Commentary

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) affects 1-2% of the population. The disorder is characterized by recurrent intrusive unwanted thoughts (obsessions) that cause significant distress and anxiety, and behavioral or mental rituals (compulsions) that are performed to reduce distress stemming from obsessions. OCD may onset at any time in life, but most commonly begins in childhood or in early adulthood.

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) with exposure and response prevention is an empirically based and highly effective treatment for OCD. However, most youth with OCD do not receive any treatment, which is related to a shortage of mental health care providers with expertise in assessment and treatment of the disorder, and misdiagnosis of the disorder is all too prevalent.

Aside from the subjective emotional toll associated with OCD, individuals living with this disorder frequently experience interpersonal, academic, and vocational impairments. Nevertheless, OCD is often overlooked or misdiagnosed. This may be more pronounced in youth with OCD, particularly in primary health care settings and large nonspecialized medical institutions. In fact, research indicates that pediatric OCD is often underrecognized even among mental health professionals. This situation is not new, and in fact the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom stated that there is an urgent need to develop brief reliable screeners for OCD nearly 20 years ago.

Although there were several attempts to develop brief screening scales for adults and youth with OCD, none of them were found to be suitable for use as rapid screening tools in nonspecialized settings. One of the primary reasons is that OCD is associated with different “themes” or dimensions. For example, a child with OCD may engage in cleaning rituals because the context (or dimension) of their obsessions is contamination concerns. Another child with OCD, who may suffer from similar overall symptom severity, may primarily engage in checking rituals which are related with obsessions associated with fear of being responsible for harm. Therefore, one child with OCD may score very high on items assessing one dimension (e.g., contamination concerns), but very low on another dimension (e.g., harm obsessions).

This results in a known challenge in the assessment and psychometrics of self-report (as opposed to clinician administered) measures of OCD. Secondly, development of such measures requires very large carefully screened samples of individuals with OCD, with other disorders, and those without a known psychological disorder – which may be more challenging than requiring adult participants.

In order to address the urgent need for an ultrabrief measure for youth with OCD, we formed an international collaboration with the goal of developing a reliable ultrabrief self-report screening scale for this population. To accomplish this, we harmonized data from several sites that included three samples of carefully screened youths with OCD, with other disorders, and without known disorders who completed multiple self-report questionnaires, including the 21-item Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory – Child Version (OCI-CV).

Utilizing psychometric analyses including factor analyses, invariance analyses, and item response theory methodologies, we were able to develop an ultrabrief measure extracted from the OCI-CV: the 5-item Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory – Child Version (OCI-CV-5). This very brief self-report measure was found to have very good psychometric properties including a sensitive and specific clinical cutoff score. Youth who score at or above the cutoff score are nearly 21 times more likely to meet criteria for OCD.

This measure corresponds to a need to rapidly screen for OCD in children in nonspecialized settings, including community mental health clinics, primary care settings, and pediatric treatment facilities. However, it is important to note it is not a diagnostic measure. The measure is intended to identify youth who should be referred to a mental health care professional to conduct a diagnostic interview.

Dr. Abramovitch is a clinical psychologist and neuropsychologist based in Austin, Tex., and an associate professor at Texas State University. Dr. Abramowitz is professor and director of clinical training in the Anxiety and Stress Lab at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. McKay is professor of psychology at Fordham University, Bronx, N.Y.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) affects 1-2% of the population. The disorder is characterized by recurrent intrusive unwanted thoughts (obsessions) that cause significant distress and anxiety, and behavioral or mental rituals (compulsions) that are performed to reduce distress stemming from obsessions. OCD may onset at any time in life, but most commonly begins in childhood or in early adulthood.

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) with exposure and response prevention is an empirically based and highly effective treatment for OCD. However, most youth with OCD do not receive any treatment, which is related to a shortage of mental health care providers with expertise in assessment and treatment of the disorder, and misdiagnosis of the disorder is all too prevalent.

Aside from the subjective emotional toll associated with OCD, individuals living with this disorder frequently experience interpersonal, academic, and vocational impairments. Nevertheless, OCD is often overlooked or misdiagnosed. This may be more pronounced in youth with OCD, particularly in primary health care settings and large nonspecialized medical institutions. In fact, research indicates that pediatric OCD is often underrecognized even among mental health professionals. This situation is not new, and in fact the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom stated that there is an urgent need to develop brief reliable screeners for OCD nearly 20 years ago.

Although there were several attempts to develop brief screening scales for adults and youth with OCD, none of them were found to be suitable for use as rapid screening tools in nonspecialized settings. One of the primary reasons is that OCD is associated with different “themes” or dimensions. For example, a child with OCD may engage in cleaning rituals because the context (or dimension) of their obsessions is contamination concerns. Another child with OCD, who may suffer from similar overall symptom severity, may primarily engage in checking rituals which are related with obsessions associated with fear of being responsible for harm. Therefore, one child with OCD may score very high on items assessing one dimension (e.g., contamination concerns), but very low on another dimension (e.g., harm obsessions).

This results in a known challenge in the assessment and psychometrics of self-report (as opposed to clinician administered) measures of OCD. Secondly, development of such measures requires very large carefully screened samples of individuals with OCD, with other disorders, and those without a known psychological disorder – which may be more challenging than requiring adult participants.

In order to address the urgent need for an ultrabrief measure for youth with OCD, we formed an international collaboration with the goal of developing a reliable ultrabrief self-report screening scale for this population. To accomplish this, we harmonized data from several sites that included three samples of carefully screened youths with OCD, with other disorders, and without known disorders who completed multiple self-report questionnaires, including the 21-item Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory – Child Version (OCI-CV).

Utilizing psychometric analyses including factor analyses, invariance analyses, and item response theory methodologies, we were able to develop an ultrabrief measure extracted from the OCI-CV: the 5-item Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory – Child Version (OCI-CV-5). This very brief self-report measure was found to have very good psychometric properties including a sensitive and specific clinical cutoff score. Youth who score at or above the cutoff score are nearly 21 times more likely to meet criteria for OCD.

This measure corresponds to a need to rapidly screen for OCD in children in nonspecialized settings, including community mental health clinics, primary care settings, and pediatric treatment facilities. However, it is important to note it is not a diagnostic measure. The measure is intended to identify youth who should be referred to a mental health care professional to conduct a diagnostic interview.

Dr. Abramovitch is a clinical psychologist and neuropsychologist based in Austin, Tex., and an associate professor at Texas State University. Dr. Abramowitz is professor and director of clinical training in the Anxiety and Stress Lab at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. McKay is professor of psychology at Fordham University, Bronx, N.Y.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) affects 1-2% of the population. The disorder is characterized by recurrent intrusive unwanted thoughts (obsessions) that cause significant distress and anxiety, and behavioral or mental rituals (compulsions) that are performed to reduce distress stemming from obsessions. OCD may onset at any time in life, but most commonly begins in childhood or in early adulthood.

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) with exposure and response prevention is an empirically based and highly effective treatment for OCD. However, most youth with OCD do not receive any treatment, which is related to a shortage of mental health care providers with expertise in assessment and treatment of the disorder, and misdiagnosis of the disorder is all too prevalent.

Aside from the subjective emotional toll associated with OCD, individuals living with this disorder frequently experience interpersonal, academic, and vocational impairments. Nevertheless, OCD is often overlooked or misdiagnosed. This may be more pronounced in youth with OCD, particularly in primary health care settings and large nonspecialized medical institutions. In fact, research indicates that pediatric OCD is often underrecognized even among mental health professionals. This situation is not new, and in fact the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom stated that there is an urgent need to develop brief reliable screeners for OCD nearly 20 years ago.

Although there were several attempts to develop brief screening scales for adults and youth with OCD, none of them were found to be suitable for use as rapid screening tools in nonspecialized settings. One of the primary reasons is that OCD is associated with different “themes” or dimensions. For example, a child with OCD may engage in cleaning rituals because the context (or dimension) of their obsessions is contamination concerns. Another child with OCD, who may suffer from similar overall symptom severity, may primarily engage in checking rituals which are related with obsessions associated with fear of being responsible for harm. Therefore, one child with OCD may score very high on items assessing one dimension (e.g., contamination concerns), but very low on another dimension (e.g., harm obsessions).

This results in a known challenge in the assessment and psychometrics of self-report (as opposed to clinician administered) measures of OCD. Secondly, development of such measures requires very large carefully screened samples of individuals with OCD, with other disorders, and those without a known psychological disorder – which may be more challenging than requiring adult participants.

In order to address the urgent need for an ultrabrief measure for youth with OCD, we formed an international collaboration with the goal of developing a reliable ultrabrief self-report screening scale for this population. To accomplish this, we harmonized data from several sites that included three samples of carefully screened youths with OCD, with other disorders, and without known disorders who completed multiple self-report questionnaires, including the 21-item Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory – Child Version (OCI-CV).

Utilizing psychometric analyses including factor analyses, invariance analyses, and item response theory methodologies, we were able to develop an ultrabrief measure extracted from the OCI-CV: the 5-item Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory – Child Version (OCI-CV-5). This very brief self-report measure was found to have very good psychometric properties including a sensitive and specific clinical cutoff score. Youth who score at or above the cutoff score are nearly 21 times more likely to meet criteria for OCD.

This measure corresponds to a need to rapidly screen for OCD in children in nonspecialized settings, including community mental health clinics, primary care settings, and pediatric treatment facilities. However, it is important to note it is not a diagnostic measure. The measure is intended to identify youth who should be referred to a mental health care professional to conduct a diagnostic interview.

Dr. Abramovitch is a clinical psychologist and neuropsychologist based in Austin, Tex., and an associate professor at Texas State University. Dr. Abramowitz is professor and director of clinical training in the Anxiety and Stress Lab at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. McKay is professor of psychology at Fordham University, Bronx, N.Y.

The correct answer is (D), molluscum contagiosum. Upon surgical excision, the pathology indicated the lesion was consistent with molluscum contagiosum.

Molluscum contagiosum is a benign skin disorder caused by a pox virus and is frequently seen in children. This disease is transmitted primarily through direct skin contact with an infected individual.¹ Contaminated fomites have been suggested as another source of infection.² The typical lesion appears dome-shaped, round, and pinkish-purple in color.¹ The incubation period ranges from 2 weeks to 6 months and is typically self-limited in immunocompetent hosts; however, in immunocompromised persons, molluscum contagiosum lesions may present atypically such that they are larger in size and/or resemble malignancies, such as basal cell carcinoma or keratoacanthoma (for single lesions), or other infectious diseases, such as cryptococcosis and histoplasmosis (for more numerous lesions).^{3,4 A} giant atypical molluscum contagiosum is rarely seen in healthy individuals.
 

What’s on the differential?

The recent episode of bleeding raises concern for other neoplastic processes of the skin including squamous cell carcinoma or basal cell carcinoma as well as cutaneous metastatic rhabdoid tumor, given the patient’s history.

Eruptive keratoacanthomas are also reported in patients taking nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 immunotherapy, which the patient has received for treatment of his recurrent metastatic rhabdoid tumor.⁵ More common entities such as a pyogenic granuloma or verruca are also included on the differential. The initial presentation of the lesion, however, is more consistent with the pearly umbilicated papules associated with molluscum contagiosum.

Comments from Dr. Eichenfield

This is a very hard diagnosis to make with the clinical findings and history.

Molluscum contagiosum infections are common, but with this patient’s medical history, biopsy and excision with pathologic examination was an appropriate approach to make a certain diagnosis.

Ms. Moyal is a research associate in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.

References

1. Brown J et al. Int J Dermatol. 2006 Feb;45(2):93-9.

2. Hanson D and Diven DG. Dermatol Online J. 2003 Mar;9(2).

3. Badri T and Gandhi GR. Molluscum contagiosum. 2022. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island, Fla.: StatPearls Publishing.

4. Schwartz JJ and Myskowski PL. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1992 Oct 1;27(4):583-8.

5. Antonov NK et al. JAAD Case Rep. 2019 Apr 5;5(4):342-5.

The correct answer is (D), molluscum contagiosum. Upon surgical excision, the pathology indicated the lesion was consistent with molluscum contagiosum.

Molluscum contagiosum is a benign skin disorder caused by a pox virus and is frequently seen in children. This disease is transmitted primarily through direct skin contact with an infected individual.¹ Contaminated fomites have been suggested as another source of infection.² The typical lesion appears dome-shaped, round, and pinkish-purple in color.¹ The incubation period ranges from 2 weeks to 6 months and is typically self-limited in immunocompetent hosts; however, in immunocompromised persons, molluscum contagiosum lesions may present atypically such that they are larger in size and/or resemble malignancies, such as basal cell carcinoma or keratoacanthoma (for single lesions), or other infectious diseases, such as cryptococcosis and histoplasmosis (for more numerous lesions).^{3,4 A} giant atypical molluscum contagiosum is rarely seen in healthy individuals.
 

What’s on the differential?

The recent episode of bleeding raises concern for other neoplastic processes of the skin including squamous cell carcinoma or basal cell carcinoma as well as cutaneous metastatic rhabdoid tumor, given the patient’s history.

Eruptive keratoacanthomas are also reported in patients taking nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 immunotherapy, which the patient has received for treatment of his recurrent metastatic rhabdoid tumor.⁵ More common entities such as a pyogenic granuloma or verruca are also included on the differential. The initial presentation of the lesion, however, is more consistent with the pearly umbilicated papules associated with molluscum contagiosum.

Comments from Dr. Eichenfield

This is a very hard diagnosis to make with the clinical findings and history.

Molluscum contagiosum infections are common, but with this patient’s medical history, biopsy and excision with pathologic examination was an appropriate approach to make a certain diagnosis.

Ms. Moyal is a research associate in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.

References

1. Brown J et al. Int J Dermatol. 2006 Feb;45(2):93-9.

2. Hanson D and Diven DG. Dermatol Online J. 2003 Mar;9(2).

3. Badri T and Gandhi GR. Molluscum contagiosum. 2022. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island, Fla.: StatPearls Publishing.

4. Schwartz JJ and Myskowski PL. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1992 Oct 1;27(4):583-8.

5. Antonov NK et al. JAAD Case Rep. 2019 Apr 5;5(4):342-5.

The correct answer is (D), molluscum contagiosum. Upon surgical excision, the pathology indicated the lesion was consistent with molluscum contagiosum.

Molluscum contagiosum is a benign skin disorder caused by a pox virus and is frequently seen in children. This disease is transmitted primarily through direct skin contact with an infected individual.¹ Contaminated fomites have been suggested as another source of infection.² The typical lesion appears dome-shaped, round, and pinkish-purple in color.¹ The incubation period ranges from 2 weeks to 6 months and is typically self-limited in immunocompetent hosts; however, in immunocompromised persons, molluscum contagiosum lesions may present atypically such that they are larger in size and/or resemble malignancies, such as basal cell carcinoma or keratoacanthoma (for single lesions), or other infectious diseases, such as cryptococcosis and histoplasmosis (for more numerous lesions).^{3,4 A} giant atypical molluscum contagiosum is rarely seen in healthy individuals.
 

What’s on the differential?

The recent episode of bleeding raises concern for other neoplastic processes of the skin including squamous cell carcinoma or basal cell carcinoma as well as cutaneous metastatic rhabdoid tumor, given the patient’s history.

