Analysis strengthens association between epilepsy onset, menarche

Article Type
Changed

 

WASHINGTON – The high rate of new onset epilepsy during the period surrounding menarche has been strengthened in a data analysis that suggests surging hormones may be a treatable trigger of epileptogenic activity, according to a new analysis of the Epilepsy Birth Control Registry (EBCR) presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.

“The evidence connecting neuroactive sexual maturation hormones with the onset of epilepsy and seizure activity is becoming strong enough that we can at least conceptualize how hormonal interventions might be used for prevention or treatment,” reported Andrew G. Herzog, MD, director of the neuroendocrine unit at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, Boston.

Ted Bosworth/Frontline Medical News
Senior author Dr. Andrew G. Herzog and first author Devon B. MacEachern
The temporal relationship between menarche and onset of epilepsy has long been recognized, but the EBCR, which has collected data on 1,144 women with epilepsy, is permitting this relationship to be evaluated in more detail. In the most recent analysis of data from this registry, which has now been the source of multiple studies, including one that correlated seizure activity over the course of the menstrual cycle (Epilepsia. 2015;56:e58-62), the mean age of new onset epilepsy was evaluated in relationship to menarche.

Confirming previous observations, new onset epilepsy was more likely to occur in the year of menarche than in any other year, and the rate, 8.3%, was approximately four times greater than an expected rate of 2.1% (P less than .0001), Dr. Herzog reported. However, the association was even stronger when a cluster analysis was performed to widen the window in which sexual maturation hormones begin to surge.

“Menarche is a single event along a continuum of sexual maturation that involves hormonal surges that begin much earlier,” Dr. Herzog explained. He suggested that adrenarche is a better term to capture the relationship between increasing hormone levels and risk of new onset epilepsy. Adrenarche describes a period in which sex steroids released by the adrenal cortex drive puberty and secondary sexual characteristics, such as growth of pubic hair.

In the cluster analysis, the most common period of new onset epilepsy occurred in a span stemming from 2 years before the onset of menarche to 6 year after onset. Almost half of new onset epilepsy in the EBCR occurred in this 8-year period, and it was more than double the rate that would have been expected if new onset epilepsy were distributed evenly by age (49.3% vs. 18.9%; P less than .0001).

“This implicates the onset of puberty and the massive increase in neuroactive steroids that modulate neurohormonal activity and seizures,” said Dr. Herzog, who noted that some neuroactive steroids increase 10-fold during this period. He suggested that the fact that there is also an increased rate of new onset epilepsy in males during the same period does not weaken this association but is likely related to the same phenomenon of neuroactive steroid release.

These data are consistent with a wide variety of other evidence from the EBCR that has linked hormones involved in sexual maturation with change in epilepsy risk, according to Dr. Herzog. He noted, for example, that his group has shown that the release of unopposed estrogen in anovulatory cycles experienced by adolescent girls in the early years of menstruation produces a higher rate of seizures than does ovulatory cycles in which both estrogen and progesterone are released. This is consistent with evidence that estrogen is associated with increased and progesterone with reduced risk of seizure activity.

The relationship between steroid release and risk of new onset epilepsy or seizure activity in patients who already have epilepsy is becoming sufficiently strong that Dr. Herzog believes that efforts should now turn to considering how this information might lead to new interventions. Although clinical trials are not near, he suggested that it might make sense to pursue medications that inhibit neuroactive hormones to prevent seizures in girls at high risk for new onset epilepsy or treat seizures suspected of being hormone related.

Dr. Herzog reports no potential conflicts of interest related to this topic. The study was partially funded by Lundbeck.
Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

WASHINGTON – The high rate of new onset epilepsy during the period surrounding menarche has been strengthened in a data analysis that suggests surging hormones may be a treatable trigger of epileptogenic activity, according to a new analysis of the Epilepsy Birth Control Registry (EBCR) presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.

“The evidence connecting neuroactive sexual maturation hormones with the onset of epilepsy and seizure activity is becoming strong enough that we can at least conceptualize how hormonal interventions might be used for prevention or treatment,” reported Andrew G. Herzog, MD, director of the neuroendocrine unit at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, Boston.

Ted Bosworth/Frontline Medical News
Senior author Dr. Andrew G. Herzog and first author Devon B. MacEachern
The temporal relationship between menarche and onset of epilepsy has long been recognized, but the EBCR, which has collected data on 1,144 women with epilepsy, is permitting this relationship to be evaluated in more detail. In the most recent analysis of data from this registry, which has now been the source of multiple studies, including one that correlated seizure activity over the course of the menstrual cycle (Epilepsia. 2015;56:e58-62), the mean age of new onset epilepsy was evaluated in relationship to menarche.

Confirming previous observations, new onset epilepsy was more likely to occur in the year of menarche than in any other year, and the rate, 8.3%, was approximately four times greater than an expected rate of 2.1% (P less than .0001), Dr. Herzog reported. However, the association was even stronger when a cluster analysis was performed to widen the window in which sexual maturation hormones begin to surge.

“Menarche is a single event along a continuum of sexual maturation that involves hormonal surges that begin much earlier,” Dr. Herzog explained. He suggested that adrenarche is a better term to capture the relationship between increasing hormone levels and risk of new onset epilepsy. Adrenarche describes a period in which sex steroids released by the adrenal cortex drive puberty and secondary sexual characteristics, such as growth of pubic hair.

In the cluster analysis, the most common period of new onset epilepsy occurred in a span stemming from 2 years before the onset of menarche to 6 year after onset. Almost half of new onset epilepsy in the EBCR occurred in this 8-year period, and it was more than double the rate that would have been expected if new onset epilepsy were distributed evenly by age (49.3% vs. 18.9%; P less than .0001).

“This implicates the onset of puberty and the massive increase in neuroactive steroids that modulate neurohormonal activity and seizures,” said Dr. Herzog, who noted that some neuroactive steroids increase 10-fold during this period. He suggested that the fact that there is also an increased rate of new onset epilepsy in males during the same period does not weaken this association but is likely related to the same phenomenon of neuroactive steroid release.

These data are consistent with a wide variety of other evidence from the EBCR that has linked hormones involved in sexual maturation with change in epilepsy risk, according to Dr. Herzog. He noted, for example, that his group has shown that the release of unopposed estrogen in anovulatory cycles experienced by adolescent girls in the early years of menstruation produces a higher rate of seizures than does ovulatory cycles in which both estrogen and progesterone are released. This is consistent with evidence that estrogen is associated with increased and progesterone with reduced risk of seizure activity.

The relationship between steroid release and risk of new onset epilepsy or seizure activity in patients who already have epilepsy is becoming sufficiently strong that Dr. Herzog believes that efforts should now turn to considering how this information might lead to new interventions. Although clinical trials are not near, he suggested that it might make sense to pursue medications that inhibit neuroactive hormones to prevent seizures in girls at high risk for new onset epilepsy or treat seizures suspected of being hormone related.

Dr. Herzog reports no potential conflicts of interest related to this topic. The study was partially funded by Lundbeck.

 

WASHINGTON – The high rate of new onset epilepsy during the period surrounding menarche has been strengthened in a data analysis that suggests surging hormones may be a treatable trigger of epileptogenic activity, according to a new analysis of the Epilepsy Birth Control Registry (EBCR) presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.

“The evidence connecting neuroactive sexual maturation hormones with the onset of epilepsy and seizure activity is becoming strong enough that we can at least conceptualize how hormonal interventions might be used for prevention or treatment,” reported Andrew G. Herzog, MD, director of the neuroendocrine unit at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, Boston.

Ted Bosworth/Frontline Medical News
Senior author Dr. Andrew G. Herzog and first author Devon B. MacEachern
The temporal relationship between menarche and onset of epilepsy has long been recognized, but the EBCR, which has collected data on 1,144 women with epilepsy, is permitting this relationship to be evaluated in more detail. In the most recent analysis of data from this registry, which has now been the source of multiple studies, including one that correlated seizure activity over the course of the menstrual cycle (Epilepsia. 2015;56:e58-62), the mean age of new onset epilepsy was evaluated in relationship to menarche.

Confirming previous observations, new onset epilepsy was more likely to occur in the year of menarche than in any other year, and the rate, 8.3%, was approximately four times greater than an expected rate of 2.1% (P less than .0001), Dr. Herzog reported. However, the association was even stronger when a cluster analysis was performed to widen the window in which sexual maturation hormones begin to surge.

“Menarche is a single event along a continuum of sexual maturation that involves hormonal surges that begin much earlier,” Dr. Herzog explained. He suggested that adrenarche is a better term to capture the relationship between increasing hormone levels and risk of new onset epilepsy. Adrenarche describes a period in which sex steroids released by the adrenal cortex drive puberty and secondary sexual characteristics, such as growth of pubic hair.

In the cluster analysis, the most common period of new onset epilepsy occurred in a span stemming from 2 years before the onset of menarche to 6 year after onset. Almost half of new onset epilepsy in the EBCR occurred in this 8-year period, and it was more than double the rate that would have been expected if new onset epilepsy were distributed evenly by age (49.3% vs. 18.9%; P less than .0001).

“This implicates the onset of puberty and the massive increase in neuroactive steroids that modulate neurohormonal activity and seizures,” said Dr. Herzog, who noted that some neuroactive steroids increase 10-fold during this period. He suggested that the fact that there is also an increased rate of new onset epilepsy in males during the same period does not weaken this association but is likely related to the same phenomenon of neuroactive steroid release.

These data are consistent with a wide variety of other evidence from the EBCR that has linked hormones involved in sexual maturation with change in epilepsy risk, according to Dr. Herzog. He noted, for example, that his group has shown that the release of unopposed estrogen in anovulatory cycles experienced by adolescent girls in the early years of menstruation produces a higher rate of seizures than does ovulatory cycles in which both estrogen and progesterone are released. This is consistent with evidence that estrogen is associated with increased and progesterone with reduced risk of seizure activity.

The relationship between steroid release and risk of new onset epilepsy or seizure activity in patients who already have epilepsy is becoming sufficiently strong that Dr. Herzog believes that efforts should now turn to considering how this information might lead to new interventions. Although clinical trials are not near, he suggested that it might make sense to pursue medications that inhibit neuroactive hormones to prevent seizures in girls at high risk for new onset epilepsy or treat seizures suspected of being hormone related.

Dr. Herzog reports no potential conflicts of interest related to this topic. The study was partially funded by Lundbeck.
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

AT AES 2017

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Sexual maturation hormones may be potentially treatable triggers of epilepsy onset in women, based on a cluster analysis study.

Major finding: In an 8-year period surrounding menarche, the rate of new onset epilepsy is more than double that expected (49.3% vs. 18.9%; P less than .0001).

Data source: Retrospective study of participants in the Epilepsy Birth Control Registry.

Disclosures: Dr. Herzog reports no potential conflicts of interest related to this topic. The study was partially funded by Lundbeck.

Disqus Comments
Default

What’s Eating You? Head Lice (Pediculus humanus capitis)

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
What’s Eating You? Head Lice (Pediculus humanus capitis)

The head louse (Pediculus humanus capitis) is a blood-sucking arthropod of the suborder Anoplura. Lice are obligate human parasites that have infested humans since antiquity. Pediculosis capitis is an infestation of the scalp by head lice. It is estimated that 6 to 12 million individuals in the United States are affected with head lice per year.1 Resistance to topical chemical pediculicides is widespread, and new agents have been developed to address this gap in care.

Characteristics of Head Lice

The head louse is a tan-gray–colored, wingless insect measuring approximately 2- to 3-mm long with 3 body segments. It has 6 legs with claws used to grasp individual hairs, and it moves by crawling; it does not fly or jump.2,3 The head louse has an elongated abdomen and a small head with short antennae and anterior piercing mouthparts (Figure 1).4 Nits are transparent, flask-shaped, 0.5- to 0.8-mm egg cases found firmly cemented to the hair shafts approximately 1 to 4 mm above the level of the scalp (Figure 2).5 The head louse resides on scalp hair and feeds off the scalp itself. Both lice and nits can be present throughout the scalp but are most commonly found in the postauricular and occipital scalp.3,4

Figure 1. Identifying characteristics of the head louse.

Figure 2. Hair shaft with an attached nit.

Female lice live approximately 30 days and lay 5 to 10 eggs per day. Eggs incubate individually in nits laid close to the scalp for 8 to 10 days before hatching.1,6 The newly hatched nymphs (also called instars) have multiple exoskeletons that are shed as they grow.7 Nymphs mature into adults in approximately 2 weeks, and the life cycle begins again.8 Head lice are obligate human parasites, feeding approximately every 4 to 6 hours on the blood of the host; however, they can survive up to 4 days without a blood meal on fomites if the climate and conditions are favorable.5,9

Epidemiology and Transmission

Head lice infestations commonly occur in children aged 3 to 11 years and are more prevalent in girls and women.1,10 Infestation rates are not reliably recorded, and few population-based studies have been performed; however, it is estimated that 6 to 12 million individuals are infested annually in the United States.1 Prevalence in some European populations has been estimated to range from 1% to 20%.11 A 2008 literature review found that worldwide prevalence varied across populations from 0.7% to 59%.10

Transmission occurs most frequently from direct head-to-head contact. One study found that transmission is most likely to occur when hairs are arranged in a parallel alignment and move slowly in relation to one another.12 Although controversial and probably less notable, transmission also may occur indirectly via fomites or the sharing of hairbrushes, hats, or other headgear.13,14 Classrooms are a common place for transmission.1 A 2009 study in Germany found an increase in health department consultations for head lice when schools reopened after vacations. The investigators also found that pediculicide sales peaked from mid-September through October, subsequent to schools reopening after the summer holiday.15 There is some evidence that overcrowded housing also can lead to increased incidence and transmission.16,17 There is no consistent correlation of infestation with socioeconomic status.1,17,18

Clinical Manifestations and Diagnosis

Clinically, patients with head lice present with scalp pruritus and sometimes posterior cervical or occipital lymphadenopathy. Pediculosis also can be asymptomatic. With the first exposure, symptoms may not develop for up to 4 to 6 weeks as the immune system develops sensitivity to the louse saliva.6 Bite reactions consisting of papules or wheals are related to immune sensitization.5 Louse feces and excoriations from scratching to relieve itch also may be present on examination. Secondary infection of excoriations also is possible.1

Diagnosis of an active infestation is made by identifying living lice. Because lice move quickly and can be difficult to detect, tightly attached nits on the hair shaft within 4 mm of the scalp are at least indicative of a historic infestation and can be suggestive of active infestation.1,19 Dermoscopy is a helpful tool in differentiating eggs containing nymphs from the empty cases of hatched lice and also from amorphous pseudonits (hair casts)(Figure 3).19,20 Wet combing improves the accuracy of diagnosing an active infection.21

Figure 3. Amorphous keratin forming a pseudonit on the hair shaft.
 

 

Treatment

Effective treatment of head lice requires eradication of all living lice as well as louse eggs. Topically applied pyrethroids, including pyrethrin shampoos and mousses and permethrin lotion 1%, are considered the first-line therapy.8 Pyrethroids are over-the-counter treatments that act by interfering with sodium transport in the louse, causing depolarization of the neuromembranes and respiratory paralysis.22 Pyrethrins are natural compounds derived from the chrysanthemum plant; permethrin is a synthetic compound. Pyrethrins often are combined with piperonyl butoxide, an insecticide synergist that improves efficacy by inhibiting pyrethrin catabolism.23 Resistance to pyrethroids has become an increasingly important problem in the United States and worldwide.

Malathion lotion 0.5% is another therapeutic option for head lice. Malathion is a prescription organophosphate cholinesterase inhibitor that also causes respiratory paralysis of the louse and is one of the few treatments that is ovicidal.22 It was withdrawn from the market in 1995 due to its flammability and a theoretical risk of respiratory depression if ingested; however, it was reintroduced in 1999 and remains an effective treatment option with little resistance in the United States.24

Lindane 1% (shampoo and lotion), an organochloride compound that acts by causing neuronal hyperstimulation and eventual paralysis of lice, is no longer recommended due to its serious side effects, including central nervous system toxicity and increased risk of seizure.8,24

New US Food and Drug Administration–Approved Therapies
Newer topical treatments include benzyl alcohol lotion 5%, spinosad topical suspension 0.9%, ivermectin lotion 0.5%, and dimethicone-based products. Benzyl alcohol was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2009 and is available in the United States by prescription.25 Benzyl alcohol kills lice by asphyxiation. Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials showed significant treatment success 1 day posttreatment (fewer live lice than the vehicle alone; P=.004) and 2 weeks posttreatment (absence of live lice compared to the vehicle alone; P=.001).26

Spinosad was approved by the FDA in 2011 and is available in the United States by prescription.25 It contains the compounds spinosyn A and spinosyn D, which are naturally derived through fermentation by the soil bacterium Saccharopolyspora spinosa. It also contains benzyl alcohol. Spinosad paralyzes lice by disrupting neuronal activity and is at least partially ovicidal.27 Phase 3 clinical trials published in 2009 showed that spinosad was significantly more effective than permethrin in eradicating head lice (P<.001).28

Topical ivermectin was approved by the FDA in 2012 for prescription use.25 It acts on chloride ion channels, causing hyperpolarization of the muscle cells of lice and resulting in paralysis and death. Oral ivermectin (200 μg/kg) given once and repeated in 10 days is not FDA approved for the treatment of head lice but has shown some effectiveness and is sometimes used.8 A comparison study of topical versus oral ivermectin published in 2014 found that eradication was achieved in 88% (n=27) of topical ivermectin users after 1 treatment and 100% (n=31) after 2 treatments. Oral ivermectin produced cure rates of 45% (n=14) after 1 treatment and 97% (n=30) after 2 treatments. Both topical and oral ivermectin treatments are well tolerated.29

Physically Acting Preparations
Products with a physical mode of action are a new attractive option for treatment of pediculosis because the development of resistance is less likely. Studies of silicone-based fluids that physically occlude the respiratory system of the louse, such as dimethicone liquid gel 4%, have shown superiority over treatment with pyrethroids.30,31 Although the safety of dimethicone has been demonstrated, silicone-based treatments have not yet been widely adopted in the United States and are not currently used as a first-line treatment.32 However, use of such physically acting pediculicides may in time surpass traditional neurotoxic treatments due to their low susceptibility to resistance and good safety profile.33,34

Alternative Therapies
Nonchemical treatments for head lice that have shown variable success include wet combing, hot air treatments, and varying occlusive treatments. Physical removal via wet combing requires persistent repeated treatments over several weeks; for example, wet combing may be performed every 3 days for at least 2 weeks or until no head lice are detected on 4 consecutive occasions.35 Cure rates range from 38% to 75% with wet combing as a sole treatment of head lice.36 Because this treatment has minimal risks and no adverse side effects, it can be considered as an alternative treatment for some patients.

Hot air treatments also have been studied. A 2006 study showed that a hot air treatment device had the potential to eradicate head lice, most likely by desiccation. Specifically, 30 minutes of exposure to hot air (at 58.9°F, slightly cooler than a standard hair dryer) using the custom-built device resulted in 98% mortality of eggs and 80% mortality of hatched lice.37 Large randomized controlled trials of hot air treatments have not been performed.

Other alternative treatments include plant-derived oils. A laboratory study of essential oils found that spearmint, cassia, and clove showed pediculicidal activity similar to malathion with improved ovicidal activity.38 However, there is a potential for development of contact dermatitis from essential oils.

Complete Eradication of Head Lice
Removal of nits is an important component of effective lice eradication. Biochemical analysis has revealed that the nit sheath of the head louse is similar in composition to amyloid, rendering it difficult to design products that will unravel the nit sheath while leaving human hair undamaged.39 Because pediculicides are not necessarily ovicidal and complete physical nit removal is difficult to achieve, re-treatment in 7 to 10 days often is advisable to ensure that lice in all stages of the life cycle have been killed.4 Treatment of any secondary bacterial infection also is important. Although transmission of lice via fomites is less likely than from head-to-head contact, the cleaning of hats, hairbrushes, and linens is prudent. Diagnosing and treating infested close contacts also is essential to achieving eradication.4 Coordinated surveillance, education, and treatment efforts in high-risk communities can help detect asymptomatic cases and control local epidemics in a cost-effective manner.40 However, “no nit” policies at schools likely cause a net harm, as nit removal is difficult and children with nonviable nits are then excluded from the classroom.5

Treatment Resistance
Resistance to topical neurotoxic treatments is becoming increasingly common.41-43 Therefore, it is important to identify local patterns of resistance, if possible, when selecting a therapy for head lice. Improper usage, changes in pediculicide formulations and packaging, decreased product efficacy, and natural selection have all contributed to this rise in resistance.7 Additionally, due to protection from multiple exoskeletons and the natural molting process as they mature into adults, nymphs may only receive a sublethal dose when exposed to pediculicides, contributing further to resistance.7 Resistance to synthetic pyrethroids is most predominant, likely due to selection pressure because permethrin historically has been the most widely used insecticide for pediculosis. A 2014 study found that the frequency of sodium-channel insensitivity to pyrethroids, also known as knockdown resistance (or kdr), in US head louse populations collected over a 10-year period was 84.4% and approached 100% in some communities in recent years.44 This evidence strongly supports the use of alternative therapeutic categories to effectively eradicate head lice infestations.

Conclusion

Head lice infestation is common in children, and although it is not harmful to the host, it can be an irritating and symptomatic problem and can lead to notable distress, missed days of school, and secondary infections. Identifying active adult lice is the gold standard for diagnosis. Current recommended treatments include pyrethroids as the first-line therapy; however, resistance to these neurotoxic agents is becoming increasingly common. Alternative therapies such as newer neurotoxic agents or pediculicides with physical mechanisms of action (eg, dimethicone-based products) should be considered, particularly in regions where resistance is known to be high. Education about head lice, proper use of treatment, and coordinated diagnosis are necessary for effective management of this problem.

References
  1. Chosidow O. Scabies and pediculosis. Lancet. 2000;355:819-826.
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Head lice. http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/lice/head/index.html. Updated September 24, 2013. Accessed November 9, 2017.
  3. Hurwitz S. Lice (pediculosis). In: Hurwitz S. Hurwitz Clinical Pediatric Dermatology: A Textbook of Skin Disorders of Childhood and Adolescence. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders Company; 1993:416-419.
  4. Elston DM. What’s eating you? Pediculus humanus (head louse and body louse). Cutis. 1999;63:259-264.
  5. Ko CJ, Elston DM. Pediculosis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004;50:1-12.
  6. Frankowski BL, Weiner LB. Head lice. Pediatrics. 2002;110:638-643.
  7. Meinking TL. Clinical update on resistance and treatment of pediculosis capitis. Am J Manag Care. 2004;10(9 suppl):S264-S268.
  8. Devore CD, Schutze GE. Head lice. Pediatrics. 2015;135:E1355-E1365.
  9. Burkhart CN. Fomite transmission with head lice: a continuing controversy. Lancet. 2003;361:99-100.
  10. Falagas ME, Matthaiou DK, Rafailidis PI, et al. Worldwide prevalence of head lice. Emerg Infect Dis. 2008;14:1493-1494.
  11. Feldmeier H. Pediculosis capitis: new insights into epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012;31:2105-2110.
  12. Canyon DV, Speare R, Muller R. Spatial and kinetic factors for the transfer of head lice (Pediculus capitis) between hairs. J Invest Dermatol. 2002;119:629-631.
  13. Burkhart CN, Burkhart CG. Fomite transmission in head lice. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;56:1044-1047.
  14. Canyon DV, Speare R. Indirect transmission of head lice via inanimate objects. Open Dermatol J. 2010;4:72-76.
  15. Bauer E, Jahnke C, Feldmeier H. Seasonal fluctuations of head lice infestation in Germany. Parasitol Res. 2009;104:677-681.
  16. Balcioglu IC, Kurt O, Limoncu ME, et al. Rural life, lower socioeconomic status and parasitic infections. Parasitol Int. 2007;56:129-133.
  17. Lesshafft H, Baier A, Guerra H, et al. Prevalence and risk factors associated with pediculosis capitis in an impoverished urban community in Lima, Peru. J Glob Infect Dis. 2013;5:138-143.
  18. Tagka A, Lambrou GI, Braoudaki M, et al. Socioeconomical factors associated with pediculosis (Phthiraptera: Pediculidae) in Athens, Greece. J Med Entomol. 2016;53:919-922.
  19. Di Stefani A, Hofmann-Wellenhof R, Zalaudek I. Dermoscopy for diagnosis and treatment monitoring of pediculosis capitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;54:909-911.
  20. Bakos RM, Bakos L. Dermoscopy for diagnosis of pediculosis capitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;57:727-728.
  21. Jahnke C, Bauer E, Hengge UR, et al. Accuracy of diagnosis of pediculosis capitis: visual inspection vs wet combing. Arch Dermatol. 2009;145:309-313.
  22. Elston DM. Drugs used in the treatment of pediculosis. J Drugs Dermatol. 2005;4:207-211.
  23. National Pesticide Information Center. Piperonyl butoxide (general fact sheet). http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/pbogen.pdf/. Accessed November 13, 2017.
  24. Diamantis SA, Morrell DS, Burkhart CN. Treatment of head lice. Dermatol Ther. 2009;22:273-278.
  25. United States Food and Drug Administration. Treating and preventing head lice. http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm171730.htm. Published July 13, 2010. Updated November 8, 2017. Accessed November 13, 2017.
  26. Meinking TL, Villar ME, Vicaria M, et al. The clinical trials supporting benzyl alcohol lotion 5% (UlesfiaTM): a safe and effective topical treatment for head lice (Pediculosis Humanus Capitis). Pediatr Dermatol. 2010;27:19-24.
  27. McCormack PL. Spinosad in pediculosis capitis. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2011;12:349-353.
  28. Stough D, Shellabarger S, Quiring J, et al. Efficacy and safety of spinosad and permethrin creme rinses for pediculosis capitis (head lice). Pediatrics. 2009;124:E389-E395.
  29. Ahmad HM, Abdel-Azim ES, Abdel-Aziz RT. Assessment of topical versus oral ivermectin as a treatment for head lice. Dermatol Ther. 2014;27:307-310.
  30. Heukelbach J, Pilger D, Oliveira FA, et al. A highly efficacious pediculicide based on dimethicone: randomized observer blinded comparative trial. BMC Infect Dis. 2008;8:115.
  31. Burgess IF, Brunton ER, Burgess NA. Single application of 4% dimethicone liquid gel versus two applications of 1% permethrin creme rinse for treatment of head louse infestation: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Dermatol. 2013;13:5.
  32. Ihde ES, Boscamp JR, Loh JM, et al. Safety and efficacy of a 100% dimethicone pediculocide in school-age children. BMC Pediatr. 2015;15:70.
  33. Heukelbach J, Oliveira FA, Richter J, et al. Dimethicone-based pediculicides: a physical approach to eradicate head lice. Open Dermatol J. 2010;4:77-81.
  34. Feldmeier H. Treatment of pediculosis capitis: a critical appraisal of the current literature. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2014;15:401-412.
  35. Glasziou P, Bennett J, Greenberg P, et al; Handbook Of Non Drug Intervention (HANDI) Project Team. Wet combing for the eradication of head lice. Aust Fam Physician. 2013;42:129-130.
  36. Tebruegge M, Runnacles J. Is wet combing effective in children with pediculosis capitis infestation? Arch Dis Child. 2007;92:818-820.
  37. Goates BM, Atkin JS, Wilding KG, et al. An effective nonchemical treatment for head lice: a lot of hot air. Pediatrics. 2006;118:1962-1970.
  38. Yones DA, Bakir HY, Bayoumi SA. Chemical composition and efficacy of some selected plant oils against Pediculus humanus capitis in vitro. Parasitol Res. 2016;115:3209-3218.
  39. Burkhart CN, Burkhart CG. Head lice: scientific assessment of the nit sheath with clinical ramifications and therapeutic options. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;53:129-133.
  40. Ibarra J, Fry F, Wickenden C, et al. The impact of well-developed preventative strategies on the eradication of head lice. Perspect Public Health. 2009;129:165-173.
  41. Mumcuoglu KY, Hemingway J, Miller J, et al. Permethrin resistance in the head louse pediculus humanus capitis from Israel. Med Vet Entomol. 1995;9:427-432.
  42. Meinking TL, Serrano L, Hard B, et al. Comparative in vitro pediculicidal efficacy of treatments in a resistant head lice population in the United States. Arch Dermatol. 2002;138:220-224.
  43. Hemingway J, Miller J, Mumcuoglu KY. Pyrethroid resistance mechanisms in the head louse Pediculus capitis from Israel: implications for control. Med Vet Entomol. 1999;13:89-96.
  44. Yoon KS, Previte DJ, Hodgdon HE, et al. Knockdown resistance allele frequencies in North American head louse (Anoplura: Pediculidae) populations. J Med Entomol. 2014;51:450-457.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Dagrosa is from the Section of Dermatology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire. Dr. Elston is from the Department of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

The images are in the public domain.

Correspondence: Alicia T. Dagrosa, MD, Section of Dermatology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, 1 Medical Center Dr, Lebanon, NH 03756 (Alicia.T.Dagrosa@hitchcock.org).

Issue
Cutis - 100(6)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
389-392
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Dagrosa is from the Section of Dermatology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire. Dr. Elston is from the Department of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

The images are in the public domain.

Correspondence: Alicia T. Dagrosa, MD, Section of Dermatology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, 1 Medical Center Dr, Lebanon, NH 03756 (Alicia.T.Dagrosa@hitchcock.org).

Author and Disclosure Information

Dr. Dagrosa is from the Section of Dermatology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire. Dr. Elston is from the Department of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

The images are in the public domain.

Correspondence: Alicia T. Dagrosa, MD, Section of Dermatology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, 1 Medical Center Dr, Lebanon, NH 03756 (Alicia.T.Dagrosa@hitchcock.org).

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

The head louse (Pediculus humanus capitis) is a blood-sucking arthropod of the suborder Anoplura. Lice are obligate human parasites that have infested humans since antiquity. Pediculosis capitis is an infestation of the scalp by head lice. It is estimated that 6 to 12 million individuals in the United States are affected with head lice per year.1 Resistance to topical chemical pediculicides is widespread, and new agents have been developed to address this gap in care.

Characteristics of Head Lice

The head louse is a tan-gray–colored, wingless insect measuring approximately 2- to 3-mm long with 3 body segments. It has 6 legs with claws used to grasp individual hairs, and it moves by crawling; it does not fly or jump.2,3 The head louse has an elongated abdomen and a small head with short antennae and anterior piercing mouthparts (Figure 1).4 Nits are transparent, flask-shaped, 0.5- to 0.8-mm egg cases found firmly cemented to the hair shafts approximately 1 to 4 mm above the level of the scalp (Figure 2).5 The head louse resides on scalp hair and feeds off the scalp itself. Both lice and nits can be present throughout the scalp but are most commonly found in the postauricular and occipital scalp.3,4

Figure 1. Identifying characteristics of the head louse.

Figure 2. Hair shaft with an attached nit.

Female lice live approximately 30 days and lay 5 to 10 eggs per day. Eggs incubate individually in nits laid close to the scalp for 8 to 10 days before hatching.1,6 The newly hatched nymphs (also called instars) have multiple exoskeletons that are shed as they grow.7 Nymphs mature into adults in approximately 2 weeks, and the life cycle begins again.8 Head lice are obligate human parasites, feeding approximately every 4 to 6 hours on the blood of the host; however, they can survive up to 4 days without a blood meal on fomites if the climate and conditions are favorable.5,9

Epidemiology and Transmission

Head lice infestations commonly occur in children aged 3 to 11 years and are more prevalent in girls and women.1,10 Infestation rates are not reliably recorded, and few population-based studies have been performed; however, it is estimated that 6 to 12 million individuals are infested annually in the United States.1 Prevalence in some European populations has been estimated to range from 1% to 20%.11 A 2008 literature review found that worldwide prevalence varied across populations from 0.7% to 59%.10

Transmission occurs most frequently from direct head-to-head contact. One study found that transmission is most likely to occur when hairs are arranged in a parallel alignment and move slowly in relation to one another.12 Although controversial and probably less notable, transmission also may occur indirectly via fomites or the sharing of hairbrushes, hats, or other headgear.13,14 Classrooms are a common place for transmission.1 A 2009 study in Germany found an increase in health department consultations for head lice when schools reopened after vacations. The investigators also found that pediculicide sales peaked from mid-September through October, subsequent to schools reopening after the summer holiday.15 There is some evidence that overcrowded housing also can lead to increased incidence and transmission.16,17 There is no consistent correlation of infestation with socioeconomic status.1,17,18

Clinical Manifestations and Diagnosis

Clinically, patients with head lice present with scalp pruritus and sometimes posterior cervical or occipital lymphadenopathy. Pediculosis also can be asymptomatic. With the first exposure, symptoms may not develop for up to 4 to 6 weeks as the immune system develops sensitivity to the louse saliva.6 Bite reactions consisting of papules or wheals are related to immune sensitization.5 Louse feces and excoriations from scratching to relieve itch also may be present on examination. Secondary infection of excoriations also is possible.1

Diagnosis of an active infestation is made by identifying living lice. Because lice move quickly and can be difficult to detect, tightly attached nits on the hair shaft within 4 mm of the scalp are at least indicative of a historic infestation and can be suggestive of active infestation.1,19 Dermoscopy is a helpful tool in differentiating eggs containing nymphs from the empty cases of hatched lice and also from amorphous pseudonits (hair casts)(Figure 3).19,20 Wet combing improves the accuracy of diagnosing an active infection.21

Figure 3. Amorphous keratin forming a pseudonit on the hair shaft.
 

 

Treatment

Effective treatment of head lice requires eradication of all living lice as well as louse eggs. Topically applied pyrethroids, including pyrethrin shampoos and mousses and permethrin lotion 1%, are considered the first-line therapy.8 Pyrethroids are over-the-counter treatments that act by interfering with sodium transport in the louse, causing depolarization of the neuromembranes and respiratory paralysis.22 Pyrethrins are natural compounds derived from the chrysanthemum plant; permethrin is a synthetic compound. Pyrethrins often are combined with piperonyl butoxide, an insecticide synergist that improves efficacy by inhibiting pyrethrin catabolism.23 Resistance to pyrethroids has become an increasingly important problem in the United States and worldwide.

Malathion lotion 0.5% is another therapeutic option for head lice. Malathion is a prescription organophosphate cholinesterase inhibitor that also causes respiratory paralysis of the louse and is one of the few treatments that is ovicidal.22 It was withdrawn from the market in 1995 due to its flammability and a theoretical risk of respiratory depression if ingested; however, it was reintroduced in 1999 and remains an effective treatment option with little resistance in the United States.24

Lindane 1% (shampoo and lotion), an organochloride compound that acts by causing neuronal hyperstimulation and eventual paralysis of lice, is no longer recommended due to its serious side effects, including central nervous system toxicity and increased risk of seizure.8,24

New US Food and Drug Administration–Approved Therapies
Newer topical treatments include benzyl alcohol lotion 5%, spinosad topical suspension 0.9%, ivermectin lotion 0.5%, and dimethicone-based products. Benzyl alcohol was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2009 and is available in the United States by prescription.25 Benzyl alcohol kills lice by asphyxiation. Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials showed significant treatment success 1 day posttreatment (fewer live lice than the vehicle alone; P=.004) and 2 weeks posttreatment (absence of live lice compared to the vehicle alone; P=.001).26

Spinosad was approved by the FDA in 2011 and is available in the United States by prescription.25 It contains the compounds spinosyn A and spinosyn D, which are naturally derived through fermentation by the soil bacterium Saccharopolyspora spinosa. It also contains benzyl alcohol. Spinosad paralyzes lice by disrupting neuronal activity and is at least partially ovicidal.27 Phase 3 clinical trials published in 2009 showed that spinosad was significantly more effective than permethrin in eradicating head lice (P<.001).28

Topical ivermectin was approved by the FDA in 2012 for prescription use.25 It acts on chloride ion channels, causing hyperpolarization of the muscle cells of lice and resulting in paralysis and death. Oral ivermectin (200 μg/kg) given once and repeated in 10 days is not FDA approved for the treatment of head lice but has shown some effectiveness and is sometimes used.8 A comparison study of topical versus oral ivermectin published in 2014 found that eradication was achieved in 88% (n=27) of topical ivermectin users after 1 treatment and 100% (n=31) after 2 treatments. Oral ivermectin produced cure rates of 45% (n=14) after 1 treatment and 97% (n=30) after 2 treatments. Both topical and oral ivermectin treatments are well tolerated.29

Physically Acting Preparations
Products with a physical mode of action are a new attractive option for treatment of pediculosis because the development of resistance is less likely. Studies of silicone-based fluids that physically occlude the respiratory system of the louse, such as dimethicone liquid gel 4%, have shown superiority over treatment with pyrethroids.30,31 Although the safety of dimethicone has been demonstrated, silicone-based treatments have not yet been widely adopted in the United States and are not currently used as a first-line treatment.32 However, use of such physically acting pediculicides may in time surpass traditional neurotoxic treatments due to their low susceptibility to resistance and good safety profile.33,34

Alternative Therapies
Nonchemical treatments for head lice that have shown variable success include wet combing, hot air treatments, and varying occlusive treatments. Physical removal via wet combing requires persistent repeated treatments over several weeks; for example, wet combing may be performed every 3 days for at least 2 weeks or until no head lice are detected on 4 consecutive occasions.35 Cure rates range from 38% to 75% with wet combing as a sole treatment of head lice.36 Because this treatment has minimal risks and no adverse side effects, it can be considered as an alternative treatment for some patients.

Hot air treatments also have been studied. A 2006 study showed that a hot air treatment device had the potential to eradicate head lice, most likely by desiccation. Specifically, 30 minutes of exposure to hot air (at 58.9°F, slightly cooler than a standard hair dryer) using the custom-built device resulted in 98% mortality of eggs and 80% mortality of hatched lice.37 Large randomized controlled trials of hot air treatments have not been performed.

Other alternative treatments include plant-derived oils. A laboratory study of essential oils found that spearmint, cassia, and clove showed pediculicidal activity similar to malathion with improved ovicidal activity.38 However, there is a potential for development of contact dermatitis from essential oils.

Complete Eradication of Head Lice
Removal of nits is an important component of effective lice eradication. Biochemical analysis has revealed that the nit sheath of the head louse is similar in composition to amyloid, rendering it difficult to design products that will unravel the nit sheath while leaving human hair undamaged.39 Because pediculicides are not necessarily ovicidal and complete physical nit removal is difficult to achieve, re-treatment in 7 to 10 days often is advisable to ensure that lice in all stages of the life cycle have been killed.4 Treatment of any secondary bacterial infection also is important. Although transmission of lice via fomites is less likely than from head-to-head contact, the cleaning of hats, hairbrushes, and linens is prudent. Diagnosing and treating infested close contacts also is essential to achieving eradication.4 Coordinated surveillance, education, and treatment efforts in high-risk communities can help detect asymptomatic cases and control local epidemics in a cost-effective manner.40 However, “no nit” policies at schools likely cause a net harm, as nit removal is difficult and children with nonviable nits are then excluded from the classroom.5

Treatment Resistance
Resistance to topical neurotoxic treatments is becoming increasingly common.41-43 Therefore, it is important to identify local patterns of resistance, if possible, when selecting a therapy for head lice. Improper usage, changes in pediculicide formulations and packaging, decreased product efficacy, and natural selection have all contributed to this rise in resistance.7 Additionally, due to protection from multiple exoskeletons and the natural molting process as they mature into adults, nymphs may only receive a sublethal dose when exposed to pediculicides, contributing further to resistance.7 Resistance to synthetic pyrethroids is most predominant, likely due to selection pressure because permethrin historically has been the most widely used insecticide for pediculosis. A 2014 study found that the frequency of sodium-channel insensitivity to pyrethroids, also known as knockdown resistance (or kdr), in US head louse populations collected over a 10-year period was 84.4% and approached 100% in some communities in recent years.44 This evidence strongly supports the use of alternative therapeutic categories to effectively eradicate head lice infestations.

Conclusion

Head lice infestation is common in children, and although it is not harmful to the host, it can be an irritating and symptomatic problem and can lead to notable distress, missed days of school, and secondary infections. Identifying active adult lice is the gold standard for diagnosis. Current recommended treatments include pyrethroids as the first-line therapy; however, resistance to these neurotoxic agents is becoming increasingly common. Alternative therapies such as newer neurotoxic agents or pediculicides with physical mechanisms of action (eg, dimethicone-based products) should be considered, particularly in regions where resistance is known to be high. Education about head lice, proper use of treatment, and coordinated diagnosis are necessary for effective management of this problem.

The head louse (Pediculus humanus capitis) is a blood-sucking arthropod of the suborder Anoplura. Lice are obligate human parasites that have infested humans since antiquity. Pediculosis capitis is an infestation of the scalp by head lice. It is estimated that 6 to 12 million individuals in the United States are affected with head lice per year.1 Resistance to topical chemical pediculicides is widespread, and new agents have been developed to address this gap in care.

Characteristics of Head Lice

The head louse is a tan-gray–colored, wingless insect measuring approximately 2- to 3-mm long with 3 body segments. It has 6 legs with claws used to grasp individual hairs, and it moves by crawling; it does not fly or jump.2,3 The head louse has an elongated abdomen and a small head with short antennae and anterior piercing mouthparts (Figure 1).4 Nits are transparent, flask-shaped, 0.5- to 0.8-mm egg cases found firmly cemented to the hair shafts approximately 1 to 4 mm above the level of the scalp (Figure 2).5 The head louse resides on scalp hair and feeds off the scalp itself. Both lice and nits can be present throughout the scalp but are most commonly found in the postauricular and occipital scalp.3,4

Figure 1. Identifying characteristics of the head louse.

Figure 2. Hair shaft with an attached nit.

Female lice live approximately 30 days and lay 5 to 10 eggs per day. Eggs incubate individually in nits laid close to the scalp for 8 to 10 days before hatching.1,6 The newly hatched nymphs (also called instars) have multiple exoskeletons that are shed as they grow.7 Nymphs mature into adults in approximately 2 weeks, and the life cycle begins again.8 Head lice are obligate human parasites, feeding approximately every 4 to 6 hours on the blood of the host; however, they can survive up to 4 days without a blood meal on fomites if the climate and conditions are favorable.5,9

Epidemiology and Transmission

Head lice infestations commonly occur in children aged 3 to 11 years and are more prevalent in girls and women.1,10 Infestation rates are not reliably recorded, and few population-based studies have been performed; however, it is estimated that 6 to 12 million individuals are infested annually in the United States.1 Prevalence in some European populations has been estimated to range from 1% to 20%.11 A 2008 literature review found that worldwide prevalence varied across populations from 0.7% to 59%.10

Transmission occurs most frequently from direct head-to-head contact. One study found that transmission is most likely to occur when hairs are arranged in a parallel alignment and move slowly in relation to one another.12 Although controversial and probably less notable, transmission also may occur indirectly via fomites or the sharing of hairbrushes, hats, or other headgear.13,14 Classrooms are a common place for transmission.1 A 2009 study in Germany found an increase in health department consultations for head lice when schools reopened after vacations. The investigators also found that pediculicide sales peaked from mid-September through October, subsequent to schools reopening after the summer holiday.15 There is some evidence that overcrowded housing also can lead to increased incidence and transmission.16,17 There is no consistent correlation of infestation with socioeconomic status.1,17,18

Clinical Manifestations and Diagnosis

Clinically, patients with head lice present with scalp pruritus and sometimes posterior cervical or occipital lymphadenopathy. Pediculosis also can be asymptomatic. With the first exposure, symptoms may not develop for up to 4 to 6 weeks as the immune system develops sensitivity to the louse saliva.6 Bite reactions consisting of papules or wheals are related to immune sensitization.5 Louse feces and excoriations from scratching to relieve itch also may be present on examination. Secondary infection of excoriations also is possible.1

Diagnosis of an active infestation is made by identifying living lice. Because lice move quickly and can be difficult to detect, tightly attached nits on the hair shaft within 4 mm of the scalp are at least indicative of a historic infestation and can be suggestive of active infestation.1,19 Dermoscopy is a helpful tool in differentiating eggs containing nymphs from the empty cases of hatched lice and also from amorphous pseudonits (hair casts)(Figure 3).19,20 Wet combing improves the accuracy of diagnosing an active infection.21

Figure 3. Amorphous keratin forming a pseudonit on the hair shaft.
 

 

Treatment

Effective treatment of head lice requires eradication of all living lice as well as louse eggs. Topically applied pyrethroids, including pyrethrin shampoos and mousses and permethrin lotion 1%, are considered the first-line therapy.8 Pyrethroids are over-the-counter treatments that act by interfering with sodium transport in the louse, causing depolarization of the neuromembranes and respiratory paralysis.22 Pyrethrins are natural compounds derived from the chrysanthemum plant; permethrin is a synthetic compound. Pyrethrins often are combined with piperonyl butoxide, an insecticide synergist that improves efficacy by inhibiting pyrethrin catabolism.23 Resistance to pyrethroids has become an increasingly important problem in the United States and worldwide.

Malathion lotion 0.5% is another therapeutic option for head lice. Malathion is a prescription organophosphate cholinesterase inhibitor that also causes respiratory paralysis of the louse and is one of the few treatments that is ovicidal.22 It was withdrawn from the market in 1995 due to its flammability and a theoretical risk of respiratory depression if ingested; however, it was reintroduced in 1999 and remains an effective treatment option with little resistance in the United States.24

Lindane 1% (shampoo and lotion), an organochloride compound that acts by causing neuronal hyperstimulation and eventual paralysis of lice, is no longer recommended due to its serious side effects, including central nervous system toxicity and increased risk of seizure.8,24

New US Food and Drug Administration–Approved Therapies
Newer topical treatments include benzyl alcohol lotion 5%, spinosad topical suspension 0.9%, ivermectin lotion 0.5%, and dimethicone-based products. Benzyl alcohol was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2009 and is available in the United States by prescription.25 Benzyl alcohol kills lice by asphyxiation. Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials showed significant treatment success 1 day posttreatment (fewer live lice than the vehicle alone; P=.004) and 2 weeks posttreatment (absence of live lice compared to the vehicle alone; P=.001).26

Spinosad was approved by the FDA in 2011 and is available in the United States by prescription.25 It contains the compounds spinosyn A and spinosyn D, which are naturally derived through fermentation by the soil bacterium Saccharopolyspora spinosa. It also contains benzyl alcohol. Spinosad paralyzes lice by disrupting neuronal activity and is at least partially ovicidal.27 Phase 3 clinical trials published in 2009 showed that spinosad was significantly more effective than permethrin in eradicating head lice (P<.001).28

Topical ivermectin was approved by the FDA in 2012 for prescription use.25 It acts on chloride ion channels, causing hyperpolarization of the muscle cells of lice and resulting in paralysis and death. Oral ivermectin (200 μg/kg) given once and repeated in 10 days is not FDA approved for the treatment of head lice but has shown some effectiveness and is sometimes used.8 A comparison study of topical versus oral ivermectin published in 2014 found that eradication was achieved in 88% (n=27) of topical ivermectin users after 1 treatment and 100% (n=31) after 2 treatments. Oral ivermectin produced cure rates of 45% (n=14) after 1 treatment and 97% (n=30) after 2 treatments. Both topical and oral ivermectin treatments are well tolerated.29

Physically Acting Preparations
Products with a physical mode of action are a new attractive option for treatment of pediculosis because the development of resistance is less likely. Studies of silicone-based fluids that physically occlude the respiratory system of the louse, such as dimethicone liquid gel 4%, have shown superiority over treatment with pyrethroids.30,31 Although the safety of dimethicone has been demonstrated, silicone-based treatments have not yet been widely adopted in the United States and are not currently used as a first-line treatment.32 However, use of such physically acting pediculicides may in time surpass traditional neurotoxic treatments due to their low susceptibility to resistance and good safety profile.33,34

Alternative Therapies
Nonchemical treatments for head lice that have shown variable success include wet combing, hot air treatments, and varying occlusive treatments. Physical removal via wet combing requires persistent repeated treatments over several weeks; for example, wet combing may be performed every 3 days for at least 2 weeks or until no head lice are detected on 4 consecutive occasions.35 Cure rates range from 38% to 75% with wet combing as a sole treatment of head lice.36 Because this treatment has minimal risks and no adverse side effects, it can be considered as an alternative treatment for some patients.

Hot air treatments also have been studied. A 2006 study showed that a hot air treatment device had the potential to eradicate head lice, most likely by desiccation. Specifically, 30 minutes of exposure to hot air (at 58.9°F, slightly cooler than a standard hair dryer) using the custom-built device resulted in 98% mortality of eggs and 80% mortality of hatched lice.37 Large randomized controlled trials of hot air treatments have not been performed.

Other alternative treatments include plant-derived oils. A laboratory study of essential oils found that spearmint, cassia, and clove showed pediculicidal activity similar to malathion with improved ovicidal activity.38 However, there is a potential for development of contact dermatitis from essential oils.

Complete Eradication of Head Lice
Removal of nits is an important component of effective lice eradication. Biochemical analysis has revealed that the nit sheath of the head louse is similar in composition to amyloid, rendering it difficult to design products that will unravel the nit sheath while leaving human hair undamaged.39 Because pediculicides are not necessarily ovicidal and complete physical nit removal is difficult to achieve, re-treatment in 7 to 10 days often is advisable to ensure that lice in all stages of the life cycle have been killed.4 Treatment of any secondary bacterial infection also is important. Although transmission of lice via fomites is less likely than from head-to-head contact, the cleaning of hats, hairbrushes, and linens is prudent. Diagnosing and treating infested close contacts also is essential to achieving eradication.4 Coordinated surveillance, education, and treatment efforts in high-risk communities can help detect asymptomatic cases and control local epidemics in a cost-effective manner.40 However, “no nit” policies at schools likely cause a net harm, as nit removal is difficult and children with nonviable nits are then excluded from the classroom.5

Treatment Resistance
Resistance to topical neurotoxic treatments is becoming increasingly common.41-43 Therefore, it is important to identify local patterns of resistance, if possible, when selecting a therapy for head lice. Improper usage, changes in pediculicide formulations and packaging, decreased product efficacy, and natural selection have all contributed to this rise in resistance.7 Additionally, due to protection from multiple exoskeletons and the natural molting process as they mature into adults, nymphs may only receive a sublethal dose when exposed to pediculicides, contributing further to resistance.7 Resistance to synthetic pyrethroids is most predominant, likely due to selection pressure because permethrin historically has been the most widely used insecticide for pediculosis. A 2014 study found that the frequency of sodium-channel insensitivity to pyrethroids, also known as knockdown resistance (or kdr), in US head louse populations collected over a 10-year period was 84.4% and approached 100% in some communities in recent years.44 This evidence strongly supports the use of alternative therapeutic categories to effectively eradicate head lice infestations.

Conclusion

Head lice infestation is common in children, and although it is not harmful to the host, it can be an irritating and symptomatic problem and can lead to notable distress, missed days of school, and secondary infections. Identifying active adult lice is the gold standard for diagnosis. Current recommended treatments include pyrethroids as the first-line therapy; however, resistance to these neurotoxic agents is becoming increasingly common. Alternative therapies such as newer neurotoxic agents or pediculicides with physical mechanisms of action (eg, dimethicone-based products) should be considered, particularly in regions where resistance is known to be high. Education about head lice, proper use of treatment, and coordinated diagnosis are necessary for effective management of this problem.

References
  1. Chosidow O. Scabies and pediculosis. Lancet. 2000;355:819-826.
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Head lice. http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/lice/head/index.html. Updated September 24, 2013. Accessed November 9, 2017.
  3. Hurwitz S. Lice (pediculosis). In: Hurwitz S. Hurwitz Clinical Pediatric Dermatology: A Textbook of Skin Disorders of Childhood and Adolescence. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders Company; 1993:416-419.
  4. Elston DM. What’s eating you? Pediculus humanus (head louse and body louse). Cutis. 1999;63:259-264.
  5. Ko CJ, Elston DM. Pediculosis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004;50:1-12.
  6. Frankowski BL, Weiner LB. Head lice. Pediatrics. 2002;110:638-643.
  7. Meinking TL. Clinical update on resistance and treatment of pediculosis capitis. Am J Manag Care. 2004;10(9 suppl):S264-S268.
  8. Devore CD, Schutze GE. Head lice. Pediatrics. 2015;135:E1355-E1365.
  9. Burkhart CN. Fomite transmission with head lice: a continuing controversy. Lancet. 2003;361:99-100.
  10. Falagas ME, Matthaiou DK, Rafailidis PI, et al. Worldwide prevalence of head lice. Emerg Infect Dis. 2008;14:1493-1494.
  11. Feldmeier H. Pediculosis capitis: new insights into epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012;31:2105-2110.
  12. Canyon DV, Speare R, Muller R. Spatial and kinetic factors for the transfer of head lice (Pediculus capitis) between hairs. J Invest Dermatol. 2002;119:629-631.
  13. Burkhart CN, Burkhart CG. Fomite transmission in head lice. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;56:1044-1047.
  14. Canyon DV, Speare R. Indirect transmission of head lice via inanimate objects. Open Dermatol J. 2010;4:72-76.
  15. Bauer E, Jahnke C, Feldmeier H. Seasonal fluctuations of head lice infestation in Germany. Parasitol Res. 2009;104:677-681.
  16. Balcioglu IC, Kurt O, Limoncu ME, et al. Rural life, lower socioeconomic status and parasitic infections. Parasitol Int. 2007;56:129-133.
  17. Lesshafft H, Baier A, Guerra H, et al. Prevalence and risk factors associated with pediculosis capitis in an impoverished urban community in Lima, Peru. J Glob Infect Dis. 2013;5:138-143.
  18. Tagka A, Lambrou GI, Braoudaki M, et al. Socioeconomical factors associated with pediculosis (Phthiraptera: Pediculidae) in Athens, Greece. J Med Entomol. 2016;53:919-922.
  19. Di Stefani A, Hofmann-Wellenhof R, Zalaudek I. Dermoscopy for diagnosis and treatment monitoring of pediculosis capitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;54:909-911.
  20. Bakos RM, Bakos L. Dermoscopy for diagnosis of pediculosis capitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;57:727-728.
  21. Jahnke C, Bauer E, Hengge UR, et al. Accuracy of diagnosis of pediculosis capitis: visual inspection vs wet combing. Arch Dermatol. 2009;145:309-313.
  22. Elston DM. Drugs used in the treatment of pediculosis. J Drugs Dermatol. 2005;4:207-211.
  23. National Pesticide Information Center. Piperonyl butoxide (general fact sheet). http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/pbogen.pdf/. Accessed November 13, 2017.
  24. Diamantis SA, Morrell DS, Burkhart CN. Treatment of head lice. Dermatol Ther. 2009;22:273-278.
  25. United States Food and Drug Administration. Treating and preventing head lice. http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm171730.htm. Published July 13, 2010. Updated November 8, 2017. Accessed November 13, 2017.
  26. Meinking TL, Villar ME, Vicaria M, et al. The clinical trials supporting benzyl alcohol lotion 5% (UlesfiaTM): a safe and effective topical treatment for head lice (Pediculosis Humanus Capitis). Pediatr Dermatol. 2010;27:19-24.
  27. McCormack PL. Spinosad in pediculosis capitis. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2011;12:349-353.
  28. Stough D, Shellabarger S, Quiring J, et al. Efficacy and safety of spinosad and permethrin creme rinses for pediculosis capitis (head lice). Pediatrics. 2009;124:E389-E395.
  29. Ahmad HM, Abdel-Azim ES, Abdel-Aziz RT. Assessment of topical versus oral ivermectin as a treatment for head lice. Dermatol Ther. 2014;27:307-310.
  30. Heukelbach J, Pilger D, Oliveira FA, et al. A highly efficacious pediculicide based on dimethicone: randomized observer blinded comparative trial. BMC Infect Dis. 2008;8:115.
  31. Burgess IF, Brunton ER, Burgess NA. Single application of 4% dimethicone liquid gel versus two applications of 1% permethrin creme rinse for treatment of head louse infestation: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Dermatol. 2013;13:5.
  32. Ihde ES, Boscamp JR, Loh JM, et al. Safety and efficacy of a 100% dimethicone pediculocide in school-age children. BMC Pediatr. 2015;15:70.
  33. Heukelbach J, Oliveira FA, Richter J, et al. Dimethicone-based pediculicides: a physical approach to eradicate head lice. Open Dermatol J. 2010;4:77-81.
  34. Feldmeier H. Treatment of pediculosis capitis: a critical appraisal of the current literature. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2014;15:401-412.
  35. Glasziou P, Bennett J, Greenberg P, et al; Handbook Of Non Drug Intervention (HANDI) Project Team. Wet combing for the eradication of head lice. Aust Fam Physician. 2013;42:129-130.
  36. Tebruegge M, Runnacles J. Is wet combing effective in children with pediculosis capitis infestation? Arch Dis Child. 2007;92:818-820.
  37. Goates BM, Atkin JS, Wilding KG, et al. An effective nonchemical treatment for head lice: a lot of hot air. Pediatrics. 2006;118:1962-1970.
  38. Yones DA, Bakir HY, Bayoumi SA. Chemical composition and efficacy of some selected plant oils against Pediculus humanus capitis in vitro. Parasitol Res. 2016;115:3209-3218.
  39. Burkhart CN, Burkhart CG. Head lice: scientific assessment of the nit sheath with clinical ramifications and therapeutic options. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;53:129-133.
  40. Ibarra J, Fry F, Wickenden C, et al. The impact of well-developed preventative strategies on the eradication of head lice. Perspect Public Health. 2009;129:165-173.
  41. Mumcuoglu KY, Hemingway J, Miller J, et al. Permethrin resistance in the head louse pediculus humanus capitis from Israel. Med Vet Entomol. 1995;9:427-432.
  42. Meinking TL, Serrano L, Hard B, et al. Comparative in vitro pediculicidal efficacy of treatments in a resistant head lice population in the United States. Arch Dermatol. 2002;138:220-224.
  43. Hemingway J, Miller J, Mumcuoglu KY. Pyrethroid resistance mechanisms in the head louse Pediculus capitis from Israel: implications for control. Med Vet Entomol. 1999;13:89-96.
  44. Yoon KS, Previte DJ, Hodgdon HE, et al. Knockdown resistance allele frequencies in North American head louse (Anoplura: Pediculidae) populations. J Med Entomol. 2014;51:450-457.
References
  1. Chosidow O. Scabies and pediculosis. Lancet. 2000;355:819-826.
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Head lice. http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/lice/head/index.html. Updated September 24, 2013. Accessed November 9, 2017.
  3. Hurwitz S. Lice (pediculosis). In: Hurwitz S. Hurwitz Clinical Pediatric Dermatology: A Textbook of Skin Disorders of Childhood and Adolescence. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders Company; 1993:416-419.
  4. Elston DM. What’s eating you? Pediculus humanus (head louse and body louse). Cutis. 1999;63:259-264.
  5. Ko CJ, Elston DM. Pediculosis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004;50:1-12.
  6. Frankowski BL, Weiner LB. Head lice. Pediatrics. 2002;110:638-643.
  7. Meinking TL. Clinical update on resistance and treatment of pediculosis capitis. Am J Manag Care. 2004;10(9 suppl):S264-S268.
  8. Devore CD, Schutze GE. Head lice. Pediatrics. 2015;135:E1355-E1365.
  9. Burkhart CN. Fomite transmission with head lice: a continuing controversy. Lancet. 2003;361:99-100.
  10. Falagas ME, Matthaiou DK, Rafailidis PI, et al. Worldwide prevalence of head lice. Emerg Infect Dis. 2008;14:1493-1494.
  11. Feldmeier H. Pediculosis capitis: new insights into epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012;31:2105-2110.
  12. Canyon DV, Speare R, Muller R. Spatial and kinetic factors for the transfer of head lice (Pediculus capitis) between hairs. J Invest Dermatol. 2002;119:629-631.
  13. Burkhart CN, Burkhart CG. Fomite transmission in head lice. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;56:1044-1047.
  14. Canyon DV, Speare R. Indirect transmission of head lice via inanimate objects. Open Dermatol J. 2010;4:72-76.
  15. Bauer E, Jahnke C, Feldmeier H. Seasonal fluctuations of head lice infestation in Germany. Parasitol Res. 2009;104:677-681.
  16. Balcioglu IC, Kurt O, Limoncu ME, et al. Rural life, lower socioeconomic status and parasitic infections. Parasitol Int. 2007;56:129-133.
  17. Lesshafft H, Baier A, Guerra H, et al. Prevalence and risk factors associated with pediculosis capitis in an impoverished urban community in Lima, Peru. J Glob Infect Dis. 2013;5:138-143.
  18. Tagka A, Lambrou GI, Braoudaki M, et al. Socioeconomical factors associated with pediculosis (Phthiraptera: Pediculidae) in Athens, Greece. J Med Entomol. 2016;53:919-922.
  19. Di Stefani A, Hofmann-Wellenhof R, Zalaudek I. Dermoscopy for diagnosis and treatment monitoring of pediculosis capitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;54:909-911.
  20. Bakos RM, Bakos L. Dermoscopy for diagnosis of pediculosis capitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;57:727-728.
  21. Jahnke C, Bauer E, Hengge UR, et al. Accuracy of diagnosis of pediculosis capitis: visual inspection vs wet combing. Arch Dermatol. 2009;145:309-313.
  22. Elston DM. Drugs used in the treatment of pediculosis. J Drugs Dermatol. 2005;4:207-211.
  23. National Pesticide Information Center. Piperonyl butoxide (general fact sheet). http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/pbogen.pdf/. Accessed November 13, 2017.
  24. Diamantis SA, Morrell DS, Burkhart CN. Treatment of head lice. Dermatol Ther. 2009;22:273-278.
  25. United States Food and Drug Administration. Treating and preventing head lice. http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm171730.htm. Published July 13, 2010. Updated November 8, 2017. Accessed November 13, 2017.
  26. Meinking TL, Villar ME, Vicaria M, et al. The clinical trials supporting benzyl alcohol lotion 5% (UlesfiaTM): a safe and effective topical treatment for head lice (Pediculosis Humanus Capitis). Pediatr Dermatol. 2010;27:19-24.
  27. McCormack PL. Spinosad in pediculosis capitis. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2011;12:349-353.
  28. Stough D, Shellabarger S, Quiring J, et al. Efficacy and safety of spinosad and permethrin creme rinses for pediculosis capitis (head lice). Pediatrics. 2009;124:E389-E395.
  29. Ahmad HM, Abdel-Azim ES, Abdel-Aziz RT. Assessment of topical versus oral ivermectin as a treatment for head lice. Dermatol Ther. 2014;27:307-310.
  30. Heukelbach J, Pilger D, Oliveira FA, et al. A highly efficacious pediculicide based on dimethicone: randomized observer blinded comparative trial. BMC Infect Dis. 2008;8:115.
  31. Burgess IF, Brunton ER, Burgess NA. Single application of 4% dimethicone liquid gel versus two applications of 1% permethrin creme rinse for treatment of head louse infestation: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Dermatol. 2013;13:5.
  32. Ihde ES, Boscamp JR, Loh JM, et al. Safety and efficacy of a 100% dimethicone pediculocide in school-age children. BMC Pediatr. 2015;15:70.
  33. Heukelbach J, Oliveira FA, Richter J, et al. Dimethicone-based pediculicides: a physical approach to eradicate head lice. Open Dermatol J. 2010;4:77-81.
  34. Feldmeier H. Treatment of pediculosis capitis: a critical appraisal of the current literature. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2014;15:401-412.
  35. Glasziou P, Bennett J, Greenberg P, et al; Handbook Of Non Drug Intervention (HANDI) Project Team. Wet combing for the eradication of head lice. Aust Fam Physician. 2013;42:129-130.
  36. Tebruegge M, Runnacles J. Is wet combing effective in children with pediculosis capitis infestation? Arch Dis Child. 2007;92:818-820.
  37. Goates BM, Atkin JS, Wilding KG, et al. An effective nonchemical treatment for head lice: a lot of hot air. Pediatrics. 2006;118:1962-1970.
  38. Yones DA, Bakir HY, Bayoumi SA. Chemical composition and efficacy of some selected plant oils against Pediculus humanus capitis in vitro. Parasitol Res. 2016;115:3209-3218.
  39. Burkhart CN, Burkhart CG. Head lice: scientific assessment of the nit sheath with clinical ramifications and therapeutic options. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;53:129-133.
  40. Ibarra J, Fry F, Wickenden C, et al. The impact of well-developed preventative strategies on the eradication of head lice. Perspect Public Health. 2009;129:165-173.
  41. Mumcuoglu KY, Hemingway J, Miller J, et al. Permethrin resistance in the head louse pediculus humanus capitis from Israel. Med Vet Entomol. 1995;9:427-432.
  42. Meinking TL, Serrano L, Hard B, et al. Comparative in vitro pediculicidal efficacy of treatments in a resistant head lice population in the United States. Arch Dermatol. 2002;138:220-224.
  43. Hemingway J, Miller J, Mumcuoglu KY. Pyrethroid resistance mechanisms in the head louse Pediculus capitis from Israel: implications for control. Med Vet Entomol. 1999;13:89-96.
  44. Yoon KS, Previte DJ, Hodgdon HE, et al. Knockdown resistance allele frequencies in North American head louse (Anoplura: Pediculidae) populations. J Med Entomol. 2014;51:450-457.
Issue
Cutis - 100(6)
Issue
Cutis - 100(6)
Page Number
389-392
Page Number
389-392
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
What’s Eating You? Head Lice (Pediculus humanus capitis)
Display Headline
What’s Eating You? Head Lice (Pediculus humanus capitis)
Sections
Inside the Article

Practice Points

  • Transmission of head lice occurs most frequently from direct head-to-head contact; however, head lice can survive up to 4 days on fomites.
  • Patients present with scalp pruritus and bite reactions (papules or wheals), but pediculosis can be asymptomatic, particularly with the first exposure before the immune system has developed sensitivity to the louse saliva.
  • Topical pyrethroids are available over-the-counter and are considered first-line therapy; however, resistance to pyrethroids has become an important problem in the United States and worldwide.
  • Newer topical treatments such as benzyl alcohol lotion 5%, spinosad topical suspension 0.9%, and ivermectin lotion 0.5% can be prescribed as alternative therapies, particularly if resistance to pyrethroids is a concern.
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Article PDF Media

Pediatric Periorificial Dermatitis

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Pediatric Periorificial Dermatitis

Perioral dermatitis is an acneform eruption presenting with erythematous papules, vesicles, and rarely pustules clustered around the orifices of the face. 1 Lesions may be found near the eyes, mouth, and nose but typically spare the vermilion border of the lips. 2 Nguyen and Eichenfield 3 preferred the term periorificial dermatitis (POD), which has since been adopted by others. 4 Patients may report pruritus, but there generally are no systemic symptoms unless patients have comorbid conditions such as atopic dermatitis. 5 Although this condition has been well examined in the literature on adults, data in the pediatric population are far more limited, consisting of case series and retrospective chart reviews. In 1979, Wilkinson et al 6 published a study of more than 200 patients with perioral dermatitis, but only 15 patients younger than 12 years were included.

Etiology

Although the exact pathogenesis of POD is unknown, a common denominator among many patients is prior exposure to topical corticosteroids.3,7-9 Periorificial dermatitis also has been linked to the use of systemic corticosteroids in pediatric patients.10 The exact relationship between steroid use and dermatitis is unknown; it may be related to a change in the flora of hair follicles and in particular an association with fusiform bacteria–rich conditions.11 Aside from steroid exposure, POD has been associated with the use of physical sunscreen in pediatric patients with dry skin,12 rosin in chewing gum,13 and inhaled corticosteroids in those with asthma.14 In one case, a 15-year-old adolescent girl developed POD and swelling of the lips after 2 years of playing a flute made of cocus wood.15,16

Epidemiology

In the largest chart review to date in the US pediatric population, Goel et al17 examined the clinical course of POD in 222 patients aged 3 months to 18 years at the Dermatology Clinic at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill between June 2002 and March 2014. Consistent with prior studies, females seemed to be slightly more affected than males (55.4% vs 44.6%).17 Similarly, the patient population for a study conducted by Nguyen and Eichenfield3 consisted of more females (58% [46/79]) than males (42% [33/79]). Weston and Morelli9 conducted a retrospective chart review of steroid rosacea in 106 patients younger than 13 years, which included 29 patients younger than 3 years; the study included 46 males and 60 females.

Comorbidities and Family History

Goel et al17 (N=222) reported the following comorbidities associated with pediatric POD: atopic dermatitis (29.3%), asthma (14.9%), and allergies (9.9%). Steroid exposure was noted in 58.1% of patients.17 Similarly, Nguyen and Eichenfield3 (N=79) found that the most common comorbidities were atopic dermatitis (14%), keratosis pilaris (14%), viral infections (14%), acne (10%), and seborrheic dermatitis (10%). Family history of atopy was noted in 55% of patients and family history of rosacea was noted in 3%. In a case series of 11 pediatric patients, 3 (27%) had keratosis pilaris, 7 (64%) had a family history of atopy, and 2 (18%) had a family history of rosacea.8 Weston and Morelli9 found a much higher incidence of familial rosacea (20%) in 106 children with steroid rosacea. It is hard to interpret the role of genetic tendency in rosacea, as different populations have different background prevalence of rosacea and atopic dermatitis (ie, rosacea is immensely more common in white individuals).

Clinical Presentation

Periorificial dermatitis generally presents with small, pink- to flesh-colored papules in a perioral, periocular, and perinasal distribution. Although many patients are white, a particularly prominent variant has been noted in black children with papules that may be hyperpigmented.18 In a 2006 chart review in 79 pediatric POD patients aged 6 months to 18 years, Nguyen and Eichenfield3 reported that 92% (73/79) of patients presented for a facial rash with an average duration ranging from 2 weeks to 4 years. Interestingly, although Tempark and Shwayder1 did not report burning associated with pediatric POD, Nguyen and Eichenfield3 found that 19% of patients reported pruritus and 4% reported burning or tenderness. Seventy-two percent of patients had been exposed to steroids for treatment of their dermatitis. Seventy percent had perioral involvement, 43% had perinasal involvement, 25% had periocular involvement, and 1% had a perivulvar rash; 64% of patients only had perioral, perinasal, and periocular involvement. In others, lesions also were found on the cheeks, chin, neck, and forehead. Perioral lesions were more likely to be found in patients younger than 5 years compared to those who were at least 5 years of age. Eighty-six percent of patients had erythema with or without scaling, 66% had papules, and 11% had pustules. Fewer than 3% had lichenification, telangiectases, or changes in pigmentation.3

Boeck et al19 described 7 pediatric patients with perioral dermatitis. Six (86%) patients had perioral lesions, and 6 (86%) had previously been treated with moderate- to high-potency topical corticosteroids. Skin prick tests were negative in 6 (86%) patients.19 In one case report, a 6-year-old boy did not present with the classic acneform lesions but rather sharply demarcated eczematous patches around the eyes, nose, and mouth. The rash began to fade after 2 weeks of using metronidazole gel 1%, and after 4 months he was only left with mild hyperpigmentation.4

Periorificial dermatitis was once thought to be a juvenile form of rosacea.5 In 1972, Savin et al8 described 11 pediatric patients with “rosacea-like” facial flushing, papules, pustules, and scaling over the cheeks, forehead, and chin. In some patients, the eyelids also were involved. At least 8 patients had been using potent topical corticosteroids and had noticed exacerbation of their skin lesions after stopping therapy.8

Variants of POD

Several other variants of POD have been described in pediatric patients including childhood granulomatous periorificial dermatitis (CGPD)(also known as facial Afro-Caribbean [childhood] eruption) and lupus miliaris disseminatus faciei. Childhood granulomatous periorificial dermatitis presents in prepubertal children as dome-shaped, red to yellow-brown, monomorphous papules around the eyes, nose, and mouth; there are no systemic findings.20,21 It occurs equally in males and females and is more commonly seen in dark-skinned patients. Childhood granulomatous periorificial dermatitis usually resolves within a few months to years but may be associated with blepharitis or conjunctivitis.20 Urbatsch et al20 analyzed extrafacial lesions in 8 patients (aged 2–12 years) with CGPD. Lesions were found on the trunk (38% [3/8]), neck (25% [2/8]), ears (25% [2/8]), extremities (50% [4/8]), labia majora (38% [3/8]), and abdomen (13% [1/8]). In addition, 2 (25% [2/8]) patients had blepharitis.20

Lupus miliaris disseminatus faciei, which occurs in adolescents and adults, commonly involves the eyelids and central areas of the face such as the nose and upper lips. Patients typically present with erythematous or flesh-colored papules.1

Diagnosis

Diagnosis of POD is made clinically based on the observation of papules (and sometimes pustules) around the orifices of the face, sparing the vermilion border, together with a lack of comedones.17 Laboratory tests are not useful.5 Biopsies rarely are performed, and the results mimic those of rosacea, demonstrating a perifollicular lymphohistiocytic infiltrate, epithelioid cells, and occasionally giant cells.5,22,23 Early papular lesions can show mild acanthosis, epidermal edema, and parakeratosis.23 Biopsies in patients with CGPD reveal noncaseating perifollicular granulomas.20

 

 

Treatment and Clinical Outcome

Although topical corticosteroids can improve facial lesions in pediatric POD, the eruption often rebounds when therapy is discontinued.1 One therapy frequently used in adults is oral tetracyclines; however, these agents must not be used in patients younger than 9 years due to potential dental staining.4 The standards are either topical metronidazole twice daily with clearance in 3 to 8 weeks or oral erythromycin.7

In the review conducted by Goel et al,17 treatment included azithromycin (44.6%), topical metronidazole (42.3%), sodium sulfacetamide lotion (35.6%), oral antibiotic monotherapy (15.3%), topical agent monotherapy (44.6%), and combined oral and topical agent therapy (40.1%). Of those patients who presented for a follow-up visit (59%), 72% of cases resolved and 10.7% showed some improvement. For those patients who returned for follow-up, the average duration until symptom resolution was approximately 4 months. The most common side effects were pigmentation changes (1.8%), worsening of symptoms (1.8%), gastrointestinal upset (0.9%), irritant dermatitis (0.9%), and xerosis (0.5%).17

Changes were made to the treatment plans for 16 patients, most often due to inadequate treatment response.17 Five patients treated with sodium sulfacetamide lotion also were started on oral azithromycin. Four patients treated with oral antibiotics were given a topical agent (metronidazole or sodium sulfacetamide lotion). Other modifications included replacing sodium sulfacetamide lotion with topical metronidazole and an oral antibiotic (azithromycin or doxycycline, n=3), adjusting the doses of oral or topical medications (n=2), adding tacrolimus (n=1), and replacing topical metronidazole with sodium sulfacetamide lotion (n=1). Of the patients who underwent a change in treatment plan, 5 experienced symptom recurrence, 4 had mild improvement, and 1 patient had no improvement. Six patients were lost to follow-up.17

In the study conducted by Nguyen and Eichenfield,3 follow-up visits occurred approximately 3 months after the first visit. Fifty-two percent of patients used metronidazole alone or with another medication; for most of these patients, the POD cleared an average of 7 weeks after starting treatment, ranging from 1 to 24 weeks. The use of topical calcineurin inhibitors, sulfacetamide, hydrocortisone, or antifungal therapies was associated with persistence of the rash at the follow-up visit. In contrast, the use of metronidazole and/or oral erythromycin was associated with resolution of the rash at the follow-up visit. The investigators recommended the following regimen: topical metronidazole for 1 to 2 months and, if necessary, the addition of oral erythromycin.3

In the case series by Boeck et al,19 all patients were started on metronidazole gel 1% applied once daily for the first week, and then twice daily until the lesions resolved. All patients showed improvement after 4 to 6 weeks, and eventually the disease cleared between 3 and 6 months. All patients were still symptom free during a 2-year observation period.19

Manders and Lucky7 described 14 patients with POD (aged 9 months to 6.5 years). Eight patients used only metronidazole gel 0.75%, while 5 used the gel in combination with topical corticosteroids (21% [3/14]), oral erythromycin (7% [1/14]), or topical erythromycin (7% [1/14]); 1 patient remained on hydrocortisone 1% and cleared. Patients responded well within 1 to 8 weeks and were symptom free for up to 16 months. Mid- to high-potency steroids were discontinued in all patients.7

In some pediatric patients with CGPD, recovery occurs faster with the use of oral macrolides or tetracyclines, either alone or in combination with topical antibiotics or sulfur-based lotions.20 Extrafacial lesions associated with CGPD do not appear to negatively impact treatment response or duration of disease. In the review conducted by Urbatsch et al,20 7 of 8 (88%) CGPD patients with extrafacial lesions were treated with oral agents including erythromycin, hydroxychloroquine, cyclosporine, minocycline, and azithromycin. Most of these patients also were using topical agents such as triamcinolone acetonide, desonide, metronidazole, and erythromycin. The time to resolution ranged from several weeks to 6 months.20

Weston and Morelli9 described a treatment regimen for steroid rosacea. The study included data on 106 children (60 females, 46 males) who had been exposed to mostly class 7 low-potency agents. All patients were advised to immediately stop topical steroid therapy without gradual withdrawal and to begin oral erythromycin stearate 30 mg/kg daily in 2 doses per day for 4 weeks. Patients who were unable to tolerate erythromycin were advised to use topical clindamycin phosphate twice daily for 4 weeks (n=6). Eighty-six percent of patients showed resolution within 4 weeks, and 100% showed clearance by 8 weeks. Twenty-two percent of patients had clearance within 3 weeks. There was no difference in the duration until resolution for those who had used oral or topical antibiotics.9 A different study suggested that low-potency topical steroids can be used to control inflammation when weaning patients off of strong steroids.5

Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis should include acne vulgaris, allergic contact dermatitis, irritant contact dermatitis, seborrheic dermatitis, impetigo, dermatophyte infection, rosacea, and angiofibromas.4

Acne vulgaris commonly is found in older adolescents, and unlike POD, it will present with open or closed comedones.2 In patients aged 1 to 7 years, acne is a reason to consider endocrine evaluation. Allergic contact dermatitis is extremely pruritic, and the lesions often are papulovesicular with active weeping or crusting. Patients with irritant contact dermatitis often report burning and pain, and papules and pustules typically are absent. A thorough history can help rule out allergic or irritant contact dermatitis. Seborrheic dermatitis presents with erythema and scaling of the scalp, eyebrows, and nasolabial folds; it tends to spare the perioral regions and also lacks papules.2 The lesions of impetigo typically have a yellow-brown exudate, which forms a honey-colored crust.24 Tinea faciei, unlike the other tinea infections, can have an extremely variable presentation. Lesions usually begin as scaly macules that develop raised borders with central hypopigmentation, but papules, vesicles, and crusts can be seen.25 Potassium hydroxide preparation can help diagnose a fungal infection. Rosacea presents with flushing of the central face regions, sometimes accompanied by papules, pustules, and telangiectases.2 Although rare, physicians must rule out angiofibromas. Typically found in patients older than 5 years, angiofibromas are pink or flesh-colored papules often found on the nasolabial folds, cheeks, and chin.2 Many angiofibromas can be associated with tuberous sclerosis.

Conclusion

Diagnosis of POD is clinical and rests upon the finding of erythematous papules on the face near the eyes, mouth, and nose. Extrafacial lesions also have been described, particularly in pediatric patients with CGPD. Many patients will report a history of atopic dermatitis and asthma. Therapy for POD includes both topical and systemic agents. For those with mild disease, topical metronidazole commonly is used. For patients requiring oral antibiotics, tetracyclines or macrolides can be prescribed based on the age of the patient. Many pediatric patients who begin with both oral and topical agents can later be maintained on topical therapy, sometimes with a low-dose oral antibiotic. Periorificial dermatitis has an excellent prognosis and most pediatric patients show marked improvement within weeks to months.

References
  1. Tempark T, Shwayder TA. Perioral dermatitis: a review of the condition with special attention to treatment options. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2014;15:101-113.
  2. McFarland SL, Polcari IC. Morphology-based diagnosis of acneiform eruptions. Pediatr Ann. 2015;44:E188-E193.
  3. Nguyen V, Eichenfield LF. Periorificial dermatitis in children and adolescents. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;55:781-785.
  4. Kihiczak GG, Cruz MA, Schwartz RA. Periorificial dermatitis in children: an update and description of a child with striking features. Int J Dermatol. 2009;48:304-306.
  5. Laude TA, Salvemini JN. Perioral dermatitis in children. Sem Cutan Med Surg. 1999;18:206-209.
  6. Wilkinson DS, Kirton V, Wilkinson JD. Perioral dermatitis: a 12-year review. Br J Dermatol. 1979;101:245-257.
  7. Manders SM, Lucky AW. Perioral dermatitis in childhood. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1992;27(5 pt 1):688-692.
  8. Savin JA, Alexander S, Marks R. A rosacea-like eruption of children. Br J Dermatol. 1972;87:425-429.
  9. Weston WL, Morelli JG. Steroid rosacea in prepubertal children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000;154:62-64.
  10. Clementson B, Smidt AC. Periorificial dermatitis due to systemic corticosteroids in children: report of two cases. Pediatr Dermatol. 2012;29:331-332.
  11. Takiwaki H, Tsuda H, Arase S, et al. Differences between intrafollicular microorganism profiles in perioral and seborrhoeic dermatitis. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2003;28:531-534.
  12. Abeck D, Geisenfelder B, Brandt O. Physical sunscreens with high sun protection factor may cause perioral dermatitis in children. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2009;7:701-703.
  13. Satyawan I, Oranje AP, van Joost T. Perioral dermatitis in a child due to rosin in chewing gum. Contact Dermatitis. 1990;22:182-183.
  14. Dubus JC, Marguet C, Deschildre A, et al. Local side-effects of inhaled corticosteroids in asthmatic children: influence of drug, dose, age, and device. Allergy. 2001;56:944-948.
  15. Hausen BM, Bruhn G, Koenig WA. New hydroxyisoflavans as contact sensitizers in cocus wood Brya ebenus DC (Fabaceae). Contact Dermatitis. 1991;25:149-155.
  16. Dirschka T, Weber K, Tronnier H. Topical cosmetics and perioral dermatitis. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2004;2:194-199.
  17. Goel NS, Burkhart CN, Morrell DS. Pediatric periorificial dermatitis: clinical course and treatment outcomes in 222 patients. Pediatr Dermatol. 2015;32:333-336.
  18. Cribier B, Lieber-Mbomeyo A, Lipsker D. Clinical and histological study of a case of facial Afro-Caribbean childhood eruption (FACE) [in French][published online July 23, 2008]. Ann Dermatol Venerol. 2008;135:663-667.
  19. Boeck K, Abeck D, Werfel S, et al. Perioral dermatitis in children—clinical presentation, pathogenesis-related factors and response to topical metronidazole. Dermatology. 1997;195:235-238.
  20. Urbatsch AJ, Frieden I, Williams ML, et al. Extrafacial and generalized granulomatous periorificial dermatitis. Arch Dermatol. 2002;138:1354-1358.
  21. Kroshinsky D, Glick SA. Pediatric rosacea. Dermatol Ther. 2006;19:196-201.
  22. Ramelet AA, Delacrétaz J. Histopathologic study of perioral dermatitis [in French]. Dermatologica. 1981;163:361-369.
  23. Ljubojevi´c S, Lipozenci´c J, Turci´c P. Perioral dermatitis. Acta Dermatovenerol Croat. 2008;16:96-100.
  24. Nichols RL, Florman S. Clinical presentations of soft-tissue infections and surgical site infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;33(suppl 2):S84-S93.
  25. Lin RL, Szepietowski JC, Schwartz RA. Tinea faciei, an often deceptive facial eruption. Int J Dermatol. 2004;43:437-440.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

From the Department of Dermatology, Mt Sinai West of the Icahn School of Medicine, New York, New York.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Nanette B. Silverberg, MD, Mt Sinai West, 425 W 59th St, Ste 8B, New York, NY 10019 (nanette.silverberg@mountsinai.org).

Issue
Cutis - 100(6)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
385-388
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

From the Department of Dermatology, Mt Sinai West of the Icahn School of Medicine, New York, New York.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Nanette B. Silverberg, MD, Mt Sinai West, 425 W 59th St, Ste 8B, New York, NY 10019 (nanette.silverberg@mountsinai.org).

Author and Disclosure Information

From the Department of Dermatology, Mt Sinai West of the Icahn School of Medicine, New York, New York.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Nanette B. Silverberg, MD, Mt Sinai West, 425 W 59th St, Ste 8B, New York, NY 10019 (nanette.silverberg@mountsinai.org).

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

Perioral dermatitis is an acneform eruption presenting with erythematous papules, vesicles, and rarely pustules clustered around the orifices of the face. 1 Lesions may be found near the eyes, mouth, and nose but typically spare the vermilion border of the lips. 2 Nguyen and Eichenfield 3 preferred the term periorificial dermatitis (POD), which has since been adopted by others. 4 Patients may report pruritus, but there generally are no systemic symptoms unless patients have comorbid conditions such as atopic dermatitis. 5 Although this condition has been well examined in the literature on adults, data in the pediatric population are far more limited, consisting of case series and retrospective chart reviews. In 1979, Wilkinson et al 6 published a study of more than 200 patients with perioral dermatitis, but only 15 patients younger than 12 years were included.

Etiology

Although the exact pathogenesis of POD is unknown, a common denominator among many patients is prior exposure to topical corticosteroids.3,7-9 Periorificial dermatitis also has been linked to the use of systemic corticosteroids in pediatric patients.10 The exact relationship between steroid use and dermatitis is unknown; it may be related to a change in the flora of hair follicles and in particular an association with fusiform bacteria–rich conditions.11 Aside from steroid exposure, POD has been associated with the use of physical sunscreen in pediatric patients with dry skin,12 rosin in chewing gum,13 and inhaled corticosteroids in those with asthma.14 In one case, a 15-year-old adolescent girl developed POD and swelling of the lips after 2 years of playing a flute made of cocus wood.15,16

Epidemiology

In the largest chart review to date in the US pediatric population, Goel et al17 examined the clinical course of POD in 222 patients aged 3 months to 18 years at the Dermatology Clinic at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill between June 2002 and March 2014. Consistent with prior studies, females seemed to be slightly more affected than males (55.4% vs 44.6%).17 Similarly, the patient population for a study conducted by Nguyen and Eichenfield3 consisted of more females (58% [46/79]) than males (42% [33/79]). Weston and Morelli9 conducted a retrospective chart review of steroid rosacea in 106 patients younger than 13 years, which included 29 patients younger than 3 years; the study included 46 males and 60 females.

Comorbidities and Family History

Goel et al17 (N=222) reported the following comorbidities associated with pediatric POD: atopic dermatitis (29.3%), asthma (14.9%), and allergies (9.9%). Steroid exposure was noted in 58.1% of patients.17 Similarly, Nguyen and Eichenfield3 (N=79) found that the most common comorbidities were atopic dermatitis (14%), keratosis pilaris (14%), viral infections (14%), acne (10%), and seborrheic dermatitis (10%). Family history of atopy was noted in 55% of patients and family history of rosacea was noted in 3%. In a case series of 11 pediatric patients, 3 (27%) had keratosis pilaris, 7 (64%) had a family history of atopy, and 2 (18%) had a family history of rosacea.8 Weston and Morelli9 found a much higher incidence of familial rosacea (20%) in 106 children with steroid rosacea. It is hard to interpret the role of genetic tendency in rosacea, as different populations have different background prevalence of rosacea and atopic dermatitis (ie, rosacea is immensely more common in white individuals).

Clinical Presentation

Periorificial dermatitis generally presents with small, pink- to flesh-colored papules in a perioral, periocular, and perinasal distribution. Although many patients are white, a particularly prominent variant has been noted in black children with papules that may be hyperpigmented.18 In a 2006 chart review in 79 pediatric POD patients aged 6 months to 18 years, Nguyen and Eichenfield3 reported that 92% (73/79) of patients presented for a facial rash with an average duration ranging from 2 weeks to 4 years. Interestingly, although Tempark and Shwayder1 did not report burning associated with pediatric POD, Nguyen and Eichenfield3 found that 19% of patients reported pruritus and 4% reported burning or tenderness. Seventy-two percent of patients had been exposed to steroids for treatment of their dermatitis. Seventy percent had perioral involvement, 43% had perinasal involvement, 25% had periocular involvement, and 1% had a perivulvar rash; 64% of patients only had perioral, perinasal, and periocular involvement. In others, lesions also were found on the cheeks, chin, neck, and forehead. Perioral lesions were more likely to be found in patients younger than 5 years compared to those who were at least 5 years of age. Eighty-six percent of patients had erythema with or without scaling, 66% had papules, and 11% had pustules. Fewer than 3% had lichenification, telangiectases, or changes in pigmentation.3

Boeck et al19 described 7 pediatric patients with perioral dermatitis. Six (86%) patients had perioral lesions, and 6 (86%) had previously been treated with moderate- to high-potency topical corticosteroids. Skin prick tests were negative in 6 (86%) patients.19 In one case report, a 6-year-old boy did not present with the classic acneform lesions but rather sharply demarcated eczematous patches around the eyes, nose, and mouth. The rash began to fade after 2 weeks of using metronidazole gel 1%, and after 4 months he was only left with mild hyperpigmentation.4

Periorificial dermatitis was once thought to be a juvenile form of rosacea.5 In 1972, Savin et al8 described 11 pediatric patients with “rosacea-like” facial flushing, papules, pustules, and scaling over the cheeks, forehead, and chin. In some patients, the eyelids also were involved. At least 8 patients had been using potent topical corticosteroids and had noticed exacerbation of their skin lesions after stopping therapy.8

Variants of POD

Several other variants of POD have been described in pediatric patients including childhood granulomatous periorificial dermatitis (CGPD)(also known as facial Afro-Caribbean [childhood] eruption) and lupus miliaris disseminatus faciei. Childhood granulomatous periorificial dermatitis presents in prepubertal children as dome-shaped, red to yellow-brown, monomorphous papules around the eyes, nose, and mouth; there are no systemic findings.20,21 It occurs equally in males and females and is more commonly seen in dark-skinned patients. Childhood granulomatous periorificial dermatitis usually resolves within a few months to years but may be associated with blepharitis or conjunctivitis.20 Urbatsch et al20 analyzed extrafacial lesions in 8 patients (aged 2–12 years) with CGPD. Lesions were found on the trunk (38% [3/8]), neck (25% [2/8]), ears (25% [2/8]), extremities (50% [4/8]), labia majora (38% [3/8]), and abdomen (13% [1/8]). In addition, 2 (25% [2/8]) patients had blepharitis.20

Lupus miliaris disseminatus faciei, which occurs in adolescents and adults, commonly involves the eyelids and central areas of the face such as the nose and upper lips. Patients typically present with erythematous or flesh-colored papules.1

Diagnosis

Diagnosis of POD is made clinically based on the observation of papules (and sometimes pustules) around the orifices of the face, sparing the vermilion border, together with a lack of comedones.17 Laboratory tests are not useful.5 Biopsies rarely are performed, and the results mimic those of rosacea, demonstrating a perifollicular lymphohistiocytic infiltrate, epithelioid cells, and occasionally giant cells.5,22,23 Early papular lesions can show mild acanthosis, epidermal edema, and parakeratosis.23 Biopsies in patients with CGPD reveal noncaseating perifollicular granulomas.20

 

 

Treatment and Clinical Outcome

Although topical corticosteroids can improve facial lesions in pediatric POD, the eruption often rebounds when therapy is discontinued.1 One therapy frequently used in adults is oral tetracyclines; however, these agents must not be used in patients younger than 9 years due to potential dental staining.4 The standards are either topical metronidazole twice daily with clearance in 3 to 8 weeks or oral erythromycin.7

In the review conducted by Goel et al,17 treatment included azithromycin (44.6%), topical metronidazole (42.3%), sodium sulfacetamide lotion (35.6%), oral antibiotic monotherapy (15.3%), topical agent monotherapy (44.6%), and combined oral and topical agent therapy (40.1%). Of those patients who presented for a follow-up visit (59%), 72% of cases resolved and 10.7% showed some improvement. For those patients who returned for follow-up, the average duration until symptom resolution was approximately 4 months. The most common side effects were pigmentation changes (1.8%), worsening of symptoms (1.8%), gastrointestinal upset (0.9%), irritant dermatitis (0.9%), and xerosis (0.5%).17

Changes were made to the treatment plans for 16 patients, most often due to inadequate treatment response.17 Five patients treated with sodium sulfacetamide lotion also were started on oral azithromycin. Four patients treated with oral antibiotics were given a topical agent (metronidazole or sodium sulfacetamide lotion). Other modifications included replacing sodium sulfacetamide lotion with topical metronidazole and an oral antibiotic (azithromycin or doxycycline, n=3), adjusting the doses of oral or topical medications (n=2), adding tacrolimus (n=1), and replacing topical metronidazole with sodium sulfacetamide lotion (n=1). Of the patients who underwent a change in treatment plan, 5 experienced symptom recurrence, 4 had mild improvement, and 1 patient had no improvement. Six patients were lost to follow-up.17

In the study conducted by Nguyen and Eichenfield,3 follow-up visits occurred approximately 3 months after the first visit. Fifty-two percent of patients used metronidazole alone or with another medication; for most of these patients, the POD cleared an average of 7 weeks after starting treatment, ranging from 1 to 24 weeks. The use of topical calcineurin inhibitors, sulfacetamide, hydrocortisone, or antifungal therapies was associated with persistence of the rash at the follow-up visit. In contrast, the use of metronidazole and/or oral erythromycin was associated with resolution of the rash at the follow-up visit. The investigators recommended the following regimen: topical metronidazole for 1 to 2 months and, if necessary, the addition of oral erythromycin.3

In the case series by Boeck et al,19 all patients were started on metronidazole gel 1% applied once daily for the first week, and then twice daily until the lesions resolved. All patients showed improvement after 4 to 6 weeks, and eventually the disease cleared between 3 and 6 months. All patients were still symptom free during a 2-year observation period.19

Manders and Lucky7 described 14 patients with POD (aged 9 months to 6.5 years). Eight patients used only metronidazole gel 0.75%, while 5 used the gel in combination with topical corticosteroids (21% [3/14]), oral erythromycin (7% [1/14]), or topical erythromycin (7% [1/14]); 1 patient remained on hydrocortisone 1% and cleared. Patients responded well within 1 to 8 weeks and were symptom free for up to 16 months. Mid- to high-potency steroids were discontinued in all patients.7

In some pediatric patients with CGPD, recovery occurs faster with the use of oral macrolides or tetracyclines, either alone or in combination with topical antibiotics or sulfur-based lotions.20 Extrafacial lesions associated with CGPD do not appear to negatively impact treatment response or duration of disease. In the review conducted by Urbatsch et al,20 7 of 8 (88%) CGPD patients with extrafacial lesions were treated with oral agents including erythromycin, hydroxychloroquine, cyclosporine, minocycline, and azithromycin. Most of these patients also were using topical agents such as triamcinolone acetonide, desonide, metronidazole, and erythromycin. The time to resolution ranged from several weeks to 6 months.20

Weston and Morelli9 described a treatment regimen for steroid rosacea. The study included data on 106 children (60 females, 46 males) who had been exposed to mostly class 7 low-potency agents. All patients were advised to immediately stop topical steroid therapy without gradual withdrawal and to begin oral erythromycin stearate 30 mg/kg daily in 2 doses per day for 4 weeks. Patients who were unable to tolerate erythromycin were advised to use topical clindamycin phosphate twice daily for 4 weeks (n=6). Eighty-six percent of patients showed resolution within 4 weeks, and 100% showed clearance by 8 weeks. Twenty-two percent of patients had clearance within 3 weeks. There was no difference in the duration until resolution for those who had used oral or topical antibiotics.9 A different study suggested that low-potency topical steroids can be used to control inflammation when weaning patients off of strong steroids.5

Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis should include acne vulgaris, allergic contact dermatitis, irritant contact dermatitis, seborrheic dermatitis, impetigo, dermatophyte infection, rosacea, and angiofibromas.4

Acne vulgaris commonly is found in older adolescents, and unlike POD, it will present with open or closed comedones.2 In patients aged 1 to 7 years, acne is a reason to consider endocrine evaluation. Allergic contact dermatitis is extremely pruritic, and the lesions often are papulovesicular with active weeping or crusting. Patients with irritant contact dermatitis often report burning and pain, and papules and pustules typically are absent. A thorough history can help rule out allergic or irritant contact dermatitis. Seborrheic dermatitis presents with erythema and scaling of the scalp, eyebrows, and nasolabial folds; it tends to spare the perioral regions and also lacks papules.2 The lesions of impetigo typically have a yellow-brown exudate, which forms a honey-colored crust.24 Tinea faciei, unlike the other tinea infections, can have an extremely variable presentation. Lesions usually begin as scaly macules that develop raised borders with central hypopigmentation, but papules, vesicles, and crusts can be seen.25 Potassium hydroxide preparation can help diagnose a fungal infection. Rosacea presents with flushing of the central face regions, sometimes accompanied by papules, pustules, and telangiectases.2 Although rare, physicians must rule out angiofibromas. Typically found in patients older than 5 years, angiofibromas are pink or flesh-colored papules often found on the nasolabial folds, cheeks, and chin.2 Many angiofibromas can be associated with tuberous sclerosis.

Conclusion

Diagnosis of POD is clinical and rests upon the finding of erythematous papules on the face near the eyes, mouth, and nose. Extrafacial lesions also have been described, particularly in pediatric patients with CGPD. Many patients will report a history of atopic dermatitis and asthma. Therapy for POD includes both topical and systemic agents. For those with mild disease, topical metronidazole commonly is used. For patients requiring oral antibiotics, tetracyclines or macrolides can be prescribed based on the age of the patient. Many pediatric patients who begin with both oral and topical agents can later be maintained on topical therapy, sometimes with a low-dose oral antibiotic. Periorificial dermatitis has an excellent prognosis and most pediatric patients show marked improvement within weeks to months.

Perioral dermatitis is an acneform eruption presenting with erythematous papules, vesicles, and rarely pustules clustered around the orifices of the face. 1 Lesions may be found near the eyes, mouth, and nose but typically spare the vermilion border of the lips. 2 Nguyen and Eichenfield 3 preferred the term periorificial dermatitis (POD), which has since been adopted by others. 4 Patients may report pruritus, but there generally are no systemic symptoms unless patients have comorbid conditions such as atopic dermatitis. 5 Although this condition has been well examined in the literature on adults, data in the pediatric population are far more limited, consisting of case series and retrospective chart reviews. In 1979, Wilkinson et al 6 published a study of more than 200 patients with perioral dermatitis, but only 15 patients younger than 12 years were included.

Etiology

Although the exact pathogenesis of POD is unknown, a common denominator among many patients is prior exposure to topical corticosteroids.3,7-9 Periorificial dermatitis also has been linked to the use of systemic corticosteroids in pediatric patients.10 The exact relationship between steroid use and dermatitis is unknown; it may be related to a change in the flora of hair follicles and in particular an association with fusiform bacteria–rich conditions.11 Aside from steroid exposure, POD has been associated with the use of physical sunscreen in pediatric patients with dry skin,12 rosin in chewing gum,13 and inhaled corticosteroids in those with asthma.14 In one case, a 15-year-old adolescent girl developed POD and swelling of the lips after 2 years of playing a flute made of cocus wood.15,16

Epidemiology

In the largest chart review to date in the US pediatric population, Goel et al17 examined the clinical course of POD in 222 patients aged 3 months to 18 years at the Dermatology Clinic at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill between June 2002 and March 2014. Consistent with prior studies, females seemed to be slightly more affected than males (55.4% vs 44.6%).17 Similarly, the patient population for a study conducted by Nguyen and Eichenfield3 consisted of more females (58% [46/79]) than males (42% [33/79]). Weston and Morelli9 conducted a retrospective chart review of steroid rosacea in 106 patients younger than 13 years, which included 29 patients younger than 3 years; the study included 46 males and 60 females.

Comorbidities and Family History

Goel et al17 (N=222) reported the following comorbidities associated with pediatric POD: atopic dermatitis (29.3%), asthma (14.9%), and allergies (9.9%). Steroid exposure was noted in 58.1% of patients.17 Similarly, Nguyen and Eichenfield3 (N=79) found that the most common comorbidities were atopic dermatitis (14%), keratosis pilaris (14%), viral infections (14%), acne (10%), and seborrheic dermatitis (10%). Family history of atopy was noted in 55% of patients and family history of rosacea was noted in 3%. In a case series of 11 pediatric patients, 3 (27%) had keratosis pilaris, 7 (64%) had a family history of atopy, and 2 (18%) had a family history of rosacea.8 Weston and Morelli9 found a much higher incidence of familial rosacea (20%) in 106 children with steroid rosacea. It is hard to interpret the role of genetic tendency in rosacea, as different populations have different background prevalence of rosacea and atopic dermatitis (ie, rosacea is immensely more common in white individuals).

Clinical Presentation

Periorificial dermatitis generally presents with small, pink- to flesh-colored papules in a perioral, periocular, and perinasal distribution. Although many patients are white, a particularly prominent variant has been noted in black children with papules that may be hyperpigmented.18 In a 2006 chart review in 79 pediatric POD patients aged 6 months to 18 years, Nguyen and Eichenfield3 reported that 92% (73/79) of patients presented for a facial rash with an average duration ranging from 2 weeks to 4 years. Interestingly, although Tempark and Shwayder1 did not report burning associated with pediatric POD, Nguyen and Eichenfield3 found that 19% of patients reported pruritus and 4% reported burning or tenderness. Seventy-two percent of patients had been exposed to steroids for treatment of their dermatitis. Seventy percent had perioral involvement, 43% had perinasal involvement, 25% had periocular involvement, and 1% had a perivulvar rash; 64% of patients only had perioral, perinasal, and periocular involvement. In others, lesions also were found on the cheeks, chin, neck, and forehead. Perioral lesions were more likely to be found in patients younger than 5 years compared to those who were at least 5 years of age. Eighty-six percent of patients had erythema with or without scaling, 66% had papules, and 11% had pustules. Fewer than 3% had lichenification, telangiectases, or changes in pigmentation.3

Boeck et al19 described 7 pediatric patients with perioral dermatitis. Six (86%) patients had perioral lesions, and 6 (86%) had previously been treated with moderate- to high-potency topical corticosteroids. Skin prick tests were negative in 6 (86%) patients.19 In one case report, a 6-year-old boy did not present with the classic acneform lesions but rather sharply demarcated eczematous patches around the eyes, nose, and mouth. The rash began to fade after 2 weeks of using metronidazole gel 1%, and after 4 months he was only left with mild hyperpigmentation.4

Periorificial dermatitis was once thought to be a juvenile form of rosacea.5 In 1972, Savin et al8 described 11 pediatric patients with “rosacea-like” facial flushing, papules, pustules, and scaling over the cheeks, forehead, and chin. In some patients, the eyelids also were involved. At least 8 patients had been using potent topical corticosteroids and had noticed exacerbation of their skin lesions after stopping therapy.8

Variants of POD

Several other variants of POD have been described in pediatric patients including childhood granulomatous periorificial dermatitis (CGPD)(also known as facial Afro-Caribbean [childhood] eruption) and lupus miliaris disseminatus faciei. Childhood granulomatous periorificial dermatitis presents in prepubertal children as dome-shaped, red to yellow-brown, monomorphous papules around the eyes, nose, and mouth; there are no systemic findings.20,21 It occurs equally in males and females and is more commonly seen in dark-skinned patients. Childhood granulomatous periorificial dermatitis usually resolves within a few months to years but may be associated with blepharitis or conjunctivitis.20 Urbatsch et al20 analyzed extrafacial lesions in 8 patients (aged 2–12 years) with CGPD. Lesions were found on the trunk (38% [3/8]), neck (25% [2/8]), ears (25% [2/8]), extremities (50% [4/8]), labia majora (38% [3/8]), and abdomen (13% [1/8]). In addition, 2 (25% [2/8]) patients had blepharitis.20

Lupus miliaris disseminatus faciei, which occurs in adolescents and adults, commonly involves the eyelids and central areas of the face such as the nose and upper lips. Patients typically present with erythematous or flesh-colored papules.1

Diagnosis

Diagnosis of POD is made clinically based on the observation of papules (and sometimes pustules) around the orifices of the face, sparing the vermilion border, together with a lack of comedones.17 Laboratory tests are not useful.5 Biopsies rarely are performed, and the results mimic those of rosacea, demonstrating a perifollicular lymphohistiocytic infiltrate, epithelioid cells, and occasionally giant cells.5,22,23 Early papular lesions can show mild acanthosis, epidermal edema, and parakeratosis.23 Biopsies in patients with CGPD reveal noncaseating perifollicular granulomas.20

 

 

Treatment and Clinical Outcome

Although topical corticosteroids can improve facial lesions in pediatric POD, the eruption often rebounds when therapy is discontinued.1 One therapy frequently used in adults is oral tetracyclines; however, these agents must not be used in patients younger than 9 years due to potential dental staining.4 The standards are either topical metronidazole twice daily with clearance in 3 to 8 weeks or oral erythromycin.7

In the review conducted by Goel et al,17 treatment included azithromycin (44.6%), topical metronidazole (42.3%), sodium sulfacetamide lotion (35.6%), oral antibiotic monotherapy (15.3%), topical agent monotherapy (44.6%), and combined oral and topical agent therapy (40.1%). Of those patients who presented for a follow-up visit (59%), 72% of cases resolved and 10.7% showed some improvement. For those patients who returned for follow-up, the average duration until symptom resolution was approximately 4 months. The most common side effects were pigmentation changes (1.8%), worsening of symptoms (1.8%), gastrointestinal upset (0.9%), irritant dermatitis (0.9%), and xerosis (0.5%).17

Changes were made to the treatment plans for 16 patients, most often due to inadequate treatment response.17 Five patients treated with sodium sulfacetamide lotion also were started on oral azithromycin. Four patients treated with oral antibiotics were given a topical agent (metronidazole or sodium sulfacetamide lotion). Other modifications included replacing sodium sulfacetamide lotion with topical metronidazole and an oral antibiotic (azithromycin or doxycycline, n=3), adjusting the doses of oral or topical medications (n=2), adding tacrolimus (n=1), and replacing topical metronidazole with sodium sulfacetamide lotion (n=1). Of the patients who underwent a change in treatment plan, 5 experienced symptom recurrence, 4 had mild improvement, and 1 patient had no improvement. Six patients were lost to follow-up.17

In the study conducted by Nguyen and Eichenfield,3 follow-up visits occurred approximately 3 months after the first visit. Fifty-two percent of patients used metronidazole alone or with another medication; for most of these patients, the POD cleared an average of 7 weeks after starting treatment, ranging from 1 to 24 weeks. The use of topical calcineurin inhibitors, sulfacetamide, hydrocortisone, or antifungal therapies was associated with persistence of the rash at the follow-up visit. In contrast, the use of metronidazole and/or oral erythromycin was associated with resolution of the rash at the follow-up visit. The investigators recommended the following regimen: topical metronidazole for 1 to 2 months and, if necessary, the addition of oral erythromycin.3

In the case series by Boeck et al,19 all patients were started on metronidazole gel 1% applied once daily for the first week, and then twice daily until the lesions resolved. All patients showed improvement after 4 to 6 weeks, and eventually the disease cleared between 3 and 6 months. All patients were still symptom free during a 2-year observation period.19

Manders and Lucky7 described 14 patients with POD (aged 9 months to 6.5 years). Eight patients used only metronidazole gel 0.75%, while 5 used the gel in combination with topical corticosteroids (21% [3/14]), oral erythromycin (7% [1/14]), or topical erythromycin (7% [1/14]); 1 patient remained on hydrocortisone 1% and cleared. Patients responded well within 1 to 8 weeks and were symptom free for up to 16 months. Mid- to high-potency steroids were discontinued in all patients.7

In some pediatric patients with CGPD, recovery occurs faster with the use of oral macrolides or tetracyclines, either alone or in combination with topical antibiotics or sulfur-based lotions.20 Extrafacial lesions associated with CGPD do not appear to negatively impact treatment response or duration of disease. In the review conducted by Urbatsch et al,20 7 of 8 (88%) CGPD patients with extrafacial lesions were treated with oral agents including erythromycin, hydroxychloroquine, cyclosporine, minocycline, and azithromycin. Most of these patients also were using topical agents such as triamcinolone acetonide, desonide, metronidazole, and erythromycin. The time to resolution ranged from several weeks to 6 months.20

Weston and Morelli9 described a treatment regimen for steroid rosacea. The study included data on 106 children (60 females, 46 males) who had been exposed to mostly class 7 low-potency agents. All patients were advised to immediately stop topical steroid therapy without gradual withdrawal and to begin oral erythromycin stearate 30 mg/kg daily in 2 doses per day for 4 weeks. Patients who were unable to tolerate erythromycin were advised to use topical clindamycin phosphate twice daily for 4 weeks (n=6). Eighty-six percent of patients showed resolution within 4 weeks, and 100% showed clearance by 8 weeks. Twenty-two percent of patients had clearance within 3 weeks. There was no difference in the duration until resolution for those who had used oral or topical antibiotics.9 A different study suggested that low-potency topical steroids can be used to control inflammation when weaning patients off of strong steroids.5

Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis should include acne vulgaris, allergic contact dermatitis, irritant contact dermatitis, seborrheic dermatitis, impetigo, dermatophyte infection, rosacea, and angiofibromas.4

Acne vulgaris commonly is found in older adolescents, and unlike POD, it will present with open or closed comedones.2 In patients aged 1 to 7 years, acne is a reason to consider endocrine evaluation. Allergic contact dermatitis is extremely pruritic, and the lesions often are papulovesicular with active weeping or crusting. Patients with irritant contact dermatitis often report burning and pain, and papules and pustules typically are absent. A thorough history can help rule out allergic or irritant contact dermatitis. Seborrheic dermatitis presents with erythema and scaling of the scalp, eyebrows, and nasolabial folds; it tends to spare the perioral regions and also lacks papules.2 The lesions of impetigo typically have a yellow-brown exudate, which forms a honey-colored crust.24 Tinea faciei, unlike the other tinea infections, can have an extremely variable presentation. Lesions usually begin as scaly macules that develop raised borders with central hypopigmentation, but papules, vesicles, and crusts can be seen.25 Potassium hydroxide preparation can help diagnose a fungal infection. Rosacea presents with flushing of the central face regions, sometimes accompanied by papules, pustules, and telangiectases.2 Although rare, physicians must rule out angiofibromas. Typically found in patients older than 5 years, angiofibromas are pink or flesh-colored papules often found on the nasolabial folds, cheeks, and chin.2 Many angiofibromas can be associated with tuberous sclerosis.

Conclusion

Diagnosis of POD is clinical and rests upon the finding of erythematous papules on the face near the eyes, mouth, and nose. Extrafacial lesions also have been described, particularly in pediatric patients with CGPD. Many patients will report a history of atopic dermatitis and asthma. Therapy for POD includes both topical and systemic agents. For those with mild disease, topical metronidazole commonly is used. For patients requiring oral antibiotics, tetracyclines or macrolides can be prescribed based on the age of the patient. Many pediatric patients who begin with both oral and topical agents can later be maintained on topical therapy, sometimes with a low-dose oral antibiotic. Periorificial dermatitis has an excellent prognosis and most pediatric patients show marked improvement within weeks to months.

References
  1. Tempark T, Shwayder TA. Perioral dