigen. In the sensitization phase, the photoantigen is taken up by antigen-presenting cells in the epidermis and transported to local lymph nodes where antigen-specific T cells are generated.⁵ In the elicitation phase, the inflammatory reaction of PACD occurs upon subsequent exposure to the same chemical plus UV radiation.⁴ Development of PACD does not necessarily depend on the dose of the chemical or the amount of UV radiation.⁶ Why certain individuals may be more susceptible is unknown, though major histocompatibility complex haplotypes could be influential.^7,8

Clinical Manifestations

Photoallergic contact dermatitis primarily presents in sun-exposed areas of the skin (eg, face, neck, V area of the chest, dorsal upper extremities) with sparing of naturally photoprotected sites, such as the upper eyelids and nasolabial and retroauricular folds. Other than its characteristic photodistribution, PACD often is clinically indistinguishable from routine allergic contact dermatitis. It manifests as a pruritic, poorly demarcated, eczematous or sometimes vesiculobullous eruption that develops in a delayed fashion—24 to 72 hours after sun exposure. The dermatitis may extend to other parts of the body either through spread of the chemical agent by the hands or clothing or due to the systemic nature of the immune response. The severity of the presentation can vary depending on multiple factors, such as concentration and absorption of the agent, length of exposure, intensity and duration of UV radiation exposure, and individual susceptibility.⁴ Chronic PACD may become lichenified. Generally, rashes resolve after discontinuation of the causative agent; however, long-term exposure may lead to development of chronic actinic dermatitis, with persistent photodistributed eczema regardless of contact with the initial inciting agent.⁹

Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis for patients presenting with photodistributed dermatitis is broad; therefore, taking a thorough history is important. Considerations include age of onset, timing and persistence of reactions, use of topical and systemic medications (both prescription and over-the-counter [OTC]), personal care products, occupation, and hobbies, as well as a thorough review of systems.

It is important to distinguish PACD from phototoxic contact dermatitis (PTCD)(also known as photoirritant contact dermatitis)(Table). Asking about the onset and timing of the eruption may be critical for distinction, as PTCD can occur within minutes to hours of the first exposure to a chemical and UV radiation, while there is a sensitization delay in PACD.⁶ Phytophotodermatitis is a well-known type of PTCD caused by exposure to furocoumarin-containing plants, most commonly limes.¹⁰ Other causes of PTCD include tar products and certain medications.¹¹ Importantly, PPT to a known phototoxic chemical should never be performed because it will cause a strong reaction in anyone tested, regardless of exposure history.

Diagnosis

Histologically, PACD presents similarly to allergic contact dermatitis with spongiotic dermatitis; therefore, biopsy cannot be relied upon to make the diagnosis.⁶ Photopatch testing is required for definitive diagnosis. It is reasonable to perform PPT in any patient with chronic dermatitis primarily affecting sun-exposed areas without a clear alternative diagnosis.^14,15 Of note, at present there are no North American consensus guidelines for PPT, but typically duplicate sets of photoallergens are applied to both sides of the patient’s back and one side is exposed to UVA radiation. The reactions are compared after 48 to 96 hours.¹⁵ A positive reaction only at the irradiated site is consistent with photoallergy, while a reaction of equal strength at both the irradiated and nonirradiated sites indicates regular contact allergy. The case of a reaction occurring at both sites with a stronger response at the irradiated site is known as photoaggravated contact allergy, which can be thought of as allergic contact dermatitis that worsens but does not solely occur with exposure to sunlight.

Although PPT is necessary for the accurate diagnosis of PACD, it is infrequently used. Two surveys of 112 and 117 American Contact Dermatitis Society members, respectively, have revealed that only around half performed PPT, most of them testing fewer than 20 times per year.^16,17 Additionally, there was variability in the test methodology and allergens employed. Nevertheless, most respondents tested sunscreens, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), fragrances, and their patients’ own products.^16,17 The most common reasons for not performing PPT were lack of equipment, insufficient skills, rare clinical suspicion, and cost. Dermatologists at academic centers performed more PPT than those in other practice settings, including multispecialty group practices and private offices.¹⁶ These findings highlight multiple factors that may contribute to reduced patient access to PPT and thus potential underdiagnosis of PACD.

Common Photoallergens

The most common photoallergens change over time in response to market trends; for example, fragrance was once a top photoallergen in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s but declined in prominence after musk ambrette—the primary allergen associated with PACD at the time—was removed as an ingredient in fragrances.¹⁸

In the largest and most recent PPT series from North America (1999-2009),² sunscreens comprised 7 of the top 10 most common photoallergens, which is consistent with other studies showing sunscreens to be the most common North American photoallergens.^19-22 The frequency of PACD due to sunscreens likely relates to their increasing use worldwide as awareness of photocarcinogenesis and photoaging grows, as well as the common use of UV filters in nonsunscreen personal care products, ranging from lip balms to perfumes and bodywashes. Chemical (organic) UV filters—in particular oxybenzone (benzophenone-3) and avobenzone (butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane)—are the most common sunscreen photoallergens.^2,23 Para-aminobenzoic acid was once a common photoallergen, but it is no longer used in US sunscreens due to safety concerns.^19,20 The physical (inorganic) UV filters zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are not known photosensitizers.

Methylisothiazolinone (MI) is a highly allergenic preservative commonly used in a wide array of personal care products, including sunscreens.²⁴ In the most recent NACDG patch test data, MI was the second most common contact allergen.²⁵ Allergic contact dermatitis caused by MI in sunscreen can mimic PACD.²⁶ In addition, MI can cause photoaggravated contact dermatitis, with some affected patients experiencing ongoing photosensitivity even after avoiding this allergen.^26-30 The European Union and Canada have introduced restrictions on the use of MI in personal care products, but no such regulatory measures have been taken in the United States to date.^25,31,32

After sunscreens, another common cause of PACD are topical NSAIDs, which are frequently used for musculoskeletal pain relief. These are of particular concern in Europe, where a variety of formulations are widely available OTC.³³ Ketoprofen and etofenamate are responsible for the largest number of PACD reactions in Europe.^2,34,35 Meanwhile, the only OTC topical NSAID available in the United States is diclofenac gel, which was approved in 2020. Cases of PACD due to use of diclofenac gel have been reported in the literature, but testing in larger populations is needed.^36-39

Notably, ketoprofen may co- or cross-react with certain UV filters—oxybenzone and octocrylene—and the lipid-lowering agent fenofibrate due to chemical similarities.^40-43 Despite the relatively high number of photoallergic reactions to ketoprofen in the NACDG photopatch series, only 25% (5/20) were considered clinically relevant (ie, the allergen could not be verified as present in the known skin contactants of the patient, and the patient was not exposed to circumstances in which contact with materials known to contain the allergen would likely occur), which suggests that they likely represented cross-reactions in patients sensitized to sunscreens.²

Other agents that may cause PACD include antimicrobials, plants and plant derivatives, and pesticides.^2,4,18 The antimicrobial fentichlor is a common cause of positive PPT reactions, but it rarely is clinically relevant.⁴⁴

Treatment

The primary management of PACD centers on identification of the causative photoallergen to avoid future exposure. Patients should be educated on the various names by which the causative allergen can be identified on product labels and should be given a list of safe products that are free from relevant allergens and cross-reacting chemicals.⁴⁵ Additionally, sun protection education should be provided. Exposure to UVA radiation can occur through windows, making the use of broad-spectrum sunscreens and protective clothing crucial. In cases of sunscreen-induced PACD, the responsible chemical UV filter(s) should be avoided, or alternatively, patients may use physical sunscreens containing only zinc oxide and/or titanium dioxide as active ingredients, as these are not known to cause PACD.⁴

When avoidance alone is insufficient, topical corticosteroids are the usual first-line treatment for localized PACD. When steroid-sparing treatments are preferred, topical calcineurin inhibitors such as tacrolimus and pimecrolimus may be used. If PACD is more widespread and severe, systemic therapy using steroids or steroid-sparing agents may be necessary to provide symptomatic relief.⁴

Final Interpretation

Photoallergic contact dermatitis is not uncommon, particularly among photosensitive patients. Most cases are due to sunscreens or topical NSAIDs. Consideration of PPT should be given in any patient with a chronic photodistributed dermatitis to evaluate for the possibility of PACD.

Photoallergic contact dermatitis (PACD), a subtype of allergic contact dermatitis that occurs because of the specific combination of exposure to an exogenous chemical applied topically to the skin and UV radiation, may be more common than was once thought.¹ Although the incidence in the general population is unknown, current research points to approximately 20% to 40% of patients with suspected photosensitivity having a PACD diagnosis.² Recently, the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) reported that 21% of 373 patients undergoing photopatch testing (PPT) were diagnosed with PACD²; however, PPT is not routinely performed, which may contribute to underdiagnosis.

Mechanism of Disease

Similar to allergic contact dermatitis, PACD is a delayed type IV hypersensitivity reaction; however, it only occurs when an exogenous chemical is applied topically to the skin with concomitant exposure to UV radiation, usually in the UVA range (315–400 nm).^3,4 When exposed to UV radiation, it is thought that the exogenous chemical combines with a protein in the skin and transforms into a photoantigen. In the sensitization phase, the photoantigen is taken up by antigen-presenting cells in the epidermis and transported to local lymph nodes where antigen-specific T cells are generated.⁵ In the elicitation phase, the inflammatory reaction of PACD occurs upon subsequent exposure to the same chemical plus UV radiation.⁴ Development of PACD does not necessarily depend on the dose of the chemical or the amount of UV radiation.⁶ Why certain individuals may be more susceptible is unknown, though major histocompatibility complex haplotypes could be influential.^7,8

Clinical Manifestations

Photoallergic contact dermatitis primarily presents in sun-exposed areas of the skin (eg, face, neck, V area of the chest, dorsal upper extremities) with sparing of naturally photoprotected sites, such as the upper eyelids and nasolabial and retroauricular folds. Other than its characteristic photodistribution, PACD often is clinically indistinguishable from routine allergic contact dermatitis. It manifests as a pruritic, poorly demarcated, eczematous or sometimes vesiculobullous eruption that develops in a delayed fashion—24 to 72 hours after sun exposure. The dermatitis may extend to other parts of the body either through spread of the chemical agent by the hands or clothing or due to the systemic nature of the immune response. The severity of the presentation can vary depending on multiple factors, such as concentration and absorption of the agent, length of exposure, intensity and duration of UV radiation exposure, and individual susceptibility.⁴ Chronic PACD may become lichenified. Generally, rashes resolve after discontinuation of the causative agent; however, long-term exposure may lead to development of chronic actinic dermatitis, with persistent photodistributed eczema regardless of contact with the initial inciting agent.⁹

Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis for patients presenting with photodistributed dermatitis is broad; therefore, taking a thorough history is important. Considerations include age of onset, timing and persistence of reactions, use of topical and systemic medications (both prescription and over-the-counter [OTC]), personal care products, occupation, and hobbies, as well as a thorough review of systems.

It is important to distinguish PACD from phototoxic contact dermatitis (PTCD)(also known as photoirritant contact dermatitis)(Table). Asking about the onset and timing of the eruption may be critical for distinction, as PTCD can occur within minutes to hours of the first exposure to a chemical and UV radiation, while there is a sensitization delay in PACD.⁶ Phytophotodermatitis is a well-known type of PTCD caused by exposure to furocoumarin-containing plants, most commonly limes.¹⁰ Other causes of PTCD include tar products and certain medications.¹¹ Importantly, PPT to a known phototoxic chemical should never be performed because it will cause a strong reaction in anyone tested, regardless of exposure history.

Diagnosis

Histologically, PACD presents similarly to allergic contact dermatitis with spongiotic dermatitis; therefore, biopsy cannot be relied upon to make the diagnosis.⁶ Photopatch testing is required for definitive diagnosis. It is reasonable to perform PPT in any patient with chronic dermatitis primarily affecting sun-exposed areas without a clear alternative diagnosis.^14,15 Of note, at present there are no North American consensus guidelines for PPT, but typically duplicate sets of photoallergens are applied to both sides of the patient’s back and one side is exposed to UVA radiation. The reactions are compared after 48 to 96 hours.¹⁵ A positive reaction only at the irradiated site is consistent with photoallergy, while a reaction of equal strength at both the irradiated and nonirradiated sites indicates regular contact allergy. The case of a reaction occurring at both sites with a stronger response at the irradiated site is known as photoaggravated contact allergy, which can be thought of as allergic contact dermatitis that worsens but does not solely occur with exposure to sunlight.

Although PPT is necessary for the accurate diagnosis of PACD, it is infrequently used. Two surveys of 112 and 117 American Contact Dermatitis Society members, respectively, have revealed that only around half performed PPT, most of them testing fewer than 20 times per year.^16,17 Additionally, there was variability in the test methodology and allergens employed. Nevertheless, most respondents tested sunscreens, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), fragrances, and their patients’ own products.^16,17 The most common reasons for not performing PPT were lack of equipment, insufficient skills, rare clinical suspicion, and cost. Dermatologists at academic centers performed more PPT than those in other practice settings, including multispecialty group practices and private offices.¹⁶ These findings highlight multiple factors that may contribute to reduced patient access to PPT and thus potential underdiagnosis of PACD.

Common Photoallergens

The most common photoallergens change over time in response to market trends; for example, fragrance was once a top photoallergen in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s but declined in prominence after musk ambrette—the primary allergen associated with PACD at the time—was removed as an ingredient in fragrances.¹⁸

In the largest and most recent PPT series from North America (1999-2009),² sunscreens comprised 7 of the top 10 most common photoallergens, which is consistent with other studies showing sunscreens to be the most common North American photoallergens.^19-22 The frequency of PACD due to sunscreens likely relates to their increasing use worldwide as awareness of photocarcinogenesis and photoaging grows, as well as the common use of UV filters in nonsunscreen personal care products, ranging from lip balms to perfumes and bodywashes. Chemical (organic) UV filters—in particular oxybenzone (benzophenone-3) and avobenzone (butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane)—are the most common sunscreen photoallergens.^2,23 Para-aminobenzoic acid was once a common photoallergen, but it is no longer used in US sunscreens due to safety concerns.^19,20 The physical (inorganic) UV filters zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are not known photosensitizers.

Methylisothiazolinone (MI) is a highly allergenic preservative commonly used in a wide array of personal care products, including sunscreens.²⁴ In the most recent NACDG patch test data, MI was the second most common contact allergen.²⁵ Allergic contact dermatitis caused by MI in sunscreen can mimic PACD.²⁶ In addition, MI can cause photoaggravated contact dermatitis, with some affected patients experiencing ongoing photosensitivity even after avoiding this allergen.^26-30 The European Union and Canada have introduced restrictions on the use of MI in personal care products, but no such regulatory measures have been taken in the United States to date.^25,31,32

After sunscreens, another common cause of PACD are topical NSAIDs, which are frequently used for musculoskeletal pain relief. These are of particular concern in Europe, where a variety of formulations are widely available OTC.³³ Ketoprofen and etofenamate are responsible for the largest number of PACD reactions in Europe.^2,34,35 Meanwhile, the only OTC topical NSAID available in the United States is diclofenac gel, which was approved in 2020. Cases of PACD due to use of diclofenac gel have been reported in the literature, but testing in larger populations is needed.^36-39

Notably, ketoprofen may co- or cross-react with certain UV filters—oxybenzone and octocrylene—and the lipid-lowering agent fenofibrate due to chemical similarities.^40-43 Despite the relatively high number of photoallergic reactions to ketoprofen in the NACDG photopatch series, only 25% (5/20) were considered clinically relevant (ie, the allergen could not be verified as present in the known skin contactants of the patient, and the patient was not exposed to circumstances in which contact with materials known to contain the allergen would likely occur), which suggests that they likely represented cross-reactions in patients sensitized to sunscreens.²

Other agents that may cause PACD include antimicrobials, plants and plant derivatives, and pesticides.^2,4,18 The antimicrobial fentichlor is a common cause of positive PPT reactions, but it rarely is clinically relevant.⁴⁴

Treatment

The primary management of PACD centers on identification of the causative photoallergen to avoid future exposure. Patients should be educated on the various names by which the causative allergen can be identified on product labels and should be given a list of safe products that are free from relevant allergens and cross-reacting chemicals.⁴⁵ Additionally, sun protection education should be provided. Exposure to UVA radiation can occur through windows, making the use of broad-spectrum sunscreens and protective clothing crucial. In cases of sunscreen-induced PACD, the responsible chemical UV filter(s) should be avoided, or alternatively, patients may use physical sunscreens containing only zinc oxide and/or titanium dioxide as active ingredients, as these are not known to cause PACD.⁴

When avoidance alone is insufficient, topical corticosteroids are the usual first-line treatment for localized PACD. When steroid-sparing treatments are preferred, topical calcineurin inhibitors such as tacrolimus and pimecrolimus may be used. If PACD is more widespread and severe, systemic therapy using steroids or steroid-sparing agents may be necessary to provide symptomatic relief.⁴

Final Interpretation

Photoallergic contact dermatitis is not uncommon, particularly among photosensitive patients. Most cases are due to sunscreens or topical NSAIDs. Consideration of PPT should be given in any patient with a chronic photodistributed dermatitis to evaluate for the possibility of PACD.

Tinea capitis (TC) most often is caused by Trichophyton tonsurans and Microsporum canis. The peak incidence is between 3 and 7 years of age. Noninflammatory TC typically presents as fine scaling with single or multiple scaly patches of circular alopecia (grey patches); diffuse or patchy, fine, white, adherent scaling of the scalp resembling generalized dandruff with subtle hair loss; or single or multiple patches of well-demarcated areas of alopecia with fine scale studded with broken-off hairs at the scalp surface, resulting in a black dot appearance. Inflammatory variants of TC include kerion and favus.¹ Herein, updates on diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of TC are provided, as well as a discussion of changes in the fungal microbiome associated with TC. Lastly, insights to some queries that practitioners may encounter when treating children with TC are provided.

Genetic Susceptibility

Molecular techniques have identified a number of macrophage regulator, leukocyte activation and migration, and cutaneous permeability genes associated with susceptibility to TC. These findings indicate that genetically determined deficiency in adaptive immune responses may affect the predisposition to dermatophyte infections.²

Clinical Varieties of Infection

Dermatophytes causing ringworm are capable of invading the hair shafts and can simultaneously invade smooth or glabrous skin (eg, T tonsurans, Trichophyton schoenleinii, Trichophyton violaceum). Some causative dermatophytes can even penetrate the nails (eg, Trichophyton soudanense). The clinical presentation is dependent on 3 main patterns of hair invasion³:

• Ectothrix: A mid-follicular pattern of invasion with hyphae growing down to the hair bulb that commonly is caused by Microsporum species. It clinically presents with scaling and inflammation with hair shafts breaking 2 to 3 mm above the scalp level.

• Endothrix: This pattern is nonfluorescent on Wood lamp examination, and hairs often break at the scalp level (black dot type). Trichophyton tonsurans, T soudanense, Trichophyton rubrum, and T violaceum are common causes.

• Favus: In this pattern, T schoenleinii is a common cause, and hairs grow to considerable lengths above the scalp with less damage than the other patterns. The hair shafts present with characteristic air spaces, and hyphae form clusters at the level of the epidermis.

Diagnosis

Optimal treatment of TC relies on proper identification of the causative agent. Fungal culture remains the gold standard of mycologic diagnosis regardless of its delayed results, which may take up to 4 weeks for proper identification of the fungal colonies and require ample expertise to interpret the morphologic features of the grown colonies.⁴

Other tests such as the potassium hydroxide preparation are nonspecific and do not identify the dermatophyte species. Although this method has been reported to have 5% to 15% false-negative results in routine practice depending on the skill of the observer and the quality of sampling, microscopic examination is essential, as it may allow the clinician to start treatment sooner pending culture results. The use of a Wood lamp is not suitable for definitive species identification, as this technique primarily is useful for observing fluorescence in ectothrix infection caused by Microsporum species, with the exception of T schoenleinii; otherwise, Trichophyton species, which cause endothrix infections, do not fluoresce.⁵Polymerase chain reaction is a sensitive technique that can help identify both the genus and species of common dermatophytes. Common target sequences include the ribosomal internal transcribed spacer and translation elongation factor 1α. The use of matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry also has become popular for dermatophyte identification.⁶Trichoscopic diagnosis of TC, which is simple and noninvasive, is becoming increasingly popular. Features such as short, broken, black dot, comma, corkscrew, and/or zigzag hairs, as well as perifollicular scaling, are helpful for diagnosing TC (Figure). Moreover, trichoscopy can be useful for differentiating other common causes of hair loss, such as trichotillomania and alopecia areata. It had been reported that the trichoscopic features of TC can be seen as early as 2 weeks after starting treatment and therefore this can be a reliable period in which to follow-up with the patient to evaluate progress. The disappearance of black dots and comma hairs can be appreciated from 2 weeks onwards by trichoscopic evaluation.⁴

Treatment

The common recommendation for first-line treatment of TC is the use of systemic antifungals with the use of a topical agent as an adjuvant to prevent the spread of fungal spores. For almost 6 decades, griseofulvin had been the gold-standard fungistatic used for treating TC in patients older than 2 years until the 2007 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of terbinafine fungicidal oral granules for treatment of TC in patients older than 4 years.⁷

Meta-analyses have demonstrated comparable efficacy for a 4-week course of terbinafine compared to 6 weeks of griseofulvin for TC based on the infectious organism. Terbinafine demonstrated superiority in treating T tonsurans and a similar efficacy in treating T violaceum, while griseofulvin was superior in treating M canis and other Microsporum species.^8,9

The off-label use of fluconazole and itraconazole to treat TC is gaining popularity, with limited trials showing increased evidence of their effectiveness. There is not much clinical evidence to support the use of other oral antifungals, including the newer azoles such as voriconazole or posaconazole.⁹

Newer limited evidence has shown the off-label use of photodynamic therapy to be a promising alternative to systemic antifungal therapy in treating TC, pending validation by larger sample trials.¹⁰In my practice, I have found that severe cases of TC demonstrating inflammation or possible widespread id reactions are better treated with oral steroids. Ketoconazole shampoo or selenium sulfide used 2 to 3 times weekly to prevent spread in the early phases of therapy is a good adjunct to systemic treatment. Cases with kerions should be assessed for the possibility of a coexisting bacterial infection under the crusts, and if confirmed, antibiotics should be started.⁹The commonly used systemic antifungals generally are safe with a low side-effect profile, but there is a risk for hepatotoxicity. The FDA recommends that baseline alanine transaminase and aspartate transaminase levels should be obtained prior to beginning a terbinafine-based treatment regimen.¹¹ The American Academy of Pediatrics has specifically stated that laboratory testing of serum hepatic enzymes is not a requirement if a griseofulvin-based regimen does not exceed 8 weeks; however, transaminase levels (alanine transaminase and aspartate transaminase) should be considered in patients using terbinafine at baseline or if treatment is prolonged beyond 4 to 6 weeks.¹² In agreement with the FDA guidelines, the Canadian Pediatric Society has suggested that liver enzymes should be periodically monitored in patients being treated with terbinafine beyond 4 to 6 weeks.¹³

Changes in the Fungal Microbiome

Research has shown that changes in the fungal microbiome were associated with an altered bacterial community in patients with TC. During fungal infection, the relative abundances of Cutibacterium and Corynebacterium increased, and the relative abundance of Streptococcus decreased. In addition, some uncommon bacterial genera such as Herbaspirillum and Methylorubrum were detected on the scalp in TC.¹⁴

Carrier State

Carrier state is determined for those siblings and contacts of cases with a clinically normal scalp that are positive on culture. Those individuals could represent a potential reservoir responsible for contamination (or recontamination) of the patient as well as treatment failure. Opinions remain divided as to whether to use oral antifungal therapy in these carriers or maintain therapy on antifungal shampoos containing ketoconazole or povidone-iodine. Due to the paucity of available data, my experience has shown that it is sufficient to use antifungal shampoos for such carriers. In zoophilic infections, it is important to identify and treat the animal source.^6-9

Final Thoughts

Successful treatment of TC requires accurate identification of the pathogen, which commonly is achieved via fungal culture. Despite its practical value, the conventional identification of dermatophytes based on morphologic features can be highly challenging due to the low positive rate and delayed results. Trichoscopy is a quick, handy, and noninvasive tool that can better indicate the diagnosis and also is helpful for follow-up on treatment progress. Due to better understanding of the immunology and genetic susceptibility associated with TC spread, the current treatment pipeline holds more insight into better control of this condition. Increased surveillance, prompt diagnosis, and early onset of systemic treatment are the key to proper prevention of spread of TC.

Tinea capitis (TC) most often is caused by Trichophyton tonsurans and Microsporum canis. The peak incidence is between 3 and 7 years of age. Noninflammatory TC typically presents as fine scaling with single or multiple scaly patches of circular alopecia (grey patches); diffuse or patchy, fine, white, adherent scaling of the scalp resembling generalized dandruff with subtle hair loss; or single or multiple patches of well-demarcated areas of alopecia with fine scale studded with broken-off hairs at the scalp surface, resulting in a black dot appearance. Inflammatory variants of TC include kerion and favus.¹ Herein, updates on diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of TC are provided, as well as a discussion of changes in the fungal microbiome associated with TC. Lastly, insights to some queries that practitioners may encounter when treating children with TC are provided.

Genetic Susceptibility

Molecular techniques have identified a number of macrophage regulator, leukocyte activation and migration, and cutaneous permeability genes associated with susceptibility to TC. These findings indicate that genetically determined deficiency in adaptive immune responses may affect the predisposition to dermatophyte infections.²

Clinical Varieties of Infection

Dermatophytes causing ringworm are capable of invading the hair shafts and can simultaneously invade smooth or glabrous skin (eg, T tonsurans, Trichophyton schoenleinii, Trichophyton violaceum). Some causative dermatophytes can even penetrate the nails (eg, Trichophyton soudanense). The clinical presentation is dependent on 3 main patterns of hair invasion³:

• Ectothrix: A mid-follicular pattern of invasion with hyphae growing down to the hair bulb that commonly is caused by Microsporum species. It clinically presents with scaling and inflammation with hair shafts breaking 2 to 3 mm above the scalp level.

• Endothrix: This pattern is nonfluorescent on Wood lamp examination, and hairs often break at the scalp level (black dot type). Trichophyton tonsurans, T soudanense, Trichophyton rubrum, and T violaceum are common causes.

• Favus: In this pattern, T schoenleinii is a common cause, and hairs grow to considerable lengths above the scalp with less damage than the other patterns. The hair shafts present with characteristic air spaces, and hyphae form clusters at the level of the epidermis.

Diagnosis

Optimal treatment of TC relies on proper identification of the causative agent. Fungal culture remains the gold standard of mycologic diagnosis regardless of its delayed results, which may take up to 4 weeks for proper identification of the fungal colonies and require ample expertise to interpret the morphologic features of the grown colonies.⁴

Other tests such as the potassium hydroxide preparation are nonspecific and do not identify the dermatophyte species. Although this method has been reported to have 5% to 15% false-negative results in routine practice depending on the skill of the observer and the quality of sampling, microscopic examination is essential, as it may allow the clinician to start treatment sooner pending culture results. The use of a Wood lamp is not suitable for definitive species identification, as this technique primarily is useful for observing fluorescence in ectothrix infection caused by Microsporum species, with the exception of T schoenleinii; otherwise, Trichophyton species, which cause endothrix infections, do not fluoresce.⁵Polymerase chain reaction is a sensitive technique that can help identify both the genus and species of common dermatophytes. Common target sequences include the ribosomal internal transcribed spacer and translation elongation factor 1α. The use of matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry also has become popular for dermatophyte identification.⁶Trichoscopic diagnosis of TC, which is simple and noninvasive, is becoming increasingly popular. Features such as short, broken, black dot, comma, corkscrew, and/or zigzag hairs, as well as perifollicular scaling, are helpful for diagnosing TC (Figure). Moreover, trichoscopy can be useful for differentiating other common causes of hair loss, such as trichotillomania and alopecia areata. It had been reported that the trichoscopic features of TC can be seen as early as 2 weeks after starting treatment and therefore this can be a reliable period in which to follow-up with the patient to evaluate progress. The disappearance of black dots and comma hairs can be appreciated from 2 weeks onwards by trichoscopic evaluation.⁴

Treatment

The common recommendation for first-line treatment of TC is the use of systemic antifungals with the use of a topical agent as an adjuvant to prevent the spread of fungal spores. For almost 6 decades, griseofulvin had been the gold-standard fungistatic used for treating TC in patients older than 2 years until the 2007 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of terbinafine fungicidal oral granules for treatment of TC in patients older than 4 years.⁷

Meta-analyses have demonstrated comparable efficacy for a 4-week course of terbinafine compared to 6 weeks of griseofulvin for TC based on the infectious organism. Terbinafine demonstrated superiority in treating T tonsurans and a similar efficacy in treating T violaceum, while griseofulvin was superior in treating M canis and other Microsporum species.^8,9

The off-label use of fluconazole and itraconazole to treat TC is gaining popularity, with limited trials showing increased evidence of their effectiveness. There is not much clinical evidence to support the use of other oral antifungals, including the newer azoles such as voriconazole or posaconazole.⁹

Newer limited evidence has shown the off-label use of photodynamic therapy to be a promising alternative to systemic antifungal therapy in treating TC, pending validation by larger sample trials.¹⁰In my practice, I have found that severe cases of TC demonstrating inflammation or possible widespread id reactions are better treated with oral steroids. Ketoconazole shampoo or selenium sulfide used 2 to 3 times weekly to prevent spread in the early phases of therapy is a good adjunct to systemic treatment. Cases with kerions should be assessed for the possibility of a coexisting bacterial infection under the crusts, and if confirmed, antibiotics should be started.⁹The commonly used systemic antifungals generally are safe with a low side-effect profile, but there is a risk for hepatotoxicity. The FDA recommends that baseline alanine transaminase and aspartate transaminase levels should be obtained prior to beginning a terbinafine-based treatment regimen.¹¹ The American Academy of Pediatrics has specifically stated that laboratory testing of serum hepatic enzymes is not a requirement if a griseofulvin-based regimen does not exceed 8 weeks; however, transaminase levels (alanine transaminase and aspartate transaminase) should be considered in patients using terbinafine at baseline or if treatment is prolonged beyond 4 to 6 weeks.¹² In agreement with the FDA guidelines, the Canadian Pediatric Society has suggested that liver enzymes should be periodically monitored in patients being treated with terbinafine beyond 4 to 6 weeks.¹³

Changes in the Fungal Microbiome

Research has shown that changes in the fungal microbiome were associated with an altered bacterial community in patients with TC. During fungal infection, the relative abundances of Cutibacterium and Corynebacterium increased, and the relative abundance of Streptococcus decreased. In addition, some uncommon bacterial genera such as Herbaspirillum and Methylorubrum were detected on the scalp in TC.¹⁴

Carrier State

Carrier state is determined for those siblings and contacts of cases with a clinically normal scalp that are positive on culture. Those individuals could represent a potential reservoir responsible for contamination (or recontamination) of the patient as well as treatment failure. Opinions remain divided as to whether to use oral antifungal therapy in these carriers or maintain therapy on antifungal shampoos containing ketoconazole or povidone-iodine. Due to the paucity of available data, my experience has shown that it is sufficient to use antifungal shampoos for such carriers. In zoophilic infections, it is important to identify and treat the animal source.^6-9

Final Thoughts

Successful treatment of TC requires accurate identification of the pathogen, which commonly is achieved via fungal culture. Despite its practical value, the conventional identification of dermatophytes based on morphologic features can be highly challenging due to the low positive rate and delayed results. Trichoscopy is a quick, handy, and noninvasive tool that can better indicate the diagnosis and also is helpful for follow-up on treatment progress. Due to better understanding of the immunology and genetic susceptibility associated with TC spread, the current treatment pipeline holds more insight into better control of this condition. Increased surveillance, prompt diagnosis, and early onset of systemic treatment are the key to proper prevention of spread of TC.

Tinea capitis (TC) most often is caused by Trichophyton tonsurans and Microsporum canis. The peak incidence is between 3 and 7 years of age. Noninflammatory TC typically presents as fine scaling with single or multiple scaly patches of circular alopecia (grey patches); diffuse or patchy, fine, white, adherent scaling of the scalp resembling generalized dandruff with subtle hair loss; or single or multiple patches of well-demarcated areas of alopecia with fine scale studded with broken-off hairs at the scalp surface, resulting in a black dot appearance. Inflammatory variants of TC include kerion and favus.¹ Herein, updates on diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of TC are provided, as well as a discussion of changes in the fungal microbiome associated with TC. Lastly, insights to some queries that practitioners may encounter when treating children with TC are provided.

Genetic Susceptibility

Molecular techniques have identified a number of macrophage regulator, leukocyte activation and migration, and cutaneous permeability genes associated with susceptibility to TC. These findings indicate that genetically determined deficiency in adaptive immune responses may affect the predisposition to dermatophyte infections.²

Clinical Varieties of Infection

Dermatophytes causing ringworm are capable of invading the hair shafts and can simultaneously invade smooth or glabrous skin (eg, T tonsurans, Trichophyton schoenleinii, Trichophyton violaceum). Some causative dermatophytes can even penetrate the nails (eg, Trichophyton soudanense). The clinical presentation is dependent on 3 main patterns of hair invasion³:

• Ectothrix: A mid-follicular pattern of invasion with hyphae growing down to the hair bulb that commonly is caused by Microsporum species. It clinically presents with scaling and inflammation with hair shafts breaking 2 to 3 mm above the scalp level.

• Endothrix: This pattern is nonfluorescent on Wood lamp examination, and hairs often break at the scalp level (black dot type). Trichophyton tonsurans, T soudanense, Trichophyton rubrum, and T violaceum are common causes.

• Favus: In this pattern, T schoenleinii is a common cause, and hairs grow to considerable lengths above the scalp with less damage than the other patterns. The hair shafts present with characteristic air spaces, and hyphae form clusters at the level of the epidermis.

Diagnosis

Optimal treatment of TC relies on proper identification of the causative agent. Fungal culture remains the gold standard of mycologic diagnosis regardless of its delayed results, which may take up to 4 weeks for proper identification of the fungal colonies and require ample expertise to interpret the morphologic features of the grown colonies.⁴

Other tests such as the potassium hydroxide preparation are nonspecific and do not identify the dermatophyte species. Although this method has been reported to have 5% to 15% false-negative results in routine practice depending on the skill of the observer and the quality of sampling, microscopic examination is essential, as it may allow the clinician to start treatment sooner pending culture results. The use of a Wood lamp is not suitable for definitive species identification, as this technique primarily is useful for observing fluorescence in ectothrix infection caused by Microsporum species, with the exception of T schoenleinii; otherwise, Trichophyton species, which cause endothrix infections, do not fluoresce.⁵Polymerase chain reaction is a sensitive technique that can help identify both the genus and species of common dermatophytes. Common target sequences include the ribosomal internal transcribed spacer and translation elongation factor 1α. The use of matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry also has become popular for dermatophyte identification.⁶Trichoscopic diagnosis of TC, which is simple and noninvasive, is becoming increasingly popular. Features such as short, broken, black dot, comma, corkscrew, and/or zigzag hairs, as well as perifollicular scaling, are helpful for diagnosing TC (Figure). Moreover, trichoscopy can be useful for differentiating other common causes of hair loss, such as trichotillomania and alopecia areata. It had been reported that the trichoscopic features of TC can be seen as early as 2 weeks after starting treatment and therefore this can be a reliable period in which to follow-up with the patient to evaluate progress. The disappearance of black dots and comma hairs can be appreciated from 2 weeks onwards by trichoscopic evaluation.⁴

Treatment

The common recommendation for first-line treatment of TC is the use of systemic antifungals with the use of a topical agent as an adjuvant to prevent the spread of fungal spores. For almost 6 decades, griseofulvin had been the gold-standard fungistatic used for treating TC in patients older than 2 years until the 2007 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of terbinafine fungicidal oral granules for treatment of TC in patients older than 4 years.⁷

Meta-analyses have demonstrated comparable efficacy for a 4-week course of terbinafine compared to 6 weeks of griseofulvin for TC based on the infectious organism. Terbinafine demonstrated superiority in treating T tonsurans and a similar efficacy in treating T violaceum, while griseofulvin was superior in treating M canis and other Microsporum species.^8,9

The off-label use of fluconazole and itraconazole to treat TC is gaining popularity, with limited trials showing increased evidence of their effectiveness. There is not much clinical evidence to support the use of other oral antifungals, including the newer azoles such as voriconazole or posaconazole.⁹

Newer limited evidence has shown the off-label use of photodynamic therapy to be a promising alternative to systemic antifungal therapy in treating TC, pending validation by larger sample trials.¹⁰In my practice, I have found that severe cases of TC demonstrating inflammation or possible widespread id reactions are better treated with oral steroids. Ketoconazole shampoo or selenium sulfide used 2 to 3 times weekly to prevent spread in the early phases of therapy is a good adjunct to systemic treatment. Cases with kerions should be assessed for the possibility of a coexisting bacterial infection under the crusts, and if confirmed, antibiotics should be started.⁹The commonly used systemic antifungals generally are safe with a low side-effect profile, but there is a risk for hepatotoxicity. The FDA recommends that baseline alanine transaminase and aspartate transaminase levels should be obtained prior to beginning a terbinafine-based treatment regimen.¹¹ The American Academy of Pediatrics has specifically stated that laboratory testing of serum hepatic enzymes is not a requirement if a griseofulvin-based regimen does not exceed 8 weeks; however, transaminase levels (alanine transaminase and aspartate transaminase) should be considered in patients using terbinafine at baseline or if treatment is prolonged beyond 4 to 6 weeks.¹² In agreement with the FDA guidelines, the Canadian Pediatric Society has suggested that liver enzymes should be periodically monitored in patients being treated with terbinafine beyond 4 to 6 weeks.¹³

Changes in the Fungal Microbiome

Research has shown that changes in the fungal microbiome were associated with an altered bacterial community in patients with TC. During fungal infection, the relative abundances of Cutibacterium and Corynebacterium increased, and the relative abundance of Streptococcus decreased. In addition, some uncommon bacterial genera such as Herbaspirillum and Methylorubrum were detected on the scalp in TC.¹⁴

Carrier State

Carrier state is determined for those siblings and contacts of cases with a clinically normal scalp that are positive on culture. Those individuals could represent a potential reservoir responsible for contamination (or recontamination) of the patient as well as treatment failure. Opinions remain divided as to whether to use oral antifungal therapy in these carriers or maintain therapy on antifungal shampoos containing ketoconazole or povidone-iodine. Due to the paucity of available data, my experience has shown that it is sufficient to use antifungal shampoos for such carriers. In zoophilic infections, it is important to identify and treat the animal source.^6-9

Final Thoughts

Successful treatment of TC requires accurate identification of the pathogen, which commonly is achieved via fungal culture. Despite its practical value, the conventional identification of dermatophytes based on morphologic features can be highly challenging due to the low positive rate and delayed results. Trichoscopy is a quick, handy, and noninvasive tool that can better indicate the diagnosis and also is helpful for follow-up on treatment progress. Due to better understanding of the immunology and genetic susceptibility associated with TC spread, the current treatment pipeline holds more insight into better control of this condition. Increased surveillance, prompt diagnosis, and early onset of systemic treatment are the key to proper prevention of spread of TC.

The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have published an updated guideline on the diagnosis and management of aortic disease, focusing on surgical intervention considerations, consistent imaging practices, genetic and familial screenings, and the importance of multidisciplinary care.

“There has been a host of new evidence-based research available for clinicians in the past decade when it comes to aortic disease. It was time to reevaluate and update the previous, existing guidelines,” Eric M. Isselbacher, MD, MSc, chair of the writing committee, said in a statement.

“We hope this new guideline can inform clinical practices with up-to-date and synthesized recommendations, targeted toward a full multidisciplinary aortic team working to provide the best possible care for this vulnerable patient population,” added Dr. Isselbacher, codirector of the Thoracic Aortic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The 2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease was simultaneously published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation.

The new guideline replaces the 2010 ACCF/AHA Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Thoracic Aortic Disease and the 2015 Surgery for Aortic Dilation in Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Valves: A Statement of Clarification From the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

The new guideline is intended to be used with the 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease.

It brings together guidelines for both the thoracic and abdominal aorta and is targeted to cardiovascular clinicians involved in the care of people with aortic disease, including general cardiovascular care clinicians and emergency medicine clinicians, the writing group says.

Among the key recommendations in the new guideline are the following:

• Screen first-degree relatives of individuals diagnosed with aneurysms of the aortic root or ascending thoracic aorta, or those with aortic dissection to identify individuals most at risk for aortic disease. Screening would include genetic testing and imaging.
• Be consistent in the way CT or MRI are obtained and reported; in the measurement of aortic size and features; and in how often images are used for monitoring before and after repair surgery or other intervention. Ideally, all surveillance imaging for an individual should be done using the same modality and in the same lab, the guideline notes.
• For individuals who require aortic intervention, know that outcomes are optimized when surgery is performed by an experienced surgeon working in a multidisciplinary aortic team. The new guideline recommends “a specialized hospital team with expertise in the evaluation and management of aortic disease, in which care is delivered in a comprehensive, multidisciplinary manner.”
• At centers with multidisciplinary aortic teams and experienced surgeons, the threshold for surgical intervention for sporadic aortic root and ascending aortic aneurysms has been lowered from 5.5 cm to 5.0 cm in select individuals, and even lower in specific scenarios among patients with heritable thoracic aortic aneurysms.
• In patients who are significantly smaller or taller than average, surgical thresholds may incorporate indexing of the aortic root or ascending aortic diameter to either patient body surface area or height, or aortic cross-sectional area to patient height.
• Rapid aortic growth is a risk factor for rupture and the definition for rapid aneurysm growth rate has been updated. Surgery is now recommended for patients with aneurysms of aortic root and ascending thoracic aorta with a confirmed growth rate of ≥ 0.3 cm per year across 2 consecutive years or ≥ 0.5 cm in 1 year.
• In patients undergoing aortic root replacement surgery, valve-sparing aortic root replacement is reasonable if the valve is suitable for repair and when performed by experienced surgeons in a multidisciplinary aortic team.
• Patients with acute type A aortic dissection, if clinically stable, should be considered for transfer to a high-volume aortic center to improve survival. The operative repair of type A aortic dissection should entail at least an open distal anastomosis rather than just a simple supracoronary interposition graft.
• For management of uncomplicated type B aortic dissection, there is an increasing role for . Clinical trials of repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms with endografts are reporting results that suggest endovascular repair is an option for patients with suitable anatomy.
• Shared decision-making between the patient and multidisciplinary aortic team is highly encouraged, especially when the patient is on the borderline of thresholds for repair or eligible for different types of surgical repair.
• Shared decision-making should also be used with individuals who are pregnant or may become pregnant to consider the risks of pregnancy in individuals with aortic disease.

The guideline was developed in collaboration with and endorsed by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the American College of Radiology, the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the Society for Vascular Medicine.

It has been endorsed by the Society of Interventional Radiology and the Society for Vascular Surgery.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have published an updated guideline on the diagnosis and management of aortic disease, focusing on surgical intervention considerations, consistent imaging practices, genetic and familial screenings, and the importance of multidisciplinary care.

“There has been a host of new evidence-based research available for clinicians in the past decade when it comes to aortic disease. It was time to reevaluate and update the previous, existing guidelines,” Eric M. Isselbacher, MD, MSc, chair of the writing committee, said in a statement.

“We hope this new guideline can inform clinical practices with up-to-date and synthesized recommendations, targeted toward a full multidisciplinary aortic team working to provide the best possible care for this vulnerable patient population,” added Dr. Isselbacher, codirector of the Thoracic Aortic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The 2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease was simultaneously published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation.

The new guideline replaces the 2010 ACCF/AHA Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Thoracic Aortic Disease and the 2015 Surgery for Aortic Dilation in Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Valves: A Statement of Clarification From the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

The new guideline is intended to be used with the 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease.

It brings together guidelines for both the thoracic and abdominal aorta and is targeted to cardiovascular clinicians involved in the care of people with aortic disease, including general cardiovascular care clinicians and emergency medicine clinicians, the writing group says.

Among the key recommendations in the new guideline are the following:

• Screen first-degree relatives of individuals diagnosed with aneurysms of the aortic root or ascending thoracic aorta, or those with aortic dissection to identify individuals most at risk for aortic disease. Screening would include genetic testing and imaging.
• Be consistent in the way CT or MRI are obtained and reported; in the measurement of aortic size and features; and in how often images are used for monitoring before and after repair surgery or other intervention. Ideally, all surveillance imaging for an individual should be done using the same modality and in the same lab, the guideline notes.
• For individuals who require aortic intervention, know that outcomes are optimized when surgery is performed by an experienced surgeon working in a multidisciplinary aortic team. The new guideline recommends “a specialized hospital team with expertise in the evaluation and management of aortic disease, in which care is delivered in a comprehensive, multidisciplinary manner.”
• At centers with multidisciplinary aortic teams and experienced surgeons, the threshold for surgical intervention for sporadic aortic root and ascending aortic aneurysms has been lowered from 5.5 cm to 5.0 cm in select individuals, and even lower in specific scenarios among patients with heritable thoracic aortic aneurysms.
• In patients who are significantly smaller or taller than average, surgical thresholds may incorporate indexing of the aortic root or ascending aortic diameter to either patient body surface area or height, or aortic cross-sectional area to patient height.
• Rapid aortic growth is a risk factor for rupture and the definition for rapid aneurysm growth rate has been updated. Surgery is now recommended for patients with aneurysms of aortic root and ascending thoracic aorta with a confirmed growth rate of ≥ 0.3 cm per year across 2 consecutive years or ≥ 0.5 cm in 1 year.
• In patients undergoing aortic root replacement surgery, valve-sparing aortic root replacement is reasonable if the valve is suitable for repair and when performed by experienced surgeons in a multidisciplinary aortic team.
• Patients with acute type A aortic dissection, if clinically stable, should be considered for transfer to a high-volume aortic center to improve survival. The operative repair of type A aortic dissection should entail at least an open distal anastomosis rather than just a simple supracoronary interposition graft.
• For management of uncomplicated type B aortic dissection, there is an increasing role for . Clinical trials of repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms with endografts are reporting results that suggest endovascular repair is an option for patients with suitable anatomy.
• Shared decision-making between the patient and multidisciplinary aortic team is highly encouraged, especially when the patient is on the borderline of thresholds for repair or eligible for different types of surgical repair.
• Shared decision-making should also be used with individuals who are pregnant or may become pregnant to consider the risks of pregnancy in individuals with aortic disease.

The guideline was developed in collaboration with and endorsed by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the American College of Radiology, the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the Society for Vascular Medicine.

It has been endorsed by the Society of Interventional Radiology and the Society for Vascular Surgery.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have published an updated guideline on the diagnosis and management of aortic disease, focusing on surgical intervention considerations, consistent imaging practices, genetic and familial screenings, and the importance of multidisciplinary care.

“There has been a host of new evidence-based research available for clinicians in the past decade when it comes to aortic disease. It was time to reevaluate and update the previous, existing guidelines,” Eric M. Isselbacher, MD, MSc, chair of the writing committee, said in a statement.

“We hope this new guideline can inform clinical practices with up-to-date and synthesized recommendations, targeted toward a full multidisciplinary aortic team working to provide the best possible care for this vulnerable patient population,” added Dr. Isselbacher, codirector of the Thoracic Aortic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The 2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease was simultaneously published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation.

The new guideline replaces the 2010 ACCF/AHA Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Thoracic Aortic Disease and the 2015 Surgery for Aortic Dilation in Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Valves: A Statement of Clarification From the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

The new guideline is intended to be used with the 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease.

It brings together guidelines for both the thoracic and abdominal aorta and is targeted to cardiovascular clinicians involved in the care of people with aortic disease, including general cardiovascular care clinicians and emergency medicine clinicians, the writing group says.

Among the key recommendations in the new guideline are the following:

• Screen first-degree relatives of individuals diagnosed with aneurysms of the aortic root or ascending thoracic aorta, or those with aortic dissection to identify individuals most at risk for aortic disease. Screening would include genetic testing and imaging.
• Be consistent in the way CT or MRI are obtained and reported; in the measurement of aortic size and features; and in how often images are used for monitoring before and after repair surgery or other intervention. Ideally, all surveillance imaging for an individual should be done using the same modality and in the same lab, the guideline notes.
• For individuals who require aortic intervention, know that outcomes are optimized when surgery is performed by an experienced surgeon working in a multidisciplinary aortic team. The new guideline recommends “a specialized hospital team with expertise in the evaluation and management of aortic disease, in which care is delivered in a comprehensive, multidisciplinary manner.”
• At centers with multidisciplinary aortic teams and experienced surgeons, the threshold for surgical intervention for sporadic aortic root and ascending aortic aneurysms has been lowered from 5.5 cm to 5.0 cm in select individuals, and even lower in specific scenarios among patients with heritable thoracic aortic aneurysms.
• In patients who are significantly smaller or taller than average, surgical thresholds may incorporate indexing of the aortic root or ascending aortic diameter to either patient body surface area or height, or aortic cross-sectional area to patient height.
• Rapid aortic growth is a risk factor for rupture and the definition for rapid aneurysm growth rate has been updated. Surgery is now recommended for patients with aneurysms of aortic root and ascending thoracic aorta with a confirmed growth rate of ≥ 0.3 cm per year across 2 consecutive years or ≥ 0.5 cm in 1 year.
• In patients undergoing aortic root replacement surgery, valve-sparing aortic root replacement is reasonable if the valve is suitable for repair and when performed by experienced surgeons in a multidisciplinary aortic team.
• Patients with acute type A aortic dissection, if clinically stable, should be considered for transfer to a high-volume aortic center to improve survival. The operative repair of type A aortic dissection should entail at least an open distal anastomosis rather than just a simple supracoronary interposition graft.
• For management of uncomplicated type B aortic dissection, there is an increasing role for . Clinical trials of repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms with endografts are reporting results that suggest endovascular repair is an option for patients with suitable anatomy.
• Shared decision-making between the patient and multidisciplinary aortic team is highly encouraged, especially when the patient is on the borderline of thresholds for repair or eligible for different types of surgical repair.
• Shared decision-making should also be used with individuals who are pregnant or may become pregnant to consider the risks of pregnancy in individuals with aortic disease.

The guideline was developed in collaboration with and endorsed by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the American College of Radiology, the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the Society for Vascular Medicine.

It has been endorsed by the Society of Interventional Radiology and the Society for Vascular Surgery.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – If a pulmonologist becomes involved early in the care of patients admitted to the hospital for an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD), the rate of readmission is reduced substantially relative to no pulmonologist involvement, according to a retrospective cohort review presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

“When stratified by severity of COPD at the time of admission, the difference in the readmission rate was even greater,” reported Nakisa Hekmat-Joo, MD, a third-year resident at Staten Island University Hospital, New York.

Just as protocols have been developed for prompt initiation of antibiotics in patients with septicemia or prompt revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI), Dr. Hekmat-Joo said the data from this study warrant a larger trial to evaluate whether an AECOPD admission protocol is warranted to improve outcomes and lower costs.

In this study, all AECOPD admissions were included from a recent 2-year period at two Staten Island hospitals. Of these, 198 patients received a pulmonologist consult within 24 hours. The remaining 92 patients were not evaluated by pulmonologists but were admitted and then managed by residents, internists, or others.

The primary outcome was length of stay (LOS). Although the slightly lower LOS in pulmonologist-treated group did not approach significance (4.16 vs. 4.21 days; P = .88), the readmission rate at 90 days, which was a secondary outcome, was reduced by almost half (30.1% vs. 57.6%; P < .0001).

At admission, there was no significant difference between those receiving a pulmonologist consult and those who did not. The average O₂ saturation was lower in the group seen by a pulmonologist (93% vs. 95.4%; P < .0001), but the most striking difference was the low relative readmission rate, which remained significant after controlling for severity and pulmonary function.

“When we stratified patients for baseline severity, the advantage of a pulmonologist consult was even greater for those with the most severe disease,” Dr. Hekmat-Joo said. Among those with the greatest severity, the 90-day readmission rate was nearly three times greater in the absence of a pulmonologist consult (72% vs. 28%).

Although the comparison of outcomes for those receiving a pulmonologist consult vs. those who did not was adjusted for COPD severity, the potential for pulmonologist consults to be ordered for those patients who looked the sickest would have likely worked against the study result.

“We speculate that pulmonologists were more likely than internists to treat beyond standard guidelines, particularly in the event of greater severity,” Dr. Hekmat-Joo explained. These steps might include earlier use of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation or earlier initiation of rehabilitation strategies.

There were several signals that a pulmonologist consult led to more rigorous care.

“The average time to follow-up after hospitalization was 23 days for the pulmonologist group and 66 days for the nonpulmonologist group,” said Dr. Hekmat-Joo, noting this difference was highly significant (P = .0052).

Based on these results, Dr. Hekmat-Joo and her co-investigators are now working on a protocol for COPD admissions that involves a pulmonologist consult within 24 hours of admission. She hopes to test this protocol in a prospective trial.

“COPD remains a major cause of death and consumes enormous health care resources. About 30% of the cost of COPD care is due to readmissions,” she said, noting that readmissions adversely impact quality of life.

Asked if there was sufficient staff at her institution to allow for a pulmonologist consult with every COPD admission, Dr. Hekmat-Joo acknowledged that this has to be demonstrated, but compelling evidence of a benefit might prompt a redistribution of resources.

“If we can show that readmissions are substantially reduced, adding staff to perform these consults would be a good investment,” said Dr. Hekmat-Joo, indicating that improved outcomes could also attract the attention of third-party payers and those tracking quality-of-care metrics.

There is a strong rationale for a randomized prospective trial to confirm the value of a pulmonologist consultation following admission for an acute exacerbation of COPD, according to Nicola A. Hanania, MD, director, Airways Clinical Research Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The potential for benefit as seen in this retrospective study is a rational expectation and might be related to more appropriate therapy upon discharge as well as to earlier and more rigorous follow-up, according to Dr. Hanania. Although he cautioned that there is a meaningful risk of selection bias in a retrospective study, he thinks this study “is certainly probing an important issue.”

“Mortality from a hospitalized COPD exacerbation exceeds that of a myocardial infarction,” Dr. Hanania pointed out. Noting that all patients with an MI are evaluated by a cardiologist, he sees the logic of a pulmonologist consult – although he acknowledged that evidence is needed.

“I strongly believe that a prospective study is feasible and will answer the question in an unbiased manner if done properly,” he said in an interview. If a multicenter, well-controlled study was positive, it could change practice.

In the event of a study showing major clinical benefits, particularly a reduction in mortality, “I believe it is feasible to have a pulmonary consult to see every COPD exacerbation patient admitted to the hospital,” Dr. Hanania said.

Dr. Hekmat-Joo reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hanania has financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Sunovion.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – If a pulmonologist becomes involved early in the care of patients admitted to the hospital for an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD), the rate of readmission is reduced substantially relative to no pulmonologist involvement, according to a retrospective cohort review presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

“When stratified by severity of COPD at the time of admission, the difference in the readmission rate was even greater,” reported Nakisa Hekmat-Joo, MD, a third-year resident at Staten Island University Hospital, New York.

Just as protocols have been developed for prompt initiation of antibiotics in patients with septicemia or prompt revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI), Dr. Hekmat-Joo said the data from this study warrant a larger trial to evaluate whether an AECOPD admission protocol is warranted to improve outcomes and lower costs.

In this study, all AECOPD admissions were included from a recent 2-year period at two Staten Island hospitals. Of these, 198 patients received a pulmonologist consult within 24 hours. The remaining 92 patients were not evaluated by pulmonologists but were admitted and then managed by residents, internists, or others.

The primary outcome was length of stay (LOS). Although the slightly lower LOS in pulmonologist-treated group did not approach significance (4.16 vs. 4.21 days; P = .88), the readmission rate at 90 days, which was a secondary outcome, was reduced by almost half (30.1% vs. 57.6%; P < .0001).

At admission, there was no significant difference between those receiving a pulmonologist consult and those who did not. The average O₂ saturation was lower in the group seen by a pulmonologist (93% vs. 95.4%; P < .0001), but the most striking difference was the low relative readmission rate, which remained significant after controlling for severity and pulmonary function.

“When we stratified patients for baseline severity, the advantage of a pulmonologist consult was even greater for those with the most severe disease,” Dr. Hekmat-Joo said. Among those with the greatest severity, the 90-day readmission rate was nearly three times greater in the absence of a pulmonologist consult (72% vs. 28%).

Although the comparison of outcomes for those receiving a pulmonologist consult vs. those who did not was adjusted for COPD severity, the potential for pulmonologist consults to be ordered for those patients who looked the sickest would have likely worked against the study result.

“We speculate that pulmonologists were more likely than internists to treat beyond standard guidelines, particularly in the event of greater severity,” Dr. Hekmat-Joo explained. These steps might include earlier use of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation or earlier initiation of rehabilitation strategies.

There were several signals that a pulmonologist consult led to more rigorous care.

“The average time to follow-up after hospitalization was 23 days for the pulmonologist group and 66 days for the nonpulmonologist group,” said Dr. Hekmat-Joo, noting this difference was highly significant (P = .0052).

Based on these results, Dr. Hekmat-Joo and her co-investigators are now working on a protocol for COPD admissions that involves a pulmonologist consult within 24 hours of admission. She hopes to test this protocol in a prospective trial.

“COPD remains a major cause of death and consumes enormous health care resources. About 30% of the cost of COPD care is due to readmissions,” she said, noting that readmissions adversely impact quality of life.

Asked if there was sufficient staff at her institution to allow for a pulmonologist consult with every COPD admission, Dr. Hekmat-Joo acknowledged that this has to be demonstrated, but compelling evidence of a benefit might prompt a redistribution of resources.

“If we can show that readmissions are substantially reduced, adding staff to perform these consults would be a good investment,” said Dr. Hekmat-Joo, indicating that improved outcomes could also attract the attention of third-party payers and those tracking quality-of-care metrics.

There is a strong rationale for a randomized prospective trial to confirm the value of a pulmonologist consultation following admission for an acute exacerbation of COPD, according to Nicola A. Hanania, MD, director, Airways Clinical Research Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The potential for benefit as seen in this retrospective study is a rational expectation and might be related to more appropriate therapy upon discharge as well as to earlier and more rigorous follow-up, according to Dr. Hanania. Although he cautioned that there is a meaningful risk of selection bias in a retrospective study, he thinks this study “is certainly probing an important issue.”

“Mortality from a hospitalized COPD exacerbation exceeds that of a myocardial infarction,” Dr. Hanania pointed out. Noting that all patients with an MI are evaluated by a cardiologist, he sees the logic of a pulmonologist consult – although he acknowledged that evidence is needed.

“I strongly believe that a prospective study is feasible and will answer the question in an unbiased manner if done properly,” he said in an interview. If a multicenter, well-controlled study was positive, it could change practice.

In the event of a study showing major clinical benefits, particularly a reduction in mortality, “I believe it is feasible to have a pulmonary consult to see every COPD exacerbation patient admitted to the hospital,” Dr. Hanania said.

Dr. Hekmat-Joo reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hanania has financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Sunovion.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – If a pulmonologist becomes involved early in the care of patients admitted to the hospital for an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD), the rate of readmission is reduced substantially relative to no pulmonologist involvement, according to a retrospective cohort review presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

“When stratified by severity of COPD at the time of admission, the difference in the readmission rate was even greater,” reported Nakisa Hekmat-Joo, MD, a third-year resident at Staten Island University Hospital, New York.

Just as protocols have been developed for prompt initiation of antibiotics in patients with septicemia or prompt revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI), Dr. Hekmat-Joo said the data from this study warrant a larger trial to evaluate whether an AECOPD admission protocol is warranted to improve outcomes and lower costs.

In this study, all AECOPD admissions were included from a recent 2-year period at two Staten Island hospitals. Of these, 198 patients received a pulmonologist consult within 24 hours. The remaining 92 patients were not evaluated by pulmonologists but were admitted and then managed by residents, internists, or others.

The primary outcome was length of stay (LOS). Although the slightly lower LOS in pulmonologist-treated group did not approach significance (4.16 vs. 4.21 days; P = .88), the readmission rate at 90 days, which was a secondary outcome, was reduced by almost half (30.1% vs. 57.6%; P < .0001).

At admission, there was no significant difference between those receiving a pulmonologist consult and those who did not. The average O₂ saturation was lower in the group seen by a pulmonologist (93% vs. 95.4%; P < .0001), but the most striking difference was the low relative readmission rate, which remained significant after controlling for severity and pulmonary function.

“When we stratified patients for baseline severity, the advantage of a pulmonologist consult was even greater for those with the most severe disease,” Dr. Hekmat-Joo said. Among those with the greatest severity, the 90-day readmission rate was nearly three times greater in the absence of a pulmonologist consult (72% vs. 28%).

Although the comparison of outcomes for those receiving a pulmonologist consult vs. those who did not was adjusted for COPD severity, the potential for pulmonologist consults to be ordered for those patients who looked the sickest would have likely worked against the study result.

“We speculate that pulmonologists were more likely than internists to treat beyond standard guidelines, particularly in the event of greater severity,” Dr. Hekmat-Joo explained. These steps might include earlier use of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation or earlier initiation of rehabilitation strategies.

There were several signals that a pulmonologist consult led to more rigorous care.

“The average time to follow-up after hospitalization was 23 days for the pulmonologist group and 66 days for the nonpulmonologist group,” said Dr. Hekmat-Joo, noting this difference was highly significant (P = .0052).

Based on these results, Dr. Hekmat-Joo and her co-investigators are now working on a protocol for COPD admissions that involves a pulmonologist consult within 24 hours of admission. She hopes to test this protocol in a prospective trial.

“COPD remains a major cause of death and consumes enormous health care resources. About 30% of the cost of COPD care is due to readmissions,” she said, noting that readmissions adversely impact quality of life.

Asked if there was sufficient staff at her institution to allow for a pulmonologist consult with every COPD admission, Dr. Hekmat-Joo acknowledged that this has to be demonstrated, but compelling evidence of a benefit might prompt a redistribution of resources.

“If we can show that readmissions are substantially reduced, adding staff to perform these consults would be a good investment,” said Dr. Hekmat-Joo, indicating that improved outcomes could also attract the attention of third-party payers and those tracking quality-of-care metrics.

There is a strong rationale for a randomized prospective trial to confirm the value of a pulmonologist consultation following admission for an acute exacerbation of COPD, according to Nicola A. Hanania, MD, director, Airways Clinical Research Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The potential for benefit as seen in this retrospective study is a rational expectation and might be related to more appropriate therapy upon discharge as well as to earlier and more rigorous follow-up, according to Dr. Hanania. Although he cautioned that there is a meaningful risk of selection bias in a retrospective study, he thinks this study “is certainly probing an important issue.”

“Mortality from a hospitalized COPD exacerbation exceeds that of a myocardial infarction,” Dr. Hanania pointed out. Noting that all patients with an MI are evaluated by a cardiologist, he sees the logic of a pulmonologist consult – although he acknowledged that evidence is needed.

“I strongly believe that a prospective study is feasible and will answer the question in an unbiased manner if done properly,” he said in an interview. If a multicenter, well-controlled study was positive, it could change practice.

In the event of a study showing major clinical benefits, particularly a reduction in mortality, “I believe it is feasible to have a pulmonary consult to see every COPD exacerbation patient admitted to the hospital,” Dr. Hanania said.

Dr. Hekmat-Joo reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hanania has financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Sunovion.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Before the pandemic, physicians came to work sick, as people do in many other professions. The reasons are likely as varied as, “you weren’t feeling bad enough to miss work,” “you couldn’t afford to miss pay,” “you had too many patients to see,” or “too much work to do.”

In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy, 61% of physicians reported that they sometimes or often come to work sick. Only 2% of respondents said they never come to work unwell.

Medscape wanted to know more about how often you call in sick, how often you come to work feeling unwell, what symptoms you have, and the dogma of your workplace culture regarding sick days. Not to mention the brutal ethos that starts in medical school, in which calling in sick shows weakness or is unacceptable.

So, we polled 2,347 physicians in the United States and abroad and asked them about their sniffling, sneezing, cold, flu, and fever symptoms, and, of course, COVID. Results were split about 50-50 among male and female physicians. The poll ran from Sept. 28 through Oct. 11.
 

Coming to work sick

It’s no surprise that the majority of physicians who were polled (85%) have come to work sick in 2022. In the last prepandemic year (2019), about 70% came to work feeling sick one to five times, and 13% worked while sick six to ten times.

When asked about the symptoms that they’ve previously come to work with, 48% of U.S. physicians said multiple symptoms. They gave high marks for runny nose, cough, congestion, and sore throat. Only 27% have worked with a fever, 22% have worked with other symptoms, and 7% have worked with both strep throat and COVID.

“My workplace, especially in the COVID years, accommodates persons who honestly do not feel well enough to report. Sooner or later, everyone covers for someone else who has to be out,” says Kenneth Abbott, MD, an oncologist in Maryland.
 

The culture of working while sick

Why doctors come to work when they’re sick is complicated. The overwhelming majority of U.S. respondents cited professional obligations; 73% noted that they feel a professional obligation to their patients, and 72% feel a professional obligation to their co-workers. Half of the polled U.S. physicians said they didn’t feel bad enough to stay home, while 48% said they had too much work to do to stay home.

Some 45% said the expectation at their workplace is to come to work unless seriously ill; 43% had too many patients to see; and 18% didn’t think they were contagious when they headed to work sick. Unfortunately, 15% chose to work while sick because otherwise they would lose pay.

In light of these responses, it’s not surprising that 93% reported they’d seen other medical professionals working when sick.

“My schedule is almost always booked weeks in advance. If someone misses or has to cancel their appointment, they typically have 2-4 weeks to wait to get back in. If I was sick and a full day of patients (or God forbid more than a day) had to be canceled because I called in, it’s so much more work when I return,” says Caitlin Briggs, MD, a psychiatrist in Lexington, Ky.
 

Doctors’ workplace sick day policy

Most employees’ benefits allow at least a few sick days, but doctors who treat society’s ill patients don’t seem to stay home from work when they’re suffering. So, we asked physicians, official policy aside, whether they thought going to work sick was expected in their workplace. The majority (76%) said yes, while 24% said no.

“Unless I’m dying or extremely contagious, I usually work. At least now, I have the telehealth option. Not saying any of this is right, but it’s the reality we deal with and the choice we must make,” says Dr. Briggs.

Additionally, 58% of polled physicians said their workplace did not have a clearly defined policy against coming to work sick, while 20% said theirs did, and 22% weren’t sure.

“The first thing I heard on the subject as a medical student was that sick people come to the hospital, so if you’re sick, then you come to the hospital too ... to work. If you can’t work, then you will be admitted. Another aphorism was from Churchill, that ‘most of the world’s work is done by people who don’t feel very well,’ ” says Paul Andreason, MD, a psychiatrist in Bethesda, Md.
 

Working in the time of COVID

Working while ill during ordinary times is one thing, but what about working in the time of COVID? Has the pandemic changed the culture of coming to work sick because medical facilities, such as doctor’s offices and hospitals, don’t want their staff coming in when they have COVID?

Surprisingly, when we asked physicians whether the pandemic has made it more or less acceptable to come to work sick, only 61% thought COVID has made it less acceptable to work while sick, while 16% thought it made it more acceptable, and 23% said there’s no change.

“I draw the line at fevers/chills, feeling like you’ve just been run over, or significant enteritis,” says Dr. Abbott. “Also, if I have to take palliative meds that interfere with alertness, I’m not doing my patients any favors.”

While a minority of physicians may call in sick, most still suffer through their sneezing, coughing, chills, and fever while seeing patients as usual.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Before the pandemic, physicians came to work sick, as people do in many other professions. The reasons are likely as varied as, “you weren’t feeling bad enough to miss work,” “you couldn’t afford to miss pay,” “you had too many patients to see,” or “too much work to do.”

In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy, 61% of physicians reported that they sometimes or often come to work sick. Only 2% of respondents said they never come to work unwell.

Medscape wanted to know more about how often you call in sick, how often you come to work feeling unwell, what symptoms you have, and the dogma of your workplace culture regarding sick days. Not to mention the brutal ethos that starts in medical school, in which calling in sick shows weakness or is unacceptable.

So, we polled 2,347 physicians in the United States and abroad and asked them about their sniffling, sneezing, cold, flu, and fever symptoms, and, of course, COVID. Results were split about 50-50 among male and female physicians. The poll ran from Sept. 28 through Oct. 11.
 

Coming to work sick

It’s no surprise that the majority of physicians who were polled (85%) have come to work sick in 2022. In the last prepandemic year (2019), about 70% came to work feeling sick one to five times, and 13% worked while sick six to ten times.

When asked about the symptoms that they’ve previously come to work with, 48% of U.S. physicians said multiple symptoms. They gave high marks for runny nose, cough, congestion, and sore throat. Only 27% have worked with a fever, 22% have worked with other symptoms, and 7% have worked with both strep throat and COVID.

“My workplace, especially in the COVID years, accommodates persons who honestly do not feel well enough to report. Sooner or later, everyone covers for someone else who has to be out,” says Kenneth Abbott, MD, an oncologist in Maryland.
 

The culture of working while sick

Why doctors come to work when they’re sick is complicated. The overwhelming majority of U.S. respondents cited professional obligations; 73% noted that they feel a professional obligation to their patients, and 72% feel a professional obligation to their co-workers. Half of the polled U.S. physicians said they didn’t feel bad enough to stay home, while 48% said they had too much work to do to stay home.

Some 45% said the expectation at their workplace is to come to work unless seriously ill; 43% had too many patients to see; and 18% didn’t think they were contagious when they headed to work sick. Unfortunately, 15% chose to work while sick because otherwise they would lose pay.

In light of these responses, it’s not surprising that 93% reported they’d seen other medical professionals working when sick.

“My schedule is almost always booked weeks in advance. If someone misses or has to cancel their appointment, they typically have 2-4 weeks to wait to get back in. If I was sick and a full day of patients (or God forbid more than a day) had to be canceled because I called in, it’s so much more work when I return,” says Caitlin Briggs, MD, a psychiatrist in Lexington, Ky.
 

Doctors’ workplace sick day policy

Most employees’ benefits allow at least a few sick days, but doctors who treat society’s ill patients don’t seem to stay home from work when they’re suffering. So, we asked physicians, official policy aside, whether they thought going to work sick was expected in their workplace. The majority (76%) said yes, while 24% said no.

“Unless I’m dying or extremely contagious, I usually work. At least now, I have the telehealth option. Not saying any of this is right, but it’s the reality we deal with and the choice we must make,” says Dr. Briggs.

Additionally, 58% of polled physicians said their workplace did not have a clearly defined policy against coming to work sick, while 20% said theirs did, and 22% weren’t sure.

“The first thing I heard on the subject as a medical student was that sick people come to the hospital, so if you’re sick, then you come to the hospital too ... to work. If you can’t work, then you will be admitted. Another aphorism was from Churchill, that ‘most of the world’s work is done by people who don’t feel very well,’ ” says Paul Andreason, MD, a psychiatrist in Bethesda, Md.
 

Working in the time of COVID

Working while ill during ordinary times is one thing, but what about working in the time of COVID? Has the pandemic changed the culture of coming to work sick because medical facilities, such as doctor’s offices and hospitals, don’t want their staff coming in when they have COVID?

Surprisingly, when we asked physicians whether the pandemic has made it more or less acceptable to come to work sick, only 61% thought COVID has made it less acceptable to work while sick, while 16% thought it made it more acceptable, and 23% said there’s no change.

“I draw the line at fevers/chills, feeling like you’ve just been run over, or significant enteritis,” says Dr. Abbott. “Also, if I have to take palliative meds that interfere with alertness, I’m not doing my patients any favors.”

While a minority of physicians may call in sick, most still suffer through their sneezing, coughing, chills, and fever while seeing patients as usual.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Before the pandemic, physicians came to work sick, as people do in many other professions. The reasons are likely as varied as, “you weren’t feeling bad enough to miss work,” “you couldn’t afford to miss pay,” “you had too many patients to see,” or “too much work to do.”

In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy, 61% of physicians reported that they sometimes or often come to work sick. Only 2% of respondents said they never come to work unwell.

Medscape wanted to know more about how often you call in sick, how often you come to work feeling unwell, what symptoms you have, and the dogma of your workplace culture regarding sick days. Not to mention the brutal ethos that starts in medical school, in which calling in sick shows weakness or is unacceptable.

So, we polled 2,347 physicians in the United States and abroad and asked them about their sniffling, sneezing, cold, flu, and fever symptoms, and, of course, COVID. Results were split about 50-50 among male and female physicians. The poll ran from Sept. 28 through Oct. 11.
 

Coming to work sick

It’s no surprise that the majority of physicians who were polled (85%) have come to work sick in 2022. In the last prepandemic year (2019), about 70% came to work feeling sick one to five times, and 13% worked while sick six to ten times.

When asked about the symptoms that they’ve previously come to work with, 48% of U.S. physicians said multiple symptoms. They gave high marks for runny nose, cough, congestion, and sore throat. Only 27% have worked with a fever, 22% have worked with other symptoms, and 7% have worked with both strep throat and COVID.

“My workplace, especially in the COVID years, accommodates persons who honestly do not feel well enough to report. Sooner or later, everyone covers for someone else who has to be out,” says Kenneth Abbott, MD, an oncologist in Maryland.
 

The culture of working while sick

Why doctors come to work when they’re sick is complicated. The overwhelming majority of U.S. respondents cited professional obligations; 73% noted that they feel a professional obligation to their patients, and 72% feel a professional obligation to their co-workers. Half of the polled U.S. physicians said they didn’t feel bad enough to stay home, while 48% said they had too much work to do to stay home.

Some 45% said the expectation at their workplace is to come to work unless seriously ill; 43% had too many patients to see; and 18% didn’t think they were contagious when they headed to work sick. Unfortunately, 15% chose to work while sick because otherwise they would lose pay.

In light of these responses, it’s not surprising that 93% reported they’d seen other medical professionals working when sick.

“My schedule is almost always booked weeks in advance. If someone misses or has to cancel their appointment, they typically have 2-4 weeks to wait to get back in. If I was sick and a full day of patients (or God forbid more than a day) had to be canceled because I called in, it’s so much more work when I return,” says Caitlin Briggs, MD, a psychiatrist in Lexington, Ky.
 

Doctors’ workplace sick day policy

Most employees’ benefits allow at least a few sick days, but doctors who treat society’s ill patients don’t seem to stay home from work when they’re suffering. So, we asked physicians, official policy aside, whether they thought going to work sick was expected in their workplace. The majority (76%) said yes, while 24% said no.

“Unless I’m dying or extremely contagious, I usually work. At least now, I have the telehealth option. Not saying any of this is right, but it’s the reality we deal with and the choice we must make,” says Dr. Briggs.

Additionally, 58% of polled physicians said their workplace did not have a clearly defined policy against coming to work sick, while 20% said theirs did, and 22% weren’t sure.

“The first thing I heard on the subject as a medical student was that sick people come to the hospital, so if you’re sick, then you come to the hospital too ... to work. If you can’t work, then you will be admitted. Another aphorism was from Churchill, that ‘most of the world’s work is done by people who don’t feel very well,’ ” says Paul Andreason, MD, a psychiatrist in Bethesda, Md.
 

Working in the time of COVID

Working while ill during ordinary times is one thing, but what about working in the time of COVID? Has the pandemic changed the culture of coming to work sick because medical facilities, such as doctor’s offices and hospitals, don’t want their staff coming in when they have COVID?

Surprisingly, when we asked physicians whether the pandemic has made it more or less acceptable to come to work sick, only 61% thought COVID has made it less acceptable to work while sick, while 16% thought it made it more acceptable, and 23% said there’s no change.

“I draw the line at fevers/chills, feeling like you’ve just been run over, or significant enteritis,” says Dr. Abbott. “Also, if I have to take palliative meds that interfere with alertness, I’m not doing my patients any favors.”

While a minority of physicians may call in sick, most still suffer through their sneezing, coughing, chills, and fever while seeing patients as usual.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Young adults who are moderate to heavy drinkers are at increased risk of suffering a stroke – and the risk goes up with more years of imbibing, a new study suggests.

“The rate of stroke among young adults has been increasing over the last few decades, and stroke in young adults causes death and serious disability,” study coauthor Eue-Keun Choi, MD, PhD, of Seoul National University, Republic of Korea, said in a statement.

“If we could prevent stroke in young adults by reducing alcohol consumption, that could potentially have a substantial impact on the health of individuals and the overall burden of stroke on society,” Dr. Choi added.

The study was published online in Neurology.

Compounding effects

Using data from a Korean national health database, the researchers identified roughly 1.5 million adults aged 20-39 years (mean age 29.5 years, 72% male) who had four consecutive annual health examinations during which they were asked about their alcohol use.

During a median follow-up of roughly 6 years, 3,153 individuals suffered a stroke.

After multivariate adjustment accounting for other factors that could affect the risk for stroke, such as hypertension, smoking, and body mass index, the risk of stroke increased steadily with the number of years of moderate to heavy drinking, defined as 105 grams or more of alcohol per week.

Compared with light drinkers or teetotalers, stroke risk increased 19% with 2 years of moderate to heavy drinking and 22% and 23%, respectively, for 3 and 4 years of moderate or heaving drinking.

The positive dose-response relationship was chiefly driven by increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke; with 2, 3 and 4 years of moderate to heavy drinking, hemorrhagic stroke risk increased 30%, 42% and 36%, respectively, relative to light/no drinking.

“Since more than 90% of the burden of stroke overall can be attributed to potentially modifiable risk factors, including alcohol consumption, and since stroke in young adults severely impacts both the individual and society by limiting their activities during their most productive years, reducing alcohol consumption should be emphasized in young adults with heavy drinking habits as part of any strategy to prevent stroke,” Dr. Choi said.

A limitation of the study is that only Korean people were included, so the results may not apply to people of other races and ethnicities, they noted. In addition, people filled out questionnaires about their alcohol consumption, which may introduce recall bias.
 

Consistent evidence

“For decades, the evidence was suggestive that a moderate amount of alcohol daily is actually beneficial – one to two drinks in men and one drink in women – at reducing major vascular outcomes,” Pierre Fayad, MD, professor, department of neurological sciences, and director of the Nebraska Stroke Center, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said in commenting on the research.

Yet, over the past few years, some research has found no evidence of benefit with moderate alcohol intake. There is, however, “consistent evidence” that shows a detrimental effect of excessive alcohol, particularly binge drinking, especially in young adults, Dr. Fayad said.

This study, he said, “adds to the known detrimental effects of excessive alcohol intake, in increasing the risk of stroke, particularly in young adults.

“The bottom line: Young adults who usually have a low risk of stroke increase their risk significantly by heavy alcohol drinking, and Koreans are equally at risk as other populations,” Dr. Fayad said.

The study was supported by the Korea Medical Device Development Fund and the Korea National Research Foundation. Dr. Choi and Dr. Fayad report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Young adults who are moderate to heavy drinkers are at increased risk of suffering a stroke – and the risk goes up with more years of imbibing, a new study suggests.

“The rate of stroke among young adults has been increasing over the last few decades, and stroke in young adults causes death and serious disability,” study coauthor Eue-Keun Choi, MD, PhD, of Seoul National University, Republic of Korea, said in a statement.

“If we could prevent stroke in young adults by reducing alcohol consumption, that could potentially have a substantial impact on the health of individuals and the overall burden of stroke on society,” Dr. Choi added.

The study was published online in Neurology.

Compounding effects

Using data from a Korean national health database, the researchers identified roughly 1.5 million adults aged 20-39 years (mean age 29.5 years, 72% male) who had four consecutive annual health examinations during which they were asked about their alcohol use.

During a median follow-up of roughly 6 years, 3,153 individuals suffered a stroke.

After multivariate adjustment accounting for other factors that could affect the risk for stroke, such as hypertension, smoking, and body mass index, the risk of stroke increased steadily with the number of years of moderate to heavy drinking, defined as 105 grams or more of alcohol per week.

Compared with light drinkers or teetotalers, stroke risk increased 19% with 2 years of moderate to heavy drinking and 22% and 23%, respectively, for 3 and 4 years of moderate or heaving drinking.

The positive dose-response relationship was chiefly driven by increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke; with 2, 3 and 4 years of moderate to heavy drinking, hemorrhagic stroke risk increased 30%, 42% and 36%, respectively, relative to light/no drinking.

“Since more than 90% of the burden of stroke overall can be attributed to potentially modifiable risk factors, including alcohol consumption, and since stroke in young adults severely impacts both the individual and society by limiting their activities during their most productive years, reducing alcohol consumption should be emphasized in young adults with heavy drinking habits as part of any strategy to prevent stroke,” Dr. Choi said.

A limitation of the study is that only Korean people were included, so the results may not apply to people of other races and ethnicities, they noted. In addition, people filled out questionnaires about their alcohol consumption, which may introduce recall bias.
 

Consistent evidence

“For decades, the evidence was suggestive that a moderate amount of alcohol daily is actually beneficial – one to two drinks in men and one drink in women – at reducing major vascular outcomes,” Pierre Fayad, MD, professor, department of neurological sciences, and director of the Nebraska Stroke Center, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said in commenting on the research.

Yet, over the past few years, some research has found no evidence of benefit with moderate alcohol intake. There is, however, “consistent evidence” that shows a detrimental effect of excessive alcohol, particularly binge drinking, especially in young adults, Dr. Fayad said.

This study, he said, “adds to the known detrimental effects of excessive alcohol intake, in increasing the risk of stroke, particularly in young adults.

“The bottom line: Young adults who usually have a low risk of stroke increase their risk significantly by heavy alcohol drinking, and Koreans are equally at risk as other populations,” Dr. Fayad said.

The study was supported by the Korea Medical Device Development Fund and the Korea National Research Foundation. Dr. Choi and Dr. Fayad report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Young adults who are moderate to heavy drinkers are at increased risk of suffering a stroke – and the risk goes up with more years of imbibing, a new study suggests.

“The rate of stroke among young adults has been increasing over the last few decades, and stroke in young adults causes death and serious disability,” study coauthor Eue-Keun Choi, MD, PhD, of Seoul National University, Republic of Korea, said in a statement.

“If we could prevent stroke in young adults by reducing alcohol consumption, that could potentially have a substantial impact on the health of individuals and the overall burden of stroke on society,” Dr. Choi added.

The study was published online in Neurology.

Compounding effects

Using data from a Korean national health database, the researchers identified roughly 1.5 million adults aged 20-39 years (mean age 29.5 years, 72% male) who had four consecutive annual health examinations during which they were asked about their alcohol use.

During a median follow-up of roughly 6 years, 3,153 individuals suffered a stroke.

After multivariate adjustment accounting for other factors that could affect the risk for stroke, such as hypertension, smoking, and body mass index, the risk of stroke increased steadily with the number of years of moderate to heavy drinking, defined as 105 grams or more of alcohol per week.

Compared with light drinkers or teetotalers, stroke risk increased 19% with 2 years of moderate to heavy drinking and 22% and 23%, respectively, for 3 and 4 years of moderate or heaving drinking.

The positive dose-response relationship was chiefly driven by increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke; with 2, 3 and 4 years of moderate to heavy drinking, hemorrhagic stroke risk increased 30%, 42% and 36%, respectively, relative to light/no drinking.

“Since more than 90% of the burden of stroke overall can be attributed to potentially modifiable risk factors, including alcohol consumption, and since stroke in young adults severely impacts both the individual and society by limiting their activities during their most productive years, reducing alcohol consumption should be emphasized in young adults with heavy drinking habits as part of any strategy to prevent stroke,” Dr. Choi said.

A limitation of the study is that only Korean people were included, so the results may not apply to people of other races and ethnicities, they noted. In addition, people filled out questionnaires about their alcohol consumption, which may introduce recall bias.
 

Consistent evidence

“For decades, the evidence was suggestive that a moderate amount of alcohol daily is actually beneficial – one to two drinks in men and one drink in women – at reducing major vascular outcomes,” Pierre Fayad, MD, professor, department of neurological sciences, and director of the Nebraska Stroke Center, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said in commenting on the research.

Yet, over the past few years, some research has found no evidence of benefit with moderate alcohol intake. There is, however, “consistent evidence” that shows a detrimental effect of excessive alcohol, particularly binge drinking, especially in young adults, Dr. Fayad said.

This study, he said, “adds to the known detrimental effects of excessive alcohol intake, in increasing the risk of stroke, particularly in young adults.

“The bottom line: Young adults who usually have a low risk of stroke increase their risk significantly by heavy alcohol drinking, and Koreans are equally at risk as other populations,” Dr. Fayad said.

The study was supported by the Korea Medical Device Development Fund and the Korea National Research Foundation. Dr. Choi and Dr. Fayad report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.