Eruptive keratoacanthomas are also reported in patients taking nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 immunotherapy, which the patient has received for treatment of his recurrent metastatic rhabdoid tumor.⁵ More common entities such as a pyogenic granuloma or verruca are also included on the differential. The initial presentation of the lesion, however, is more consistent with the pearly umbilicated papules associated with molluscum contagiosum.

Comments from Dr. Eichenfield

This is a very hard diagnosis to make with the clinical findings and history.

Molluscum contagiosum infections are common, but with this patient’s medical history, biopsy and excision with pathologic examination was an appropriate approach to make a certain diagnosis.

Ms. Moyal is a research associate in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.

References

1. Brown J et al. Int J Dermatol. 2006 Feb;45(2):93-9.

2. Hanson D and Diven DG. Dermatol Online J. 2003 Mar;9(2).

3. Badri T and Gandhi GR. Molluscum contagiosum. 2022. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island, Fla.: StatPearls Publishing.

4. Schwartz JJ and Myskowski PL. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1992 Oct 1;27(4):583-8.

5. Antonov NK et al. JAAD Case Rep. 2019 Apr 5;5(4):342-5.

Primary care and family physicians operate on the front lines of health care, working tirelessly to serve patients and their families. However, many primary care practices are operating on tight margins and cannot sustain additional financial hits. As we continue to navigate a pandemic that has altered our health care landscape, we traveled to Capitol Hill to urge Congress to act on two critical issues: Medicare payment reform and streamlining administrative burden for physicians.

The current Medicare system for compensating physicians jeopardizes access to primary care. Family physicians, along with other primary care clinicians, are facing significant cuts in payments and rising inflation that threaten our ability to care for patients.

Each of us has experienced the effects of this pincer in devastating ways – from the independent clinicians who have been forced to sell their practices to hospitals or large health systems, to the physicians who are retiring early, leaving their practices, or even closing them because they can’t afford to keep their doors open.

Practices also struggle to cover the rising costs of staff wages, leasing space, and purchasing supplies and equipment, leaving little room for innovation or investments to transition into new payment models. Meanwhile, hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, ambulatory surgery centers, and other Medicare providers receive annual payment increases to account for rising costs.

Insufficient Medicare payments also challenge practices that serve many publicly insured patients. If practices cannot cover their expenses, they may be forced to turn away new Medicare and Medicaid patients – something that goes against the core tenets of our health care system.

Fortunately, we have some solutions. We’re asking Congress to pass the Supporting Medicare Providers Act of 2022, which calls for a 4.42% positive adjustment to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) conversion factor for 2023 to offset the statutory reduction triggered by budget neutrality rules.

We also are calling on lawmakers to end the statutory freeze on annual updates to the MPFS and enact a positive annual update to the conversion factor based on the Medicare Economic Index. This critical relief would stave off the most immediate cuts while giving us more time to work with Congress on comprehensive reforms to the Medicare physician payment system.

As many practices struggle to operate, burnout among primary care physicians has also increased, with research showing that 66% of primary care physicians reported frequent burnout symptoms in 2021. Streamlining prior authorizations – a cumbersome process that requires physicians to obtain preapproval for treatments or tests before providing care to patients, and can risk patients’ access to timely care – is one way to reduce burden and alleviate burnout.

According to the American Medical Association, 82% of physicians report that prior authorization can lead to patients abandoning care, and 93% believe that prior authorization delays access to necessary care.

All of us have had patients whose care has been affected by these delays, including difficulty in getting necessary medications filled or having medical procedures postponed. Moreover, primary care physicians and their staff spend hours each week completing paperwork and communicating with insurers to ensure that their patients can access the treatments and services they need.

That is why we’re urging the Senate to pass the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act, which would streamline the prior authorization process in the Medicare Advantage program.

As family physicians, we are in a unique position to help improve our patients’ health and their quality of life. But we can’t do this alone. We need the support of policy makers to make patient health and primary care a national priority.

Dr. Iroku-Malize is a family physician in Long Island, New York, and President of the American Academy of Family Physicians. Dr. Ransone is a family physician in Deltaville, Va., and board chair, immediate past president of the AAFP. Dr. Furr is a family physician in Jackson, Ala., and President-elect of the AAFP. They reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Primary care and family physicians operate on the front lines of health care, working tirelessly to serve patients and their families. However, many primary care practices are operating on tight margins and cannot sustain additional financial hits. As we continue to navigate a pandemic that has altered our health care landscape, we traveled to Capitol Hill to urge Congress to act on two critical issues: Medicare payment reform and streamlining administrative burden for physicians.

The current Medicare system for compensating physicians jeopardizes access to primary care. Family physicians, along with other primary care clinicians, are facing significant cuts in payments and rising inflation that threaten our ability to care for patients.

Each of us has experienced the effects of this pincer in devastating ways – from the independent clinicians who have been forced to sell their practices to hospitals or large health systems, to the physicians who are retiring early, leaving their practices, or even closing them because they can’t afford to keep their doors open.

Practices also struggle to cover the rising costs of staff wages, leasing space, and purchasing supplies and equipment, leaving little room for innovation or investments to transition into new payment models. Meanwhile, hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, ambulatory surgery centers, and other Medicare providers receive annual payment increases to account for rising costs.

Insufficient Medicare payments also challenge practices that serve many publicly insured patients. If practices cannot cover their expenses, they may be forced to turn away new Medicare and Medicaid patients – something that goes against the core tenets of our health care system.

Fortunately, we have some solutions. We’re asking Congress to pass the Supporting Medicare Providers Act of 2022, which calls for a 4.42% positive adjustment to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) conversion factor for 2023 to offset the statutory reduction triggered by budget neutrality rules.

We also are calling on lawmakers to end the statutory freeze on annual updates to the MPFS and enact a positive annual update to the conversion factor based on the Medicare Economic Index. This critical relief would stave off the most immediate cuts while giving us more time to work with Congress on comprehensive reforms to the Medicare physician payment system.

As many practices struggle to operate, burnout among primary care physicians has also increased, with research showing that 66% of primary care physicians reported frequent burnout symptoms in 2021. Streamlining prior authorizations – a cumbersome process that requires physicians to obtain preapproval for treatments or tests before providing care to patients, and can risk patients’ access to timely care – is one way to reduce burden and alleviate burnout.

According to the American Medical Association, 82% of physicians report that prior authorization can lead to patients abandoning care, and 93% believe that prior authorization delays access to necessary care.

All of us have had patients whose care has been affected by these delays, including difficulty in getting necessary medications filled or having medical procedures postponed. Moreover, primary care physicians and their staff spend hours each week completing paperwork and communicating with insurers to ensure that their patients can access the treatments and services they need.

That is why we’re urging the Senate to pass the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act, which would streamline the prior authorization process in the Medicare Advantage program.

As family physicians, we are in a unique position to help improve our patients’ health and their quality of life. But we can’t do this alone. We need the support of policy makers to make patient health and primary care a national priority.

Dr. Iroku-Malize is a family physician in Long Island, New York, and President of the American Academy of Family Physicians. Dr. Ransone is a family physician in Deltaville, Va., and board chair, immediate past president of the AAFP. Dr. Furr is a family physician in Jackson, Ala., and President-elect of the AAFP. They reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Primary care and family physicians operate on the front lines of health care, working tirelessly to serve patients and their families. However, many primary care practices are operating on tight margins and cannot sustain additional financial hits. As we continue to navigate a pandemic that has altered our health care landscape, we traveled to Capitol Hill to urge Congress to act on two critical issues: Medicare payment reform and streamlining administrative burden for physicians.

The current Medicare system for compensating physicians jeopardizes access to primary care. Family physicians, along with other primary care clinicians, are facing significant cuts in payments and rising inflation that threaten our ability to care for patients.

Each of us has experienced the effects of this pincer in devastating ways – from the independent clinicians who have been forced to sell their practices to hospitals or large health systems, to the physicians who are retiring early, leaving their practices, or even closing them because they can’t afford to keep their doors open.

Practices also struggle to cover the rising costs of staff wages, leasing space, and purchasing supplies and equipment, leaving little room for innovation or investments to transition into new payment models. Meanwhile, hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, ambulatory surgery centers, and other Medicare providers receive annual payment increases to account for rising costs.

Insufficient Medicare payments also challenge practices that serve many publicly insured patients. If practices cannot cover their expenses, they may be forced to turn away new Medicare and Medicaid patients – something that goes against the core tenets of our health care system.

Fortunately, we have some solutions. We’re asking Congress to pass the Supporting Medicare Providers Act of 2022, which calls for a 4.42% positive adjustment to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) conversion factor for 2023 to offset the statutory reduction triggered by budget neutrality rules.

We also are calling on lawmakers to end the statutory freeze on annual updates to the MPFS and enact a positive annual update to the conversion factor based on the Medicare Economic Index. This critical relief would stave off the most immediate cuts while giving us more time to work with Congress on comprehensive reforms to the Medicare physician payment system.

As many practices struggle to operate, burnout among primary care physicians has also increased, with research showing that 66% of primary care physicians reported frequent burnout symptoms in 2021. Streamlining prior authorizations – a cumbersome process that requires physicians to obtain preapproval for treatments or tests before providing care to patients, and can risk patients’ access to timely care – is one way to reduce burden and alleviate burnout.

According to the American Medical Association, 82% of physicians report that prior authorization can lead to patients abandoning care, and 93% believe that prior authorization delays access to necessary care.

All of us have had patients whose care has been affected by these delays, including difficulty in getting necessary medications filled or having medical procedures postponed. Moreover, primary care physicians and their staff spend hours each week completing paperwork and communicating with insurers to ensure that their patients can access the treatments and services they need.

That is why we’re urging the Senate to pass the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act, which would streamline the prior authorization process in the Medicare Advantage program.

As family physicians, we are in a unique position to help improve our patients’ health and their quality of life. But we can’t do this alone. We need the support of policy makers to make patient health and primary care a national priority.

Dr. Iroku-Malize is a family physician in Long Island, New York, and President of the American Academy of Family Physicians. Dr. Ransone is a family physician in Deltaville, Va., and board chair, immediate past president of the AAFP. Dr. Furr is a family physician in Jackson, Ala., and President-elect of the AAFP. They reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Cold and flu season came early in 2022.

On Nov. 4, 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a Health Alert Network Health Advisory about early, elevated respiratory disease incidence caused by multiple viruses other than SARS-CoV-2.

Interseasonal spread of respiratory syncytial virus has continued in 2022, with RSV-associated hospitalizations increasing in the late spring and continuing throughout the summer and into the fall. In October, some regions of the country were seeing RSV activity near the peak seasonal levels typically observed in December and January.

Cases of severe respiratory infection in children who tested positive for rhinovirus or enterovirus spiked in August; further testing confirmed the presence of EV-D68 in some children. Rhinovirus and enterovirus continue to circulate and are isolated in hospitalized children with respiratory illness.

In some parts of the country, influenza cases have rapidly increased ahead of what we normally anticipate. According to preliminary estimates from the CDC, between Oct. 1 and Oct. 22, 880,000 people were sickened with flu, 420,000 people visited a health care provider for flu illness, and 6,900 people were hospitalized for flu. The cumulative hospitalization rate is higher than observed at this time of year in every previous flu season since 2010-2011. Hospitalization rates are highest in children aged 0-4 years and adults 65 years and older.

Of course, this report came as no surprise to pediatric health care providers. Many children’s hospitals had been operating at or over capacity for weeks. While a systematic assessment of the surge on children’s hospitals has not been published, anecdotally, hospitals from around the country have described record emergency department visits and inpatient census numbers. Some have set up tents or other temporary facilities to see ambulatory patients and have canceled elective surgeries because of a lack of beds.

There is no quick or easy solution to stem the tide of RSV-related or enterovirus/rhinovirus admissions, but many flu-related hospitalizations are vaccine preventable. Unfortunately, too few children are receiving influenza vaccine. As of the week ending Oct. 15, only about 22.1% of eligible children had been immunized. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the CDC recommend that all children are vaccinated, preferably by the end of October so they have time to develop immunity before influenza starts circulating. As it stands now, the majority of the nation’s children are facing a flu season without the benefits of vaccine.

There is still time to take steps to prevent this flu season from becoming one of the worst in recent memory. A strong provider recommendation for influenza vaccine is consistently associated with higher rates of vaccine acceptance. We need to recommend influenza vaccine to all eligible patients at every visit and in every setting. It will help if we can say it like we mean it. Some of us are tired of debating the merits of COVID-19 vaccine with families and may be leery of additional debates about flu. Some of us may just be tired, as many practices have already expanded office hours to care for the influx of kids with respiratory illness. On the heels of two atypical flu seasons, a few of us may be quietly complacent about the importance of flu vaccines for children.

Anyone in need of a little motivation should check out a paper recently published in Clinical Infectious Diseases that reinforces the value of flu vaccine, even in a year when there is a poor match between the vaccine and circulating viruses.

The 2019-2020 flu season was a bad flu season for children. Two antigenically drifted influenza viruses predominated and cases of influenza soared, resulting in the largest influenza epidemic in children in the United States since 1992. Pediatric Intensive Care Influenza Study investigators used a test-negative design to estimate the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in preventing critical and life-threatening influenza in children during that season. The good news: vaccination reduced the risk of critical influenza by 78% against H1N1pdm09 viruses that were well-matched to vaccine and by 47% against mismatched viruses. Vaccination was estimated to be 75% protective against antigenically drifted B-Victoria viruses. Overall vaccine effectiveness against critical illness from any influenza virus was 63% (95% confidence interval, 38%-78%).

While it might be tempting to attribute suboptimal immunization rates to vaccine hesitancy, ready availability remains an issue for some families. We need to eliminate barriers to access. While the AAP continues to emphasize immunization in the medical home, especially for the youngest infants, the 2022 policy statement suggests that vaccinating children in schools, pharmacies, and other nontraditional settings could improve immunization rates. To the extent feasible, we need to work with partners to support community-based initiatives and promote these to families who struggle to make it into the office.

Improving access is just one potential way to reduce health disparities related to influenza and influenza vaccination. Over 10 influenza seasons, higher rates of influenza-associated hospitalizations and intensive care unit admissions were observed in Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native people. These disparities were highest in children aged younger than 4 years and influenza-associated in-hospital deaths were three- to fourfold higher in Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander children, compared with White children. The reason for the disparities isn’t completely clear but increasing immunization rates may be part of the solution. During the 2020-2021 influenza season, flu immunization rates in Black children (51.6%) were lower than those seen in White (57.4%) and Hispanic children (58.9%).

The AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022–2023, highlight a variety of evidence-based strategies to increase influenza immunization rates. These may provide a little inspiration for clinicians looking to try a new approach. If you wish to share your experience with increasing influenza immunization rates in your practice setting, please email me at [email protected].

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases and one of the lead authors of the AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022–2023. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta, and Gilead.

Cold and flu season came early in 2022.

On Nov. 4, 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a Health Alert Network Health Advisory about early, elevated respiratory disease incidence caused by multiple viruses other than SARS-CoV-2.

Interseasonal spread of respiratory syncytial virus has continued in 2022, with RSV-associated hospitalizations increasing in the late spring and continuing throughout the summer and into the fall. In October, some regions of the country were seeing RSV activity near the peak seasonal levels typically observed in December and January.

Cases of severe respiratory infection in children who tested positive for rhinovirus or enterovirus spiked in August; further testing confirmed the presence of EV-D68 in some children. Rhinovirus and enterovirus continue to circulate and are isolated in hospitalized children with respiratory illness.

In some parts of the country, influenza cases have rapidly increased ahead of what we normally anticipate. According to preliminary estimates from the CDC, between Oct. 1 and Oct. 22, 880,000 people were sickened with flu, 420,000 people visited a health care provider for flu illness, and 6,900 people were hospitalized for flu. The cumulative hospitalization rate is higher than observed at this time of year in every previous flu season since 2010-2011. Hospitalization rates are highest in children aged 0-4 years and adults 65 years and older.

Of course, this report came as no surprise to pediatric health care providers. Many children’s hospitals had been operating at or over capacity for weeks. While a systematic assessment of the surge on children’s hospitals has not been published, anecdotally, hospitals from around the country have described record emergency department visits and inpatient census numbers. Some have set up tents or other temporary facilities to see ambulatory patients and have canceled elective surgeries because of a lack of beds.

There is no quick or easy solution to stem the tide of RSV-related or enterovirus/rhinovirus admissions, but many flu-related hospitalizations are vaccine preventable. Unfortunately, too few children are receiving influenza vaccine. As of the week ending Oct. 15, only about 22.1% of eligible children had been immunized. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the CDC recommend that all children are vaccinated, preferably by the end of October so they have time to develop immunity before influenza starts circulating. As it stands now, the majority of the nation’s children are facing a flu season without the benefits of vaccine.

There is still time to take steps to prevent this flu season from becoming one of the worst in recent memory. A strong provider recommendation for influenza vaccine is consistently associated with higher rates of vaccine acceptance. We need to recommend influenza vaccine to all eligible patients at every visit and in every setting. It will help if we can say it like we mean it. Some of us are tired of debating the merits of COVID-19 vaccine with families and may be leery of additional debates about flu. Some of us may just be tired, as many practices have already expanded office hours to care for the influx of kids with respiratory illness. On the heels of two atypical flu seasons, a few of us may be quietly complacent about the importance of flu vaccines for children.

Anyone in need of a little motivation should check out a paper recently published in Clinical Infectious Diseases that reinforces the value of flu vaccine, even in a year when there is a poor match between the vaccine and circulating viruses.

The 2019-2020 flu season was a bad flu season for children. Two antigenically drifted influenza viruses predominated and cases of influenza soared, resulting in the largest influenza epidemic in children in the United States since 1992. Pediatric Intensive Care Influenza Study investigators used a test-negative design to estimate the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in preventing critical and life-threatening influenza in children during that season. The good news: vaccination reduced the risk of critical influenza by 78% against H1N1pdm09 viruses that were well-matched to vaccine and by 47% against mismatched viruses. Vaccination was estimated to be 75% protective against antigenically drifted B-Victoria viruses. Overall vaccine effectiveness against critical illness from any influenza virus was 63% (95% confidence interval, 38%-78%).

While it might be tempting to attribute suboptimal immunization rates to vaccine hesitancy, ready availability remains an issue for some families. We need to eliminate barriers to access. While the AAP continues to emphasize immunization in the medical home, especially for the youngest infants, the 2022 policy statement suggests that vaccinating children in schools, pharmacies, and other nontraditional settings could improve immunization rates. To the extent feasible, we need to work with partners to support community-based initiatives and promote these to families who struggle to make it into the office.

Improving access is just one potential way to reduce health disparities related to influenza and influenza vaccination. Over 10 influenza seasons, higher rates of influenza-associated hospitalizations and intensive care unit admissions were observed in Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native people. These disparities were highest in children aged younger than 4 years and influenza-associated in-hospital deaths were three- to fourfold higher in Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander children, compared with White children. The reason for the disparities isn’t completely clear but increasing immunization rates may be part of the solution. During the 2020-2021 influenza season, flu immunization rates in Black children (51.6%) were lower than those seen in White (57.4%) and Hispanic children (58.9%).

The AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022–2023, highlight a variety of evidence-based strategies to increase influenza immunization rates. These may provide a little inspiration for clinicians looking to try a new approach. If you wish to share your experience with increasing influenza immunization rates in your practice setting, please email me at [email protected].

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases and one of the lead authors of the AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022–2023. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta, and Gilead.

Cold and flu season came early in 2022.

On Nov. 4, 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a Health Alert Network Health Advisory about early, elevated respiratory disease incidence caused by multiple viruses other than SARS-CoV-2.

Interseasonal spread of respiratory syncytial virus has continued in 2022, with RSV-associated hospitalizations increasing in the late spring and continuing throughout the summer and into the fall. In October, some regions of the country were seeing RSV activity near the peak seasonal levels typically observed in December and January.

Cases of severe respiratory infection in children who tested positive for rhinovirus or enterovirus spiked in August; further testing confirmed the presence of EV-D68 in some children. Rhinovirus and enterovirus continue to circulate and are isolated in hospitalized children with respiratory illness.

In some parts of the country, influenza cases have rapidly increased ahead of what we normally anticipate. According to preliminary estimates from the CDC, between Oct. 1 and Oct. 22, 880,000 people were sickened with flu, 420,000 people visited a health care provider for flu illness, and 6,900 people were hospitalized for flu. The cumulative hospitalization rate is higher than observed at this time of year in every previous flu season since 2010-2011. Hospitalization rates are highest in children aged 0-4 years and adults 65 years and older.

Of course, this report came as no surprise to pediatric health care providers. Many children’s hospitals had been operating at or over capacity for weeks. While a systematic assessment of the surge on children’s hospitals has not been published, anecdotally, hospitals from around the country have described record emergency department visits and inpatient census numbers. Some have set up tents or other temporary facilities to see ambulatory patients and have canceled elective surgeries because of a lack of beds.

There is no quick or easy solution to stem the tide of RSV-related or enterovirus/rhinovirus admissions, but many flu-related hospitalizations are vaccine preventable. Unfortunately, too few children are receiving influenza vaccine. As of the week ending Oct. 15, only about 22.1% of eligible children had been immunized. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the CDC recommend that all children are vaccinated, preferably by the end of October so they have time to develop immunity before influenza starts circulating. As it stands now, the majority of the nation’s children are facing a flu season without the benefits of vaccine.

There is still time to take steps to prevent this flu season from becoming one of the worst in recent memory. A strong provider recommendation for influenza vaccine is consistently associated with higher rates of vaccine acceptance. We need to recommend influenza vaccine to all eligible patients at every visit and in every setting. It will help if we can say it like we mean it. Some of us are tired of debating the merits of COVID-19 vaccine with families and may be leery of additional debates about flu. Some of us may just be tired, as many practices have already expanded office hours to care for the influx of kids with respiratory illness. On the heels of two atypical flu seasons, a few of us may be quietly complacent about the importance of flu vaccines for children.

Anyone in need of a little motivation should check out a paper recently published in Clinical Infectious Diseases that reinforces the value of flu vaccine, even in a year when there is a poor match between the vaccine and circulating viruses.

The 2019-2020 flu season was a bad flu season for children. Two antigenically drifted influenza viruses predominated and cases of influenza soared, resulting in the largest influenza epidemic in children in the United States since 1992. Pediatric Intensive Care Influenza Study investigators used a test-negative design to estimate the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in preventing critical and life-threatening influenza in children during that season. The good news: vaccination reduced the risk of critical influenza by 78% against H1N1pdm09 viruses that were well-matched to vaccine and by 47% against mismatched viruses. Vaccination was estimated to be 75% protective against antigenically drifted B-Victoria viruses. Overall vaccine effectiveness against critical illness from any influenza virus was 63% (95% confidence interval, 38%-78%).

While it might be tempting to attribute suboptimal immunization rates to vaccine hesitancy, ready availability remains an issue for some families. We need to eliminate barriers to access. While the AAP continues to emphasize immunization in the medical home, especially for the youngest infants, the 2022 policy statement suggests that vaccinating children in schools, pharmacies, and other nontraditional settings could improve immunization rates. To the extent feasible, we need to work with partners to support community-based initiatives and promote these to families who struggle to make it into the office.

Improving access is just one potential way to reduce health disparities related to influenza and influenza vaccination. Over 10 influenza seasons, higher rates of influenza-associated hospitalizations and intensive care unit admissions were observed in Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native people. These disparities were highest in children aged younger than 4 years and influenza-associated in-hospital deaths were three- to fourfold higher in Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander children, compared with White children. The reason for the disparities isn’t completely clear but increasing immunization rates may be part of the solution. During the 2020-2021 influenza season, flu immunization rates in Black children (51.6%) were lower than those seen in White (57.4%) and Hispanic children (58.9%).

The AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022–2023, highlight a variety of evidence-based strategies to increase influenza immunization rates. These may provide a little inspiration for clinicians looking to try a new approach. If you wish to share your experience with increasing influenza immunization rates in your practice setting, please email me at [email protected].

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases and one of the lead authors of the AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022–2023. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta, and Gilead.

This Veterans Day we honor the passing of the largest expansion of veterans benefits and services in history. On August 10, 2022, President Biden signed the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act. This act was named for a combat medic who died of a rare form of lung cancer believed to be the result of a toxic military exposure. His widow was present during the President's State of the Union address that urged Congress to pass the legislation.² 

Like all other congressional bills and government regulations, the PACT Act is complex in its details and still a work in progress. Simply put, the PACT Act expands and/or extends enrollment for a group of previously ineligible veterans. Eligibility will no longer require that veterans demonstrate a service-connected disability due to toxic exposure, including those from burn pits. This has long been a barrier for many veterans seeking benefits and not just related to toxic exposures. Logistical barriers and documentary losses have prevented many service members from establishing a clean chain of evidence for the injuries or illnesses they sustained while in uniform.
 
The new process is a massive step forward by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to establish high standards of procedural justice for settling beneficiary claims. The PACT Act removes the burden from the shoulders of the veteran and places it squarely on the VA to demonstrate that > 20 different medical conditions--primarily cancers and respiratory illnesses--are linked to toxic exposure. The VA must establish that exposure occurred to cohorts of service members in specific theaters and time frames. A veteran who served in that area and period and has one of the indexed illnesses is presumed to have been exposed in the line of duty.^3,4

As a result, the VA instituted a new screening process to determine that toxic military exposures (a) led to illness; and (b) both exposure and illness are connected to service. According to the VA, the new process is evidence based, transparent, and allows the VA to fast-track policy decisions related to exposures. The PACT Act includes a provision intended to promote sustained implementation and prevent the program from succumbing as so many new initiatives have to inadequate adoption. VA is required to deploy its considerable internal research capacity to collaborate with external partners in and outside government to study military members with toxic exposures.⁴ 

Congress had initially proposed that the provisions of the PACT ACT would take effect in 2026, providing time to ramp up the process. The White House and VA telescoped that time line so veterans can begin now to apply for benefits that they could foreseeably receive in 2023. However, a long-standing problem for the VA has been unfunded agency or congressional mandates. These have often end in undermining the legislative intention or policy purpose of the program undermining their legislative intention or policy purpose through staffing shortages, leading to lack of or delayed access. The PACT Act promises to eschew the infamous Phoenix problem by providing increased personnel, training infrastructure, and technology resources for both the Veterans Benefit Administration and the Veterans Health Administration. Ironically, many seasoned VA observers expect the PACT expansion will lead to even larger backlogs of claims as hundreds of newly eligible veterans are added to the extant rolls of those seeking benefits.⁵ 

An estimated 1 in 5 veterans may be entitled to PACT benefits. The PACT Act is the latest of a long uneven movement toward distributive justice for veteran benefits and services. It is fitting in the month of Veterans Day 2022 to trace that trajectory. Congress first passed veteran benefits legislation in 1917, focused on soldiers with disabilities. This resulted in a massive investment in building hospitals. Ironically, part of the impetus for VA health care was an earlier toxic military exposure. World War I service members suffered from the detrimental effects of mustard gas among other chemical byproducts. In 1924, VA benefits and services underwent a momentous opening to include individuals with non-service-connected disabilities. Four years later, the VA tent became even bigger, welcoming women, National Guard, and militia members to receive care under its auspices.⁶ 

The PACT Act is a fitting memorial for Veterans Day as an increasingly divided country presents a unified response to veterans and their survivors exposed to a variety of toxins across multiple wars. The PACT Act was hard won with veterans and their advocates having to fight years of political bickering, government abdication of accountability, and scientific sparring before this bipartisan legislation passed.⁷ It covers Vietnam War veterans with several conditions due to Agent Orange exposure; Gulf War and post-9/11 veterans with cancer and respiratory conditions; and the service members deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq afflicted with illnesses due to the smoke of burn pits and other toxins. 

As many areas of the country roll back LGBTQ+ rights to health care and social services, the VA has emerged as a leader in the movement for diversity and inclusion. VA Secretary McDonough provided a pathway to VA eligibility for other than honorably discharged veterans, including those LGBTQ+ persons discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell.⁸ Lest we take this new inclusivity for granted, we should never forget that this journey toward equity for the military and VA has been long, slow, and uneven. There are many difficult miles yet to travel if we are to achieve liberty and justice for veteran members of racial minorities, women, and other marginalized populations. Even the PACT Act does not cover all putative exposures to toxins.⁹ Yet it is a significant step closer to fulfilling the motto of the VA LGBTQ+ program: to serve all who served.¹⁰ 

This Veterans Day we honor the passing of the largest expansion of veterans benefits and services in history. On August 10, 2022, President Biden signed the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act. This act was named for a combat medic who died of a rare form of lung cancer believed to be the result of a toxic military exposure. His widow was present during the President's State of the Union address that urged Congress to pass the legislation.² 

Like all other congressional bills and government regulations, the PACT Act is complex in its details and still a work in progress. Simply put, the PACT Act expands and/or extends enrollment for a group of previously ineligible veterans. Eligibility will no longer require that veterans demonstrate a service-connected disability due to toxic exposure, including those from burn pits. This has long been a barrier for many veterans seeking benefits and not just related to toxic exposures. Logistical barriers and documentary losses have prevented many service members from establishing a clean chain of evidence for the injuries or illnesses they sustained while in uniform.
 
The new process is a massive step forward by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to establish high standards of procedural justice for settling beneficiary claims. The PACT Act removes the burden from the shoulders of the veteran and places it squarely on the VA to demonstrate that > 20 different medical conditions--primarily cancers and respiratory illnesses--are linked to toxic exposure. The VA must establish that exposure occurred to cohorts of service members in specific theaters and time frames. A veteran who served in that area and period and has one of the indexed illnesses is presumed to have been exposed in the line of duty.^3,4

As a result, the VA instituted a new screening process to determine that toxic military exposures (a) led to illness; and (b) both exposure and illness are connected to service. According to the VA, the new process is evidence based, transparent, and allows the VA to fast-track policy decisions related to exposures. The PACT Act includes a provision intended to promote sustained implementation and prevent the program from succumbing as so many new initiatives have to inadequate adoption. VA is required to deploy its considerable internal research capacity to collaborate with external partners in and outside government to study military members with toxic exposures.⁴ 

Congress had initially proposed that the provisions of the PACT ACT would take effect in 2026, providing time to ramp up the process. The White House and VA telescoped that time line so veterans can begin now to apply for benefits that they could foreseeably receive in 2023. However, a long-standing problem for the VA has been unfunded agency or congressional mandates. These have often end in undermining the legislative intention or policy purpose of the program undermining their legislative intention or policy purpose through staffing shortages, leading to lack of or delayed access. The PACT Act promises to eschew the infamous Phoenix problem by providing increased personnel, training infrastructure, and technology resources for both the Veterans Benefit Administration and the Veterans Health Administration. Ironically, many seasoned VA observers expect the PACT expansion will lead to even larger backlogs of claims as hundreds of newly eligible veterans are added to the extant rolls of those seeking benefits.⁵ 

An estimated 1 in 5 veterans may be entitled to PACT benefits. The PACT Act is the latest of a long uneven movement toward distributive justice for veteran benefits and services. It is fitting in the month of Veterans Day 2022 to trace that trajectory. Congress first passed veteran benefits legislation in 1917, focused on soldiers with disabilities. This resulted in a massive investment in building hospitals. Ironically, part of the impetus for VA health care was an earlier toxic military exposure. World War I service members suffered from the detrimental effects of mustard gas among other chemical byproducts. In 1924, VA benefits and services underwent a momentous opening to include individuals with non-service-connected disabilities. Four years later, the VA tent became even bigger, welcoming women, National Guard, and militia members to receive care under its auspices.⁶ 

The PACT Act is a fitting memorial for Veterans Day as an increasingly divided country presents a unified response to veterans and their survivors exposed to a variety of toxins across multiple wars. The PACT Act was hard won with veterans and their advocates having to fight years of political bickering, government abdication of accountability, and scientific sparring before this bipartisan legislation passed.⁷ It covers Vietnam War veterans with several conditions due to Agent Orange exposure; Gulf War and post-9/11 veterans with cancer and respiratory conditions; and the service members deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq afflicted with illnesses due to the smoke of burn pits and other toxins. 

As many areas of the country roll back LGBTQ+ rights to health care and social services, the VA has emerged as a leader in the movement for diversity and inclusion. VA Secretary McDonough provided a pathway to VA eligibility for other than honorably discharged veterans, including those LGBTQ+ persons discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell.⁸ Lest we take this new inclusivity for granted, we should never forget that this journey toward equity for the military and VA has been long, slow, and uneven. There are many difficult miles yet to travel if we are to achieve liberty and justice for veteran members of racial minorities, women, and other marginalized populations. Even the PACT Act does not cover all putative exposures to toxins.⁹ Yet it is a significant step closer to fulfilling the motto of the VA LGBTQ+ program: to serve all who served.¹⁰ 

This Veterans Day we honor the passing of the largest expansion of veterans benefits and services in history. On August 10, 2022, President Biden signed the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act. This act was named for a combat medic who died of a rare form of lung cancer believed to be the result of a toxic military exposure. His widow was present during the President's State of the Union address that urged Congress to pass the legislation.² 

Like all other congressional bills and government regulations, the PACT Act is complex in its details and still a work in progress. Simply put, the PACT Act expands and/or extends enrollment for a group of previously ineligible veterans. Eligibility will no longer require that veterans demonstrate a service-connected disability due to toxic exposure, including those from burn pits. This has long been a barrier for many veterans seeking benefits and not just related to toxic exposures. Logistical barriers and documentary losses have prevented many service members from establishing a clean chain of evidence for the injuries or illnesses they sustained while in uniform.
 
The new process is a massive step forward by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to establish high standards of procedural justice for settling beneficiary claims. The PACT Act removes the burden from the shoulders of the veteran and places it squarely on the VA to demonstrate that > 20 different medical conditions--primarily cancers and respiratory illnesses--are linked to toxic exposure. The VA must establish that exposure occurred to cohorts of service members in specific theaters and time frames. A veteran who served in that area and period and has one of the indexed illnesses is presumed to have been exposed in the line of duty.^3,4

As a result, the VA instituted a new screening process to determine that toxic military exposures (a) led to illness; and (b) both exposure and illness are connected to service. According to the VA, the new process is evidence based, transparent, and allows the VA to fast-track policy decisions related to exposures. The PACT Act includes a provision intended to promote sustained implementation and prevent the program from succumbing as so many new initiatives have to inadequate adoption. VA is required to deploy its considerable internal research capacity to collaborate with external partners in and outside government to study military members with toxic exposures.⁴ 

Congress had initially proposed that the provisions of the PACT ACT would take effect in 2026, providing time to ramp up the process. The White House and VA telescoped that time line so veterans can begin now to apply for benefits that they could foreseeably receive in 2023. However, a long-standing problem for the VA has been unfunded agency or congressional mandates. These have often end in undermining the legislative intention or policy purpose of the program undermining their legislative intention or policy purpose through staffing shortages, leading to lack of or delayed access. The PACT Act promises to eschew the infamous Phoenix problem by providing increased personnel, training infrastructure, and technology resources for both the Veterans Benefit Administration and the Veterans Health Administration. Ironically, many seasoned VA observers expect the PACT expansion will lead to even larger backlogs of claims as hundreds of newly eligible veterans are added to the extant rolls of those seeking benefits.⁵ 

An estimated 1 in 5 veterans may be entitled to PACT benefits. The PACT Act is the latest of a long uneven movement toward distributive justice for veteran benefits and services. It is fitting in the month of Veterans Day 2022 to trace that trajectory. Congress first passed veteran benefits legislation in 1917, focused on soldiers with disabilities. This resulted in a massive investment in building hospitals. Ironically, part of the impetus for VA health care was an earlier toxic military exposure. World War I service members suffered from the detrimental effects of mustard gas among other chemical byproducts. In 1924, VA benefits and services underwent a momentous opening to include individuals with non-service-connected disabilities. Four years later, the VA tent became even bigger, welcoming women, National Guard, and militia members to receive care under its auspices.⁶ 

The PACT Act is a fitting memorial for Veterans Day as an increasingly divided country presents a unified response to veterans and their survivors exposed to a variety of toxins across multiple wars. The PACT Act was hard won with veterans and their advocates having to fight years of political bickering, government abdication of accountability, and scientific sparring before this bipartisan legislation passed.⁷ It covers Vietnam War veterans with several conditions due to Agent Orange exposure; Gulf War and post-9/11 veterans with cancer and respiratory conditions; and the service members deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq afflicted with illnesses due to the smoke of burn pits and other toxins. 

As many areas of the country roll back LGBTQ+ rights to health care and social services, the VA has emerged as a leader in the movement for diversity and inclusion. VA Secretary McDonough provided a pathway to VA eligibility for other than honorably discharged veterans, including those LGBTQ+ persons discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell.⁸ Lest we take this new inclusivity for granted, we should never forget that this journey toward equity for the military and VA has been long, slow, and uneven. There are many difficult miles yet to travel if we are to achieve liberty and justice for veteran members of racial minorities, women, and other marginalized populations. Even the PACT Act does not cover all putative exposures to toxins.⁹ Yet it is a significant step closer to fulfilling the motto of the VA LGBTQ+ program: to serve all who served.¹⁰ 

It is unsurprising that food frequently is thought to be the culprit behind an eczema flare, especially in infants. Indeed, it often is said that infants do only 3 things: eat, sleep, and poop.¹ For those unfortunate enough to develop the signs and symptoms of atopic dermatitis (AD), food quickly emerges as a potential culprit from the tiny pool of suspects, which is against a cultural backdrop of unprecedented focus on foods and food reactions.² The prevalence of food allergies in children, though admittedly fraught with methodological difficulties, is estimated to have more than doubled from 3.4% in 1999 to 7.6% in 2018.³ As expected, prevalence rates were higher among children with other atopic comorbidities including AD, with up to 50% of children with AD demonstrating convincing food allergy.⁴ It is easy to imagine a patient conflating these 2 entities and mistaking their correlation for causation. Thus, it follows that more than 90% of parents/guardians have reported that their children have had food-induced AD, and understandably—at least according to one study—75% of parents/guardians were found to have manipulated the diet in an attempt to manage the disease.^5,6

Patients and parents/guardians are not the only ones who have suspected food as a driving force in AD. An article in the British Medical Journal from the 1800s beautifully encapsulated the depth and duration of this quandary: “There is probably no subject in which more deeply rooted convictions have been held, not only in the profession but by the laity, than the connection between diet and disease, both as regards the causation and treatment of the latter.”⁷ Herein, a wide range of food reactions is examined to highlight evidence for the role of diet in AD, which may contradict what patients—and even some clinicians—believe.

No Easy Answers

A definitive statement that food allergy is not the root cause of AD would put this issue to rest, but such simplicity does not reflect the complex reality. First, we must agree on definitions for certain terms. What do we mean by food allergy? A broader category—adverse food reactions—covers a wide range of entities, some immune mediated and some not, including lactose intolerance, irritant contact dermatitis around the mouth, and even dermatitis herpetiformis (the cutaneous manifestation of celiac disease).⁸ Although the term food allergy often is used synonymously with adverse food reactions, the exact definition of a food allergy is specific: “adverse immune responses to food proteins that result in typical clinical symptoms.”⁸ The fact that many patients and even health care practitioners seem to frequently misapply this term makes it even more confusing. 

The current focus is on foods that could trigger a flare of AD, which clearly is a broader question than food allergy sensu stricto. It seems self-evident, for example, that if an infant with AD were to (messily) eat an acidic food such as an orange, a flare-up of AD around the mouth and on the cheeks and hands would be a forgone conclusion. Similar nonimmunologic scenarios unambiguously can occur with many foods, including citrus; corn; radish; mustard; garlic; onion; pineapple; and many spices, food additives, and preservatives.⁹ Clearly there are some scenarios whereby food could trigger an AD flare, and yet this more limited vignette generally is not what patients are referring to when suggesting that food is the root cause of their AD.

The Labyrinth of Testing for Food Allergies

Although there is no reliable method for testing for irritant dermatitis, understanding the other types of tests may help guide our thinking. Testing for IgE-mediated food allergies generally is done via an immunoenzymatic serum assay that can document sensitization to a food protein; however, this testing by itself is not sufficient to diagnose a clinical food allergy.¹⁰ Similarly, skin prick testing allows for intradermal administration of a food extract to evaluate for an urticarial reaction within 10 to 15 minutes. Although the sensitivity and specificity vary by age, population, and the specific allergen being tested, these are limited to immediate-type reactions and do not reflect the potential to drive an eczematous flare.

The gold standard, if there is one, is likely the double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC), ideally with a long enough observation period to capture later-occurring reactions such as an AD flare. However, given the nature of the test—having patients eat the foods of concern and then carefully following them for reactions—it remains time consuming, expensive, and labor intensive.¹¹ 

To further complicate matters, several unvalidated tests exist such as IgG testing, atopy patch testing, kinesiology, and hair and gastric juice analysis, which remain investigational but continue to be used and may further confuse patients and clinicians.¹²

It is useful to first separate out the classic IgE-mediated food allergy reactions that are common. In these immediate-type reactions, a person sensitized to a food protein will develop characteristic cutaneous and/or extracutaneous reactions such as urticaria, angioedema, and even anaphylaxis, usually within minutes of exposure. Although it is possible that an IgE-mediated reaction could trigger an AD flare—perhaps simply by causing pruritus, which could initiate the itch-scratch cycle—because of the near simultaneity with ingestion of the offending food and the often dramatic clinical presentations, such foods clearly do not represent “hidden” triggers for AD flares.³ The concept of food-triggered AD (FTAD) is crucial for thinking about foods that could result in true eczematous flares, which historically have been classified as early-type (<2 hours after food challenge) and late-type (≥2 hours after food challenge) reactions.^13,14 

A study of more than 1000 DBPCFCs performed in patients with AD was illustrative.¹⁵ Immediate reactions other than AD were fairly common and were observed in 40% of the food challenges compared to only 9% in the placebo group. These reactions included urticaria, angioedema, and gastrointestinal and respiratory tract symptoms. Immediate reactions of AD alone were exceedingly rare at only 0.7% and not significantly elevated compared to placebo. Just over 4% experienced both an immediate AD exacerbation along with other non-AD findings, which was significantly greater than placebo (P<.01). Although intermediate and late reactions manifesting as AD exacerbations did occur after food ingestion, they were rare (2.2% or less) and not significantly different from placebo. The authors concluded that an exacerbation of AD in the absence of other allergic symptoms in children was unlikely to be due to food,¹⁵ which is an important finding.

A recent retrospective review of 372 children with AD reported similar results.⁴ The authors defined FTAD in a different way; instead of showing a flare after a DBPCFC, they looked for “physician-noted sustained improvement in AD upon removal of a food (typically after 2–6-wk follow-up), to which the child was sensitized without any other changes in skin care.” Despite this fundamentally different approach, they similarly concluded that while food allergies were common, FTAD was relatively uncommon—found in 2% of those with mild AD, 6% of those with moderate AD, and 4% of those with severe AD.⁴ 

There are other ways that foods could contribute to disease flares, however, and one of the most compelling is that there may be broader concepts at play; perhaps some diets are not specifically driving the AD but rather are affecting inflammation in the body at large. Although somewhat speculative, there is evidence that some foods may simply be proinflammatory, working to exacerbate the disease outside of a specific mechanism, which has been seen in a variety of other conditions such as acne or rheumatoid arthritis.^16,17 To speculate further, it is possible that there may be a threshold effect such that when the AD is poorly controlled, certain factors such as inflammatory foods could lead to a flare, while when under better control, these same factors may not cause an effect.

Finally, it is important to also consider the emotional and/or psychological aspects related to food and diet. The power of the placebo in dietary change has been documented in several diseases, though this certainly is not to be dismissive of the patient’s symptoms; it seems reasonable that the very act of changing such a fundamental aspect of daily life could result in a placebo effect.^18,19 In the context of relapsing and remitting conditions such as AD, this effect may be magnified. A landmark study by Thompson and Hanifin²⁰ illustrates this possibility. The authors found that in 80% of cases in which patients were convinced that food was a major contributing factor to their AD, such concerns diminished markedly once better control of the eczema was achieved.²⁰

This brings us to what to do with an individual patient in the examination room. Because there is such widespread concern and discussion around this topic, it is important to at least briefly address it. If there are known food allergens that are being avoided, it is important to underscore the importance of continuing to avoid those foods, especially when there is actual evidence of true food allergy rather than sensitization alone. Historically, elimination diets often were recommended empirically, though more recent studies, meta-analyses, and guidance documents increasingly have recommended against them.³ In particular, there are major concerns for iatrogenic harm. 

First, heavily restricted diets may result in nutritional and/or caloric deficiencies that can be dangerous and lead to poor growth.²¹ Practices such as drinking unpasteurized milk can expose children to dangerous infections, while feeding them exclusively rice milk can lead to severe malnutrition.²² 

Second, there is a dawning realization that children with AD placed on elimination diets may actually develop true IgE-mediated allergies, including fatal anaphylaxis, to the excluded foods. In fact, one retrospective review of 298 patients with a history of AD and no prior immediate reactions found that 19% of patients developed new immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions after starting an elimination diet, presumably due to the loss of tolerance to these foods. A striking one-third of these reactions were classified as anaphylaxis, with cow’s milk and egg being the most common offenders.²³

It also is crucial to acknowledge that recommending sweeping lifestyle changes is not easy for patients, especially pediatric patients. Onerous dietary restrictions may add considerable stress, ironically a known trigger for AD itself. 

Finally, dietary modifications can be a distraction from conventional therapy and may result in treatment delays while the patient continues to experience uncontrolled symptoms of AD. 

Final Thoughts

Diet is intimately related to AD. Although the narrative continues to unfold in fascinating domains, such as the skin barrier and the microbiome, it is increasingly clear that these are intertwined and always have been. Despite the rarity of true food-triggered AD, the perception of dietary triggers is so widespread and addressing the topic is important and may help avoid unnecessary harm from unfounded extreme dietary changes. A recent multispecialty workgroup report on AD and food allergy succinctly summarized this as: “AD has many triggers and comorbidities, and food allergy is only one of the potential triggers and comorbid conditions. With regard to AD management, education and skin care are most important.”³ With proper testing, guidance, and both topical and systemic therapies, most AD can be brought under control, and for at least some patients, this may allay concerns about foods triggering their AD. 

It is unsurprising that food frequently is thought to be the culprit behind an eczema flare, especially in infants. Indeed, it often is said that infants do only 3 things: eat, sleep, and poop.¹ For those unfortunate enough to develop the signs and symptoms of atopic dermatitis (AD), food quickly emerges as a potential culprit from the tiny pool of suspects, which is against a cultural backdrop of unprecedented focus on foods and food reactions.² The prevalence of food allergies in children, though admittedly fraught with methodological difficulties, is estimated to have more than doubled from 3.4% in 1999 to 7.6% in 2018.³ As expected, prevalence rates were higher among children with other atopic comorbidities including AD, with up to 50% of children with AD demonstrating convincing food allergy.⁴ It is easy to imagine a patient conflating these 2 entities and mistaking their correlation for causation. Thus, it follows that more than 90% of parents/guardians have reported that their children have had food-induced AD, and understandably—at least according to one study—75% of parents/guardians were found to have manipulated the diet in an attempt to manage the disease.^5,6

Patients and parents/guardians are not the only ones who have suspected food as a driving force in AD. An article in the British Medical Journal from the 1800s beautifully encapsulated the depth and duration of this quandary: “There is probably no subject in which more deeply rooted convictions have been held, not only in the profession but by the laity, than the connection between diet and disease, both as regards the causation and treatment of the latter.”⁷ Herein, a wide range of food reactions is examined to highlight evidence for the role of diet in AD, which may contradict what patients—and even some clinicians—believe.

No Easy Answers

A definitive statement that food allergy is not the root cause of AD would put this issue to rest, but such simplicity does not reflect the complex reality. First, we must agree on definitions for certain terms. What do we mean by food allergy? A broader category—adverse food reactions—covers a wide range of entities, some immune mediated and some not, including lactose intolerance, irritant contact dermatitis around the mouth, and even dermatitis herpetiformis (the cutaneous manifestation of celiac disease).⁸ Although the term food allergy often is used synonymously with adverse food reactions, the exact definition of a food allergy is specific: “adverse immune responses to food proteins that result in typical clinical symptoms.”⁸ The fact that many patients and even health care practitioners seem to frequently misapply this term makes it even more confusing. 

The current focus is on foods that could trigger a flare of AD, which clearly is a broader question than food allergy sensu stricto. It seems self-evident, for example, that if an infant with AD were to (messily) eat an acidic food such as an orange, a flare-up of AD around the mouth and on the cheeks and hands would be a forgone conclusion. Similar nonimmunologic scenarios unambiguously can occur with many foods, including citrus; corn; radish; mustard; garlic; onion; pineapple; and many spices, food additives, and preservatives.⁹ Clearly there are some scenarios whereby food could trigger an AD flare, and yet this more limited vignette generally is not what patients are referring to when suggesting that food is the root cause of their AD.

The Labyrinth of Testing for Food Allergies

Although there is no reliable method for testing for irritant dermatitis, understanding the other types of tests may help guide our thinking. Testing for IgE-mediated food allergies generally is done via an immunoenzymatic serum assay that can document sensitization to a food protein; however, this testing by itself is not sufficient to diagnose a clinical food allergy.¹⁰ Similarly, skin prick testing allows for intradermal administration of a food extract to evaluate for an urticarial reaction within 10 to 15 minutes. Although the sensitivity and specificity vary by age, population, and the specific allergen being tested, these are limited to immediate-type reactions and do not reflect the potential to drive an eczematous flare.

The gold standard, if there is one, is likely the double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC), ideally with a long enough observation period to capture later-occurring reactions such as an AD flare. However, given the nature of the test—having patients eat the foods of concern and then carefully following them for reactions—it remains time consuming, expensive, and labor intensive.¹¹ 

To further complicate matters, several unvalidated tests exist such as IgG testing, atopy patch testing, kinesiology, and hair and gastric juice analysis, which remain investigational but continue to be used and may further confuse patients and clinicians.¹²

It is useful to first separate out the classic IgE-mediated food allergy reactions that are common. In these immediate-type reactions, a person sensitized to a food protein will develop characteristic cutaneous and/or extracutaneous reactions such as urticaria, angioedema, and even anaphylaxis, usually within minutes of exposure. Although it is possible that an IgE-mediated reaction could trigger an AD flare—perhaps simply by causing pruritus, which could initiate the itch-scratch cycle—because of the near simultaneity with ingestion of the offending food and the often dramatic clinical presentations, such foods clearly do not represent “hidden” triggers for AD flares.³ The concept of food-triggered AD (FTAD) is crucial for thinking about foods that could result in true eczematous flares, which historically have been classified as early-type (<2 hours after food challenge) and late-type (≥2 hours after food challenge) reactions.^13,14 

A study of more than 1000 DBPCFCs performed in patients with AD was illustrative.¹⁵ Immediate reactions other than AD were fairly common and were observed in 40% of the food challenges compared to only 9% in the placebo group. These reactions included urticaria, angioedema, and gastrointestinal and respiratory tract symptoms. Immediate reactions of AD alone were exceedingly rare at only 0.7% and not significantly elevated compared to placebo. Just over 4% experienced both an immediate AD exacerbation along with other non-AD findings, which was significantly greater than placebo (P<.01). Although intermediate and late reactions manifesting as AD exacerbations did occur after food ingestion, they were rare (2.2% or less) and not significantly different from placebo. The authors concluded that an exacerbation of AD in the absence of other allergic symptoms in children was unlikely to be due to food,¹⁵ which is an important finding.

A recent retrospective review of 372 children with AD reported similar results.⁴ The authors defined FTAD in a different way; instead of showing a flare after a DBPCFC, they looked for “physician-noted sustained improvement in AD upon removal of a food (typically after 2–6-wk follow-up), to which the child was sensitized without any other changes in skin care.” Despite this fundamentally different approach, they similarly concluded that while food allergies were common, FTAD was relatively uncommon—found in 2% of those with mild AD, 6% of those with moderate AD, and 4% of those with severe AD.⁴ 

There are other ways that foods could contribute to disease flares, however, and one of the most compelling is that there may be broader concepts at play; perhaps some diets are not specifically driving the AD but rather are affecting inflammation in the body at large. Although somewhat speculative, there is evidence that some foods may simply be proinflammatory, working to exacerbate the disease outside of a specific mechanism, which has been seen in a variety of other conditions such as acne or rheumatoid arthritis.^16,17 To speculate further, it is possible that there may be a threshold effect such that when the AD is poorly controlled, certain factors such as inflammatory foods could lead to a flare, while when under better control, these same factors may not cause an effect.

Finally, it is important to also consider the emotional and/or psychological aspects related to food and diet. The power of the placebo in dietary change has been documented in several diseases, though this certainly is not to be dismissive of the patient’s symptoms; it seems reasonable that the very act of changing such a fundamental aspect of daily life could result in a placebo effect.^18,19 In the context of relapsing and remitting conditions such as AD, this effect may be magnified. A landmark study by Thompson and Hanifin²⁰ illustrates this possibility. The authors found that in 80% of cases in which patients were convinced that food was a major contributing factor to their AD, such concerns diminished markedly once better control of the eczema was achieved.²⁰

This brings us to what to do with an individual patient in the examination room. Because there is such widespread concern and discussion around this topic, it is important to at least briefly address it. If there are known food allergens that are being avoided, it is important to underscore the importance of continuing to avoid those foods, especially when there is actual evidence of true food allergy rather than sensitization alone. Historically, elimination diets often were recommended empirically, though more recent studies, meta-analyses, and guidance documents increasingly have recommended against them.³ In particular, there are major concerns for iatrogenic harm. 

First, heavily restricted diets may result in nutritional and/or caloric deficiencies that can be dangerous and lead to poor growth.²¹ Practices such as drinking unpasteurized milk can expose children to dangerous infections, while feeding them exclusively rice milk can lead to severe malnutrition.²² 

Second, there is a dawning realization that children with AD placed on elimination diets may actually develop true IgE-mediated allergies, including fatal anaphylaxis, to the excluded foods. In fact, one retrospective review of 298 patients with a history of AD and no prior immediate reactions found that 19% of patients developed new immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions after starting an elimination diet, presumably due to the loss of tolerance to these foods. A striking one-third of these reactions were classified as anaphylaxis, with cow’s milk and egg being the most common offenders.²³

It also is crucial to acknowledge that recommending sweeping lifestyle changes is not easy for patients, especially pediatric patients. Onerous dietary restrictions may add considerable stress, ironically a known trigger for AD itself. 

Finally, dietary modifications can be a distraction from conventional therapy and may result in treatment delays while the patient continues to experience uncontrolled symptoms of AD. 

Final Thoughts

Diet is intimately related to AD. Although the narrative continues to unfold in fascinating domains, such as the skin barrier and the microbiome, it is increasingly clear that these are intertwined and always have been. Despite the rarity of true food-triggered AD, the perception of dietary triggers is so widespread and addressing the topic is important and may help avoid unnecessary harm from unfounded extreme dietary changes. A recent multispecialty workgroup report on AD and food allergy succinctly summarized this as: “AD has many triggers and comorbidities, and food allergy is only one of the potential triggers and comorbid conditions. With regard to AD management, education and skin care are most important.”³ With proper testing, guidance, and both topical and systemic therapies, most AD can be brought under control, and for at least some patients, this may allay concerns about foods triggering their AD. 

It is unsurprising that food frequently is thought to be the culprit behind an eczema flare, especially in infants. Indeed, it often is said that infants do only 3 things: eat, sleep, and poop.¹ For those unfortunate enough to develop the signs and symptoms of atopic dermatitis (AD), food quickly emerges as a potential culprit from the tiny pool of suspects, which is against a cultural backdrop of unprecedented focus on foods and food reactions.² The prevalence of food allergies in children, though admittedly fraught with methodological difficulties, is estimated to have more than doubled from 3.4% in 1999 to 7.6% in 2018.³ As expected, prevalence rates were higher among children with other atopic comorbidities including AD, with up to 50% of children with AD demonstrating convincing food allergy.⁴ It is easy to imagine a patient conflating these 2 entities and mistaking their correlation for causation. Thus, it follows that more than 90% of parents/guardians have reported that their children have had food-induced AD, and understandably—at least according to one study—75% of parents/guardians were found to have manipulated the diet in an attempt to manage the disease.^5,6

Patients and parents/guardians are not the only ones who have suspected food as a driving force in AD. An article in the British Medical Journal from the 1800s beautifully encapsulated the depth and duration of this quandary: “There is probably no subject in which more deeply rooted convictions have been held, not only in the profession but by the laity, than the connection between diet and disease, both as regards the causation and treatment of the latter.”⁷ Herein, a wide range of food reactions is examined to highlight evidence for the role of diet in AD, which may contradict what patients—and even some clinicians—believe.

No Easy Answers

A definitive statement that food allergy is not the root cause of AD would put this issue to rest, but such simplicity does not reflect the complex reality. First, we must agree on definitions for certain terms. What do we mean by food allergy? A broader category—adverse food reactions—covers a wide range of entities, some immune mediated and some not, including lactose intolerance, irritant contact dermatitis around the mouth, and even dermatitis herpetiformis (the cutaneous manifestation of celiac disease).⁸ Although the term food allergy often is used synonymously with adverse food reactions, the exact definition of a food allergy is specific: “adverse immune responses to food proteins that result in typical clinical symptoms.”⁸ The fact that many patients and even health care practitioners seem to frequently misapply this term makes it even more confusing. 

The current focus is on foods that could trigger a flare of AD, which clearly is a broader question than food allergy sensu stricto. It seems self-evident, for example, that if an infant with AD were to (messily) eat an acidic food such as an orange, a flare-up of AD around the mouth and on the cheeks and hands would be a forgone conclusion. Similar nonimmunologic scenarios unambiguously can occur with many foods, including citrus; corn; radish; mustard; garlic; onion; pineapple; and many spices, food additives, and preservatives.⁹ Clearly there are some scenarios whereby food could trigger an AD flare, and yet this more limited vignette generally is not what patients are referring to when suggesting that food is the root cause of their AD.

The Labyrinth of Testing for Food Allergies

Although there is no reliable method for testing for irritant dermatitis, understanding the other types of tests may help guide our thinking. Testing for IgE-mediated food allergies generally is done via an immunoenzymatic serum assay that can document sensitization to a food protein; however, this testing by itself is not sufficient to diagnose a clinical food allergy.¹⁰ Similarly, skin prick testing allows for intradermal administration of a food extract to evaluate for an urticarial reaction within 10 to 15 minutes. Although the sensitivity and specificity vary by age, population, and the specific allergen being tested, these are limited to immediate-type reactions and do not reflect the potential to drive an eczematous flare.

The gold standard, if there is one, is likely the double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC), ideally with a long enough observation period to capture later-occurring reactions such as an AD flare. However, given the nature of the test—having patients eat the foods of concern and then carefully following them for reactions—it remains time consuming, expensive, and labor intensive.¹¹ 

To further complicate matters, several unvalidated tests exist such as IgG testing, atopy patch testing, kinesiology, and hair and gastric juice analysis, which remain investigational but continue to be used and may further confuse patients and clinicians.¹²

It is useful to first separate out the classic IgE-mediated food allergy reactions that are common. In these immediate-type reactions, a person sensitized to a food protein will develop characteristic cutaneous and/or extracutaneous reactions such as urticaria, angioedema, and even anaphylaxis, usually within minutes of exposure. Although it is possible that an IgE-mediated reaction could trigger an AD flare—perhaps simply by causing pruritus, which could initiate the itch-scratch cycle—because of the near simultaneity with ingestion of the offending food and the often dramatic clinical presentations, such foods clearly do not represent “hidden” triggers for AD flares.³ The concept of food-triggered AD (FTAD) is crucial for thinking about foods that could result in true eczematous flares, which historically have been classified as early-type (<2 hours after food challenge) and late-type (≥2 hours after food challenge) reactions.^13,14 

A study of more than 1000 DBPCFCs performed in patients with AD was illustrative.¹⁵ Immediate reactions other than AD were fairly common and were observed in 40% of the food challenges compared to only 9% in the placebo group. These reactions included urticaria, angioedema, and gastrointestinal and respiratory tract symptoms. Immediate reactions of AD alone were exceedingly rare at only 0.7% and not significantly elevated compared to placebo. Just over 4% experienced both an immediate AD exacerbation along with other non-AD findings, which was significantly greater than placebo (P<.01). Although intermediate and late reactions manifesting as AD exacerbations did occur after food ingestion, they were rare (2.2% or less) and not significantly different from placebo. The authors concluded that an exacerbation of AD in the absence of other allergic symptoms in children was unlikely to be due to food,¹⁵ which is an important finding.

A recent retrospective review of 372 children with AD reported similar results.⁴ The authors defined FTAD in a different way; instead of showing a flare after a DBPCFC, they looked for “physician-noted sustained improvement in AD upon removal of a food (typically after 2–6-wk follow-up), to which the child was sensitized without any other changes in skin care.” Despite this fundamentally different approach, they similarly concluded that while food allergies were common, FTAD was relatively uncommon—found in 2% of those with mild AD, 6% of those with moderate AD, and 4% of those with severe AD.⁴ 

There are other ways that foods could contribute to disease flares, however, and one of the most compelling is that there may be broader concepts at play; perhaps some diets are not specifically driving the AD but rather are affecting inflammation in the body at large. Although somewhat speculative, there is evidence that some foods may simply be proinflammatory, working to exacerbate the disease outside of a specific mechanism, which has been seen in a variety of other conditions such as acne or rheumatoid arthritis.^16,17 To speculate further, it is possible that there may be a threshold effect such that when the AD is poorly controlled, certain factors such as inflammatory foods could lead to a flare, while when under better control, these same factors may not cause an effect.

Finally, it is important to also consider the emotional and/or psychological aspects related to food and diet. The power of the placebo in dietary change has been documented in several diseases, though this certainly is not to be dismissive of the patient’s symptoms; it seems reasonable that the very act of changing such a fundamental aspect of daily life could result in a placebo effect.^18,19 In the context of relapsing and remitting conditions such as AD, this effect may be magnified. A landmark study by Thompson and Hanifin²⁰ illustrates this possibility. The authors found that in 80% of cases in which patients were convinced that food was a major contributing factor to their AD, such concerns diminished markedly once better control of the eczema was achieved.²⁰

This brings us to what to do with an individual patient in the examination room. Because there is such widespread concern and discussion around this topic, it is important to at least briefly address it. If there are known food allergens that are being avoided, it is important to underscore the importance of continuing to avoid those foods, especially when there is actual evidence of true food allergy rather than sensitization alone. Historically, elimination diets often were recommended empirically, though more recent studies, meta-analyses, and guidance documents increasingly have recommended against them.³ In particular, there are major concerns for iatrogenic harm. 

First, heavily restricted diets may result in nutritional and/or caloric deficiencies that can be dangerous and lead to poor growth.²¹ Practices such as drinking unpasteurized milk can expose children to dangerous infections, while feeding them exclusively rice milk can lead to severe malnutrition.²² 

Second, there is a dawning realization that children with AD placed on elimination diets may actually develop true IgE-mediated allergies, including fatal anaphylaxis, to the excluded foods. In fact, one retrospective review of 298 patients with a history of AD and no prior immediate reactions found that 19% of patients developed new immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions after starting an elimination diet, presumably due to the loss of tolerance to these foods. A striking one-third of these reactions were classified as anaphylaxis, with cow’s milk and egg being the most common offenders.²³

It also is crucial to acknowledge that recommending sweeping lifestyle changes is not easy for patients, especially pediatric patients. Onerous dietary restrictions may add considerable stress, ironically a known trigger for AD itself. 

Finally, dietary modifications can be a distraction from conventional therapy and may result in treatment delays while the patient continues to experience uncontrolled symptoms of AD. 

Final Thoughts

Diet is intimately related to AD. Although the narrative continues to unfold in fascinating domains, such as the skin barrier and the microbiome, it is increasingly clear that these are intertwined and always have been. Despite the rarity of true food-triggered AD, the perception of dietary triggers is so widespread and addressing the topic is important and may help avoid unnecessary harm from unfounded extreme dietary changes. A recent multispecialty workgroup report on AD and food allergy succinctly summarized this as: “AD has many triggers and comorbidities, and food allergy is only one of the potential triggers and comorbid conditions. With regard to AD management, education and skin care are most important.”³ With proper testing, guidance, and both topical and systemic therapies, most AD can be brought under control, and for at least some patients, this may allay concerns about foods triggering their AD. 

Case: You are talking with one of your teenage patients, who has a history of significant suicidal ideation and an aborted attempt, and you ask her if there is someone she can talk with if she is feeling suicidal. “I call a friend,” she says. “That’s the only thing that works when I’m feeling bad.”

During difficult times, it is important to have a repertoire of coping skills to address stress, tension, frustration, anxiety, anger, sadness, and to help avoid dangerous behaviors. It is also important to have someone to talk to. For many youth, talking with friends is their preferred coping skill and contact when struggling with intense feelings.

This is hardly surprising. Peer relations are central to adolescent development. The ongoing individuation-separation process means that adolescents are peeling away from the family and into a community of their peers, where they figure out who they are through social interactions in subtle and complex ways. Adolescents are often profoundly immersed in the world of their peers; they often spend more time with their peers in educational and social settings than with their parents or other adults; and their connections with peers are often pleasurable, engaging, supportive, and intense. It is natural that they would want to communicate with their peers during stressful times.

At the same time, they may also want to avoid talking with adults. They may identify adult figures with authority, expectations, and control. So much adolescent psychic suffering and so many mental health crises involve shame, guilt, and fear, and are associated with romance, love, disappointment, and trauma – all of which may be difficult to share with parents and adult figures.

Adults also struggle with these kinds of conversations. Even benign attempts at comforting the youth (“Don’t worry, it’ll get better,” “Everyone feels this way sometimes”) can be seen as invalidating. And in stressful times, a difficult conversation can be ignited by the fuel of adult anxieties about the independence and autonomy of the child that is coming, which can make charged conversations all the more inflammatory.

Reaching out to peers during stressful times is therefore developmentally appropriate and often feels far more comfortable, validating, and sympathetic.

One of the most important things we can do is to help kids understand when, how, and why they can support each other – and when they cannot. Whether we like it or not, for many youth, peers are peer mental health counselors. They have shared vocabularies and can share experiences in the mental health care system. In addition to relying on their peers, a great many youth we work with also see themselves as supports to their peers, so it’s not just a one-way street.

So we talk with them frankly about when, how, and why talking with their friends can be an effective way of getting through a hard time and when, how, and why they need to reach out to an adult.

Recognizing how positive peer support can be, we ask them to identify problems with it. Kids often recognize the drawbacks of relying on their peers for support. They can see how it can be a burden to their friends. They often acknowledge that their friends may be experts in some aspects of their lives but not in others. For example, they can have shared stressors in school, can have similar understandings of the drama in their lives, and can relate to each other’s worlds, but will also not necessarily know what to do if a situation becomes dangerous.

The youth also tend to understand that the stakes in these conversations are high. We have seen peer groups suffer terribly when the youth have felt responsible – and even been the last preceding contact – in bad or even fatal outcomes.

We need to open up conversations about different forms of communication: when teens need understanding, compassion, patience; when they need a good understanding of local, cultural contexts, and a sense of support without anxieties and stressors; and when they need support and adult capacities and connections to solve problems. We can help them understand how to access people – both peers and adults – but also discuss responsibility: who you are responsible for, how you cannot be responsible alone for your friends’ mental health, how they cannot be responsible for yours, and who can be responsible for you.

To this end, we validate the importance of peers and ask more specifically when the adolescent thinks it is helpful to contact peers and when they think it would not be helpful. Having teens explain the difference may help them identify the right times to connect with peers or adults.

We can then talk about how to understand that there are different kinds of crisis: the kind where comfort, understanding, and support from friends can alleviate the crisis, and times when it is imperative to involve adults.

We can then identify which adults in their lives they can contact and how they would do so, both in terms of method of communication (texting an older sister, speaking in person with a parent, calling a therapist) and what they could say.

Then comes a more difficult step. We help them think about how to identify adults whom they do not know: how to contact a hotline or go to an emergency room or call 911. It is important not just to provide the numbers or address, but to help them run through a brief script so they know what to say and would be comfortable saying in their own words (but effectively saying, “I really need to speak with someone right now, I’m not safe.”)

Helping youth understand the advantages and disadvantages of reaching out to peers, and when and how to reach out to adults, can be a constructive conversation. It is a chance not only to speak with and hear about a youth’s life and relationships but also a chance to give them a stronger and safer support network.

Dr. Henderson is a psychiatrist who treats children and adolescents at NYU Langone Health, New York.

Case: You are talking with one of your teenage patients, who has a history of significant suicidal ideation and an aborted attempt, and you ask her if there is someone she can talk with if she is feeling suicidal. “I call a friend,” she says. “That’s the only thing that works when I’m feeling bad.”

During difficult times, it is important to have a repertoire of coping skills to address stress, tension, frustration, anxiety, anger, sadness, and to help avoid dangerous behaviors. It is also important to have someone to talk to. For many youth, talking with friends is their preferred coping skill and contact when struggling with intense feelings.

This is hardly surprising. Peer relations are central to adolescent development. The ongoing individuation-separation process means that adolescents are peeling away from the family and into a community of their peers, where they figure out who they are through social interactions in subtle and complex ways. Adolescents are often profoundly immersed in the world of their peers; they often spend more time with their peers in educational and social settings than with their parents or other adults; and their connections with peers are often pleasurable, engaging, supportive, and intense. It is natural that they would want to communicate with their peers during stressful times.

At the same time, they may also want to avoid talking with adults. They may identify adult figures with authority, expectations, and control. So much adolescent psychic suffering and so many mental health crises involve shame, guilt, and fear, and are associated with romance, love, disappointment, and trauma – all of which may be difficult to share with parents and adult figures.

Adults also struggle with these kinds of conversations. Even benign attempts at comforting the youth (“Don’t worry, it’ll get better,” “Everyone feels this way sometimes”) can be seen as invalidating. And in stressful times, a difficult conversation can be ignited by the fuel of adult anxieties about the independence and autonomy of the child that is coming, which can make charged conversations all the more inflammatory.

Reaching out to peers during stressful times is therefore developmentally appropriate and often feels far more comfortable, validating, and sympathetic.

One of the most important things we can do is to help kids understand when, how, and why they can support each other – and when they cannot. Whether we like it or not, for many youth, peers are peer mental health counselors. They have shared vocabularies and can share experiences in the mental health care system. In addition to relying on their peers, a great many youth we work with also see themselves as supports to their peers, so it’s not just a one-way street.

So we talk with them frankly about when, how, and why talking with their friends can be an effective way of getting through a hard time and when, how, and why they need to reach out to an adult.

Recognizing how positive peer support can be, we ask them to identify problems with it. Kids often recognize the drawbacks of relying on their peers for support. They can see how it can be a burden to their friends. They often acknowledge that their friends may be experts in some aspects of their lives but not in others. For example, they can have shared stressors in school, can have similar understandings of the drama in their lives, and can relate to each other’s worlds, but will also not necessarily know what to do if a situation becomes dangerous.

The youth also tend to understand that the stakes in these conversations are high. We have seen peer groups suffer terribly when the youth have felt responsible – and even been the last preceding contact – in bad or even fatal outcomes.

We need to open up conversations about different forms of communication: when teens need understanding, compassion, patience; when they need a good understanding of local, cultural contexts, and a sense of support without anxieties and stressors; and when they need support and adult capacities and connections to solve problems. We can help them understand how to access people – both peers and adults – but also discuss responsibility: who you are responsible for, how you cannot be responsible alone for your friends’ mental health, how they cannot be responsible for yours, and who can be responsible for you.

To this end, we validate the importance of peers and ask more specifically when the adolescent thinks it is helpful to contact peers and when they think it would not be helpful. Having teens explain the difference may help them identify the right times to connect with peers or adults.

We can then talk about how to understand that there are different kinds of crisis: the kind where comfort, understanding, and support from friends can alleviate the crisis, and times when it is imperative to involve adults.

We can then identify which adults in their lives they can contact and how they would do so, both in terms of method of communication (texting an older sister, speaking in person with a parent, calling a therapist) and what they could say.

Then comes a more difficult step. We help them think about how to identify adults whom they do not know: how to contact a hotline or go to an emergency room or call 911. It is important not just to provide the numbers or address, but to help them run through a brief script so they know what to say and would be comfortable saying in their own words (but effectively saying, “I really need to speak with someone right now, I’m not safe.”)

Helping youth understand the advantages and disadvantages of reaching out to peers, and when and how to reach out to adults, can be a constructive conversation. It is a chance not only to speak with and hear about a youth’s life and relationships but also a chance to give them a stronger and safer support network.

Dr. Henderson is a psychiatrist who treats children and adolescents at NYU Langone Health, New York.

Case: You are talking with one of your teenage patients, who has a history of significant suicidal ideation and an aborted attempt, and you ask her if there is someone she can talk with if she is feeling suicidal. “I call a friend,” she says. “That’s the only thing that works when I’m feeling bad.”

During difficult times, it is important to have a repertoire of coping skills to address stress, tension, frustration, anxiety, anger, sadness, and to help avoid dangerous behaviors. It is also important to have someone to talk to. For many youth, talking with friends is their preferred coping skill and contact when struggling with intense feelings.

This is hardly surprising. Peer relations are central to adolescent development. The ongoing individuation-separation process means that adolescents are peeling away from the family and into a community of their peers, where they figure out who they are through social interactions in subtle and complex ways. Adolescents are often profoundly immersed in the world of their peers; they often spend more time with their peers in educational and social settings than with their parents or other adults; and their connections with peers are often pleasurable, engaging, supportive, and intense. It is natural that they would want to communicate with their peers during stressful times.

At the same time, they may also want to avoid talking with adults. They may identify adult figures with authority, expectations, and control. So much adolescent psychic suffering and so many mental health crises involve shame, guilt, and fear, and are associated with romance, love, disappointment, and trauma – all of which may be difficult to share with parents and adult figures.

Adults also struggle with these kinds of conversations. Even benign attempts at comforting the youth (“Don’t worry, it’ll get better,” “Everyone feels this way sometimes”) can be seen as invalidating. And in stressful times, a difficult conversation can be ignited by the fuel of adult anxieties about the independence and autonomy of the child that is coming, which can make charged conversations all the more inflammatory.

Reaching out to peers during stressful times is therefore developmentally appropriate and often feels far more comfortable, validating, and sympathetic.

One of the most important things we can do is to help kids understand when, how, and why they can support each other – and when they cannot. Whether we like it or not, for many youth, peers are peer mental health counselors. They have shared vocabularies and can share experiences in the mental health care system. In addition to relying on their peers, a great many youth we work with also see themselves as supports to their peers, so it’s not just a one-way street.

So we talk with them frankly about when, how, and why talking with their friends can be an effective way of getting through a hard time and when, how, and why they need to reach out to an adult.

Recognizing how positive peer support can be, we ask them to identify problems with it. Kids often recognize the drawbacks of relying on their peers for support. They can see how it can be a burden to their friends. They often acknowledge that their friends may be experts in some aspects of their lives but not in others. For example, they can have shared stressors in school, can have similar understandings of the drama in their lives, and can relate to each other’s worlds, but will also not necessarily know what to do if a situation becomes dangerous.

The youth also tend to understand that the stakes in these conversations are high. We have seen peer groups suffer terribly when the youth have felt responsible – and even been the last preceding contact – in bad or even fatal outcomes.

We need to open up conversations about different forms of communication: when teens need understanding, compassion, patience; when they need a good understanding of local, cultural contexts, and a sense of support without anxieties and stressors; and when they need support and adult capacities and connections to solve problems. We can help them understand how to access people – both peers and adults – but also discuss responsibility: who you are responsible for, how you cannot be responsible alone for your friends’ mental health, how they cannot be responsible for yours, and who can be responsible for you.

To this end, we validate the importance of peers and ask more specifically when the adolescent thinks it is helpful to contact peers and when they think it would not be helpful. Having teens explain the difference may help them identify the right times to connect with peers or adults.

We can then talk about how to understand that there are different kinds of crisis: the kind where comfort, understanding, and support from friends can alleviate the crisis, and times when it is imperative to involve adults.

We can then identify which adults in their lives they can contact and how they would do so, both in terms of method of communication (texting an older sister, speaking in person with a parent, calling a therapist) and what they could say.

Then comes a more difficult step. We help them think about how to identify adults whom they do not know: how to contact a hotline or go to an emergency room or call 911. It is important not just to provide the numbers or address, but to help them run through a brief script so they know what to say and would be comfortable saying in their own words (but effectively saying, “I really need to speak with someone right now, I’m not safe.”)

Helping youth understand the advantages and disadvantages of reaching out to peers, and when and how to reach out to adults, can be a constructive conversation. It is a chance not only to speak with and hear about a youth’s life and relationships but also a chance to give them a stronger and safer support network.

Dr. Henderson is a psychiatrist who treats children and adolescents at NYU Langone Health, New York.

ILLUSTRATION: KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

OBG Management Board Member Linda Bradley, MD, recently attended the Global Congress on Hysteroscopy in Malaga, Spain, May 26-27, 2022, organized by the Global Community on Hysteroscopy, and co-authored the article, “Implementation of office hysteroscopy for the evaluation and treatment of intrauterine pathology” in Obstetrics and Gynecology.¹ She is the Director of the Center for Menstrual Disorders, Fibroids and Hysteroscopic Services at Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio. OBG Management recently caught up with her to ask about her perspectives on the expanded use of hysteroscopy in obstetrics and gynecology, and her call to “end blind endometrial sampling.”

OBG Management: What are the drawbacks of dilation and curettage?

Linda Bradley, MD: The standard in ObGyn for many years has been our reliance on the blind dilation and curettage (D&C)—it has been the mainstay for evaluation of the endometrial cavity. We know that it has risks, but most importantly, the procedure has low sensitivity for detecting focal pathology. This basic lack of confirmation of lesions makes a diagnosis impossible and patients are challenged in getting adequate treatment, and will not, since they may not know what options they have for the treatment of intrauterine pathology. 

Because it is a “blind procedure,” done without looking, we don’t know the endpoints, such as when is the procedure completed, how do we know we removed all of the lesions? Let’s look at our colleagues, like GI and colorectal physicians. If a patient presents with rectal bleeding, we would perform an exam, followed by either a colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy. If a patient were vomiting up blood, a gastroenterologist would perform an upper endoscopy, look with a tube to see if there is an ulcer or something else as a source of the bleeding. If a patient were bleeding from the bladder, a urologist would use  a cystoscope for direct inspection. 

Unfortunately for gynecologists, only about 15% to 25% of us will use hysteroscopy as a diagnostic method²—a method that has excellent sensitivity in detecting endocervical disease, intrauterine disease, and proximal tubal pathology. Compared with blind curettage, we can visualize the cavity; we can sample the cavity directly; we can determine what the patient has and determine the proper surgical procedure, medical therapy, or reassurance that a patient may be offered. We often are looking at focal lesions, lesions in the uterine cavity that could be cancer, so we can make a diagnosis. Or we may be looking at small things, like endometrial hyperplasia, endocervical or endometrial polyps, retained products of conception, or fibroids. We can look at uterine pathology as well as anatomic issues and malformations—such as bicornuate or septate uterus. 

I actually say, “My hysteroscope is my stethoscope” because it allows us to evaluate for many things. The beauty of the new office hysteroscopes is that they are miniaturized. Doctors now have the ability to use reusable devices that are as small as 3 millimeters. There are disposable ones that are up to  3.5 to 4 millimeters in size. Gynecologists have the options to choose from reusuable rigid or flexible hysteroscopes or completely disposable devices. So, truly, we now should not have an excuse for evaluating a woman’s anatomy, especially for bleeding. We should no longer rely, as we have for the last century or more, just on blind sampling, because we miss focal lesions. 

OBG Management: When was the hysteroscope first introduced into the field?

Dr. Bradley: The technology employed in hysteroscopy has been around really since the last 150+ years, introduced by Dr. Pantaleoni. We just have not embraced its usefulness in our clinical practice for many years. Today, about 15% to 25% of gynecologists practicing in the United States are performing hysteroscopy in the office.¹

OBG Management: How does using hysteroscopy contribute to better patient outcomes?

Dr. Bradley: We can get a more accurate diagnosis—fewer false-negatives and a high degree of sensitivity in detecting focal lesions. With D&C, much focal pathology can be left behind. In a 2001 study, 105 symptomatic postmenopausal women with bleeding and thickened lining of the uterus greater than  5 mm on ultrasound underwent blind D&C. They found that 80% of the women had intracavitary lesions and 90% had focal lesions. In fact, 87% of the patients with focal lesions still had residual pathology after the blind D&C.³ The D&C procedure missed 58% of polyps, 50% of endometrial hyperplasia, 60% of cases of complex atypical hyperplasia, and even 11% of endometrial cancers. So these numbers are just not very good. Direct inspection of the uterus, with uninterrupted visualization through hysteroscopy, with removal of lesions under direct visualization, should be our goal. 

Blind sampling also poses greater risk for things like perforation. In addition, you not only can miss lesions by just scraping the endometrium, D&C also can leave lesions just floating around in the uterine cavity, with those lesions never retrieved. With office hysteroscopy, the physician can be more successful in treating a condition because once you see what is going on in the uterine cavity, you can say, “Okay, I can fix this with a surgical procedure. What instruments do I need? How much time is it going to take? Is this a straightforward case? Is it more complicated? Do I let an intern do the case? Is this for a more senior resident or fellow?” So I think it helps to direct the next steps for surgical management and even medical management, which also could be what we call “one-stop shopping.” For instance, for directed biopsies for removal of small polyps, for patients that can tolerate the procedure a little longer, the diagnostic hysteroscopy then becomes a management, an operative procedure, that really, for myself, can be done in the office. Removal of larger fibroids, because of fluid management and other concerns, would not be done in the office. Most patients tolerate office procedures, but it also depends on a patient’s weight, and her ability to relax during the procedure. 

The ultimate goal for hysteroscopy is a minimum of diagnosis, meaning in less than 2, 3 minutes, you can look inside the uterus. Our devices are 3 millimeters in size; I tell my patients, it’s the size of “a piece of spaghetti or pasta,” and we will just take a look. If we see a polyp, okay, if your office is not equipped, because then you need a different type of equipment for removal, then take her to the operating room. The patient would be under brief anesthesia and go home an hour or 2 later. So really, for physicians, we just need to embrace the technology to make a diagnosis, just look, and then from there decide what is next.

OBG Management: What techniques do you use to minimize or eliminate patient discomfort during hysteroscopy?...

OBG Management: What techniques do you use to minimize or eliminate patient discomfort during hysteroscopy?

Dr. Bradley: I think first is always be patient-centric. Let patients be prepared for the procedure. We have reading materials; our nurses explain the procedure. In the office, I try to prepare the patient for success. I let her know what is going on. A friend, family member can be with her. We have a nurse that understands the procedure; she explains it well. We have a type of bed that allows the patients’ legs to rest more comfortably in the stirrups—a leg rest kind of stirrup. We use a heating pad. Some patients like to hear music. Some patients like to have aromatherapy. We are quick and efficient, and typically just talk to the patient throughout the procedure. Although some patients don’t like this explanatory, “talkative” approach—they say, “Dr. Bradley, just do the procedure. I don’t want to know you are touching the cervix. I don’t want to know that you’re prepping. Just do it.” 

But I like what we called it when I was growing up: vocal-local (talk to your patient and explain as you proceed). It’s like local anesthesia. For these procedures in the office you usually do not have to use numbing medicine or a paracervical block. Look at the patient’s age, number of years in menopause, whether or not  she has delivered vaginally, and what her cervix looks like. Does she have a sexually transmitted infection or pelvic inflammatory disease? Sometimes we will use misoprostol, my personal preference is oral, but there are data to suggest that vaginal can be of help.⁴ We suggest Motrin, Tylenol an hour or 2 before, and we always want patients to not come in on an empty stomach. There is also the option of primrose oil, a supplement, that patients buy at the drug store in the vitamin section. It’s used for cervical softening. It is taken orally.^5-7

If they want, patients can watch a video—similar to watching childbirth videos when I used to deliver babies. At some point we started putting mirrors where women could see their efforts of pushing a baby out, as it might give them more willpower to push harder. Some people don’t want to look. But the majority of women will do well in this setting. I do have a small number of women that just say, “I can’t do this in the office,” and so in those cases, they can go to the operating room. But the main idea is, even in an operating room, you are not just doing a D&C. You are still going to look inside with a hysteroscope and have a great panoramic view of what is going on, and remove a lesion with an instrument while you watch. Not a process of looking with the hysteroscope, scraping with a curettage, and thinking that you are complete. Targeted removal of focal lesions under continuous visualization is the goal.

OBG Management: Can you describe the goals of the consensus document on ending blind sampling co-created by the European Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy, AAGL, and the Global Community on Hysteroscopy? 

Dr. Bradley: Our goal for this year is to get a systematic review and guidelines paper written that speaks to what we have just talked about. We want to have as many articles about why blind sampling is not beneficial, with too many misses, and now we have new technology available. We want to speak to physicians to solve the conundrum of bleeding, with equivocal ultrasounds, equivocal saline infusion, sonograms, equivocal MRIs—be able to take a look. Let’s come up to speed like our other colleagues in other specialties that “look.” A systematic review guideline document will provide the evidence that blind  D&C is fraught with problems and how often we miss disease and its inherent risk.

We need to, by itself, for most of our patients, abandon D&C because we have too many missed diagnoses. As doctors we have to be lifelong learners. There was no robot back in the day. We were not able to do laparoscopic hysterectomies, there were no MRIs. I remember in our city, there was one CT scan. We just did not have a lot of technology. The half-life of medical knowledge used to be decades—you graduated in the ‘60s, you could be a great gynecologist for the next  30 years because there was not that much going on. When I finished in the mid to late ‘80s, there was no hysteroscopy training. But I have come to see its value, the science  behind it.

So what I say to doctors is, “We learn so many new things, we shouldn’t get stuck in just saying, ‘I didn’t do this when I was in training.’” And if your thought is, “Oh, in my practice, I don’t have that many cases,” you still need to be able to know who in your community can be a resource to your patients. As Maya Angelou says, “When you know better, you should do better.” And that’s where I am now—to be a lifelong learner, and just  do it.

Lastly, patient influence is very important. If patients ask, “How are you going to do the procedure?” it’s a driver for change. By utilizing hysteroscopy in the evaluation of the intrauterine cavity, we have the opportunity to change the face of evaluation and treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding.●

ILLUSTRATION: KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

OBG Management Board Member Linda Bradley, MD, recently attended the Global Congress on Hysteroscopy in Malaga, Spain, May 26-27, 2022, organized by the Global Community on Hysteroscopy, and co-authored the article, “Implementation of office hysteroscopy for the evaluation and treatment of intrauterine pathology” in Obstetrics and Gynecology.¹ She is the Director of the Center for Menstrual Disorders, Fibroids and Hysteroscopic Services at Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio. OBG Management recently caught up with her to ask about her perspectives on the expanded use of hysteroscopy in obstetrics and gynecology, and her call to “end blind endometrial sampling.”

OBG Management: What are the drawbacks of dilation and curettage?

Linda Bradley, MD: The standard in ObGyn for many years has been our reliance on the blind dilation and curettage (D&C)—it has been the mainstay for evaluation of the endometrial cavity. We know that it has risks, but most importantly, the procedure has low sensitivity for detecting focal pathology. This basic lack of confirmation of lesions makes a diagnosis impossible and patients are challenged in getting adequate treatment, and will not, since they may not know what options they have for the treatment of intrauterine pathology. 

Because it is a “blind procedure,” done without looking, we don’t know the endpoints, such as when is the procedure completed, how do we know we removed all of the lesions? Let’s look at our colleagues, like GI and colorectal physicians. If a patient presents with rectal bleeding, we would perform an exam, followed by either a colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy. If a patient were vomiting up blood, a gastroenterologist would perform an upper endoscopy, look with a tube to see if there is an ulcer or something else as a source of the bleeding. If a patient were bleeding from the bladder, a urologist would use  a cystoscope for direct inspection. 

Unfortunately for gynecologists, only about 15% to 25% of us will use hysteroscopy as a diagnostic method²—a method that has excellent sensitivity in detecting endocervical disease, intrauterine disease, and proximal tubal pathology. Compared with blind curettage, we can visualize the cavity; we can sample the cavity directly; we can determine what the patient has and determine the proper surgical procedure, medical therapy, or reassurance that a patient may be offered. We often are looking at focal lesions, lesions in the uterine cavity that could be cancer, so we can make a diagnosis. Or we may be looking at small things, like endometrial hyperplasia, endocervical or endometrial polyps, retained products of conception, or fibroids. We can look at uterine pathology as well as anatomic issues and malformations—such as bicornuate or septate uterus. 

I actually say, “My hysteroscope is my stethoscope” because it allows us to evaluate for many things. The beauty of the new office hysteroscopes is that they are miniaturized. Doctors now have the ability to use reusable devices that are as small as 3 millimeters. There are disposable ones that are up to  3.5 to 4 millimeters in size. Gynecologists have the options to choose from reusuable rigid or flexible hysteroscopes or completely disposable devices. So, truly, we now should not have an excuse for evaluating a woman’s anatomy, especially for bleeding. We should no longer rely, as we have for the last century or more, just on blind sampling, because we miss focal lesions. 

OBG Management: When was the hysteroscope first introduced into the field?

Dr. Bradley: The technology employed in hysteroscopy has been around really since the last 150+ years, introduced by Dr. Pantaleoni. We just have not embraced its usefulness in our clinical practice for many years. Today, about 15% to 25% of gynecologists practicing in the United States are performing hysteroscopy in the office.¹

OBG Management: How does using hysteroscopy contribute to better patient outcomes?

Dr. Bradley: We can get a more accurate diagnosis—fewer false-negatives and a high degree of sensitivity in detecting focal lesions. With D&C, much focal pathology can be left behind. In a 2001 study, 105 symptomatic postmenopausal women with bleeding and thickened lining of the uterus greater than  5 mm on ultrasound underwent blind D&C. They found that 80% of the women had intracavitary lesions and 90% had focal lesions. In fact, 87% of the patients with focal lesions still had residual pathology after the blind D&C.³ The D&C procedure missed 58% of polyps, 50% of endometrial hyperplasia, 60% of cases of complex atypical hyperplasia, and even 11% of endometrial cancers. So these numbers are just not very good. Direct inspection of the uterus, with uninterrupted visualization through hysteroscopy, with removal of lesions under direct visualization, should be our goal. 

Blind sampling also poses greater risk for things like perforation. In addition, you not only can miss lesions by just scraping the endometrium, D&C also can leave lesions just floating around in the uterine cavity, with those lesions never retrieved. With office hysteroscopy, the physician can be more successful in treating a condition because once you see what is going on in the uterine cavity, you can say, “Okay, I can fix this with a surgical procedure. What instruments do I need? How much time is it going to take? Is this a straightforward case? Is it more complicated? Do I let an intern do the case? Is this for a more senior resident or fellow?” So I think it helps to direct the next steps for surgical management and even medical management, which also could be what we call “one-stop shopping.” For instance, for directed biopsies for removal of small polyps, for patients that can tolerate the procedure a little longer, the diagnostic hysteroscopy then becomes a management, an operative procedure, that really, for myself, can be done in the office. Removal of larger fibroids, because of fluid management and other concerns, would not be done in the office. Most patients tolerate office procedures, but it also depends on a patient’s weight, and her ability to relax during the procedure. 

The ultimate goal for hysteroscopy is a minimum of diagnosis, meaning in less than 2, 3 minutes, you can look inside the uterus. Our devices are 3 millimeters in size; I tell my patients, it’s the size of “a piece of spaghetti or pasta,” and we will just take a look. If we see a polyp, okay, if your office is not equipped, because then you need a different type of equipment for removal, then take her to the operating room. The patient would be under brief anesthesia and go home an hour or 2 later. So really, for physicians, we just need to embrace the technology to make a diagnosis, just look, and then from there decide what is next.

OBG Management: What techniques do you use to minimize or eliminate patient discomfort during hysteroscopy?...

OBG Management: What techniques do you use to minimize or eliminate patient discomfort during hysteroscopy?

Dr. Bradley: I think first is always be patient-centric. Let patients be prepared for the procedure. We have reading materials; our nurses explain the procedure. In the office, I try to prepare the patient for success. I let her know what is going on. A friend, family member can be with her. We have a nurse that understands the procedure; she explains it well. We have a type of bed that allows the patients’ legs to rest more comfortably in the stirrups—a leg rest kind of stirrup. We use a heating pad. Some patients like to hear music. Some patients like to have aromatherapy. We are quick and efficient, and typically just talk to the patient throughout the procedure. Although some patients don’t like this explanatory, “talkative” approach—they say, “Dr. Bradley, just do the procedure. I don’t want to know you are touching the cervix. I don’t want to know that you’re prepping. Just do it.” 

But I like what we called it when I was growing up: vocal-local (talk to your patient and explain as you proceed). It’s like local anesthesia. For these procedures in the office you usually do not have to use numbing medicine or a paracervical block. Look at the patient’s age, number of years in menopause, whether or not  she has delivered vaginally, and what her cervix looks like. Does she have a sexually transmitted infection or pelvic inflammatory disease? Sometimes we will use misoprostol, my personal preference is oral, but there are data to suggest that vaginal can be of help.⁴ We suggest Motrin, Tylenol an hour or 2 before, and we always want patients to not come in on an empty stomach. There is also the option of primrose oil, a supplement, that patients buy at the drug store in the vitamin section. It’s used for cervical softening. It is taken orally.^5-7

If they want, patients can watch a video—similar to watching childbirth videos when I used to deliver babies. At some point we started putting mirrors where women could see their efforts of pushing a baby out, as it might give them more willpower to push harder. Some people don’t want to look. But the majority of women will do well in this setting. I do have a small number of women that just say, “I can’t do this in the office,” and so in those cases, they can go to the operating room. But the main idea is, even in an operating room, you are not just doing a D&C. You are still going to look inside with a hysteroscope and have a great panoramic view of what is going on, and remove a lesion with an instrument while you watch. Not a process of looking with the hysteroscope, scraping with a curettage, and thinking that you are complete. Targeted removal of focal lesions under continuous visualization is the goal.

OBG Management: Can you describe the goals of the consensus document on ending blind sampling co-created by the European Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy, AAGL, and the Global Community on Hysteroscopy? 

Dr. Bradley: Our goal for this year is to get a systematic review and guidelines paper written that speaks to what we have just talked about. We want to have as many articles about why blind sampling is not beneficial, with too many misses, and now we have new technology available. We want to speak to physicians to solve the conundrum of bleeding, with equivocal ultrasounds, equivocal saline infusion, sonograms, equivocal MRIs—be able to take a look. Let’s come up to speed like our other colleagues in other specialties that “look.” A systematic review guideline document will provide the evidence that blind  D&C is fraught with problems and how often we miss disease and its inherent risk.

We need to, by itself, for most of our patients, abandon D&C because we have too many missed diagnoses. As doctors we have to be lifelong learners. There was no robot back in the day. We were not able to do laparoscopic hysterectomies, there were no MRIs. I remember in our city, there was one CT scan. We just did not have a lot of technology. The half-life of medical knowledge used to be decades—you graduated in the ‘60s, you could be a great gynecologist for the next  30 years because there was not that much going on. When I finished in the mid to late ‘80s, there was no hysteroscopy training. But I have come to see its value, the science  behind it.

So what I say to doctors is, “We learn so many new things, we shouldn’t get stuck in just saying, ‘I didn’t do this when I was in training.’” And if your thought is, “Oh, in my practice, I don’t have that many cases,” you still need to be able to know who in your community can be a resource to your patients. As Maya Angelou says, “When you know better, you should do better.” And that’s where I am now—to be a lifelong learner, and just  do it.

Lastly, patient influence is very important. If patients ask, “How are you going to do the procedure?” it’s a driver for change. By utilizing hysteroscopy in the evaluation of the intrauterine cavity, we have the opportunity to change the face of evaluation and treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding.●

ILLUSTRATION: KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

OBG Management Board Member Linda Bradley, MD, recently attended the Global Congress on Hysteroscopy in Malaga, Spain, May 26-27, 2022, organized by the Global Community on Hysteroscopy, and co-authored the article, “Implementation of office hysteroscopy for the evaluation and treatment of intrauterine pathology” in Obstetrics and Gynecology.¹ She is the Director of the Center for Menstrual Disorders, Fibroids and Hysteroscopic Services at Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio. OBG Management recently caught up with her to ask about her perspectives on the expanded use of hysteroscopy in obstetrics and gynecology, and her call to “end blind endometrial sampling.”

OBG Management: What are the drawbacks of dilation and curettage?

Linda Bradley, MD: The standard in ObGyn for many years has been our reliance on the blind dilation and curettage (D&C)—it has been the mainstay for evaluation of the endometrial cavity. We know that it has risks, but most importantly, the procedure has low sensitivity for detecting focal pathology. This basic lack of confirmation of lesions makes a diagnosis impossible and patients are challenged in getting adequate treatment, and will not, since they may not know what options they have for the treatment of intrauterine pathology. 

Because it is a “blind procedure,” done without looking, we don’t know the endpoints, such as when is the procedure completed, how do we know we removed all of the lesions? Let’s look at our colleagues, like GI and colorectal physicians. If a patient presents with rectal bleeding, we would perform an exam, followed by either a colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy. If a patient were vomiting up blood, a gastroenterologist would perform an upper endoscopy, look with a tube to see if there is an ulcer or something else as a source of the bleeding. If a patient were bleeding from the bladder, a urologist would use  a cystoscope for direct inspection. 

Unfortunately for gynecologists, only about 15% to 25% of us will use hysteroscopy as a diagnostic method²—a method that has excellent sensitivity in detecting endocervical disease, intrauterine disease, and proximal tubal pathology. Compared with blind curettage, we can visualize the cavity; we can sample the cavity directly; we can determine what the patient has and determine the proper surgical procedure, medical therapy, or reassurance that a patient may be offered. We often are looking at focal lesions, lesions in the uterine cavity that could be cancer, so we can make a diagnosis. Or we may be looking at small things, like endometrial hyperplasia, endocervical or endometrial polyps, retained products of conception, or fibroids. We can look at uterine pathology as well as anatomic issues and malformations—such as bicornuate or septate uterus. 

I actually say, “My hysteroscope is my stethoscope” because it allows us to evaluate for many things. The beauty of the new office hysteroscopes is that they are miniaturized. Doctors now have the ability to use reusable devices that are as small as 3 millimeters. There are disposable ones that are up to  3.5 to 4 millimeters in size. Gynecologists have the options to choose from reusuable rigid or flexible hysteroscopes or completely disposable devices. So, truly, we now should not have an excuse for evaluating a woman’s anatomy, especially for bleeding. We should no longer rely, as we have for the last century or more, just on blind sampling, because we miss focal lesions. 

OBG Management: When was the hysteroscope first introduced into the field?

Dr. Bradley: The technology employed in hysteroscopy has been around really since the last 150+ years, introduced by Dr. Pantaleoni. We just have not embraced its usefulness in our clinical practice for many years. Today, about 15% to 25% of gynecologists practicing in the United States are performing hysteroscopy in the office.¹

OBG Management: How does using hysteroscopy contribute to better patient outcomes?

Dr. Bradley: We can get a more accurate diagnosis—fewer false-negatives and a high degree of sensitivity in detecting focal lesions. With D&C, much focal pathology can be left behind. In a 2001 study, 105 symptomatic postmenopausal women with bleeding and thickened lining of the uterus greater than  5 mm on ultrasound underwent blind D&C. They found that 80% of the women had intracavitary lesions and 90% had focal lesions. In fact, 87% of the patients with focal lesions still had residual pathology after the blind D&C.³ The D&C procedure missed 58% of polyps, 50% of endometrial hyperplasia, 60% of cases of complex atypical hyperplasia, and even 11% of endometrial cancers. So these numbers are just not very good. Direct inspection of the uterus, with uninterrupted visualization through hysteroscopy, with removal of lesions under direct visualization, should be our goal. 

Blind sampling also poses greater risk for things like perforation. In addition, you not only can miss lesions by just scraping the endometrium, D&C also can leave lesions just floating around in the uterine cavity, with those lesions never retrieved. With office hysteroscopy, the physician can be more successful in treating a condition because once you see what is going on in the uterine cavity, you can say, “Okay, I can fix this with a surgical procedure. What instruments do I need? How much time is it going to take? Is this a straightforward case? Is it more complicated? Do I let an intern do the case? Is this for a more senior resident or fellow?” So I think it helps to direct the next steps for surgical management and even medical management, which also could be what we call “one-stop shopping.” For instance, for directed biopsies for removal of small polyps, for patients that can tolerate the procedure a little longer, the diagnostic hysteroscopy then becomes a management, an operative procedure, that really, for myself, can be done in the office. Removal of larger fibroids, because of fluid management and other concerns, would not be done in the office. Most patients tolerate office procedures, but it also depends on a patient’s weight, and her ability to relax during the procedure. 

The ultimate goal for hysteroscopy is a minimum of diagnosis, meaning in less than 2, 3 minutes, you can look inside the uterus. Our devices are 3 millimeters in size; I tell my patients, it’s the size of “a piece of spaghetti or pasta,” and we will just take a look. If we see a polyp, okay, if your office is not equipped, because then you need a different type of equipment for removal, then take her to the operating room. The patient would be under brief anesthesia and go home an hour or 2 later. So really, for physicians, we just need to embrace the technology to make a diagnosis, just look, and then from there decide what is next.

OBG Management: What techniques do you use to minimize or eliminate patient discomfort during hysteroscopy?...

OBG Management: What techniques do you use to minimize or eliminate patient discomfort during hysteroscopy?

Dr. Bradley: I think first is always be patient-centric. Let patients be prepared for the procedure. We have reading materials; our nurses explain the procedure. In the office, I try to prepare the patient for success. I let her know what is going on. A friend, family member can be with her. We have a nurse that understands the procedure; she explains it well. We have a type of bed that allows the patients’ legs to rest more comfortably in the stirrups—a leg rest kind of stirrup. We use a heating pad. Some patients like to hear music. Some patients like to have aromatherapy. We are quick and efficient, and typically just talk to the patient throughout the procedure. Although some patients don’t like this explanatory, “talkative” approach—they say, “Dr. Bradley, just do the procedure. I don’t want to know you are touching the cervix. I don’t want to know that you’re prepping. Just do it.” 

But I like what we called it when I was growing up: vocal-local (talk to your patient and explain as you proceed). It’s like local anesthesia. For these procedures in the office you usually do not have to use numbing medicine or a paracervical block. Look at the patient’s age, number of years in menopause, whether or not  she has delivered vaginally, and what her cervix looks like. Does she have a sexually transmitted infection or pelvic inflammatory disease? Sometimes we will use misoprostol, my personal preference is oral, but there are data to suggest that vaginal can be of help.⁴ We suggest Motrin, Tylenol an hour or 2 before, and we always want patients to not come in on an empty stomach. There is also the option of primrose oil, a supplement, that patients buy at the drug store in the vitamin section. It’s used for cervical softening. It is taken orally.^5-7

If they want, patients can watch a video—similar to watching childbirth videos when I used to deliver babies. At some point we started putting mirrors where women could see their efforts of pushing a baby out, as it might give them more willpower to push harder. Some people don’t want to look. But the majority of women will do well in this setting. I do have a small number of women that just say, “I can’t do this in the office,” and so in those cases, they can go to the operating room. But the main idea is, even in an operating room, you are not just doing a D&C. You are still going to look inside with a hysteroscope and have a great panoramic view of what is going on, and remove a lesion with an instrument while you watch. Not a process of looking with the hysteroscope, scraping with a curettage, and thinking that you are complete. Targeted removal of focal lesions under continuous visualization is the goal.

OBG Management: Can you describe the goals of the consensus document on ending blind sampling co-created by the European Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy, AAGL, and the Global Community on Hysteroscopy? 

Dr. Bradley: Our goal for this year is to get a systematic review and guidelines paper written that speaks to what we have just talked about. We want to have as many articles about why blind sampling is not beneficial, with too many misses, and now we have new technology available. We want to speak to physicians to solve the conundrum of bleeding, with equivocal ultrasounds, equivocal saline infusion, sonograms, equivocal MRIs—be able to take a look. Let’s come up to speed like our other colleagues in other specialties that “look.” A systematic review guideline document will provide the evidence that blind  D&C is fraught with problems and how often we miss disease and its inherent risk.

We need to, by itself, for most of our patients, abandon D&C because we have too many missed diagnoses. As doctors we have to be lifelong learners. There was no robot back in the day. We were not able to do laparoscopic hysterectomies, there were no MRIs. I remember in our city, there was one CT scan. We just did not have a lot of technology. The half-life of medical knowledge used to be decades—you graduated in the ‘60s, you could be a great gynecologist for the next  30 years because there was not that much going on. When I finished in the mid to late ‘80s, there was no hysteroscopy training. But I have come to see its value, the science  behind it.

So what I say to doctors is, “We learn so many new things, we shouldn’t get stuck in just saying, ‘I didn’t do this when I was in training.’” And if your thought is, “Oh, in my practice, I don’t have that many cases,” you still need to be able to know who in your community can be a resource to your patients. As Maya Angelou says, “When you know better, you should do better.” And that’s where I am now—to be a lifelong learner, and just  do it.

Lastly, patient influence is very important. If patients ask, “How are you going to do the procedure?” it’s a driver for change. By utilizing hysteroscopy in the evaluation of the intrauterine cavity, we have the opportunity to change the face of evaluation and treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding.●

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].

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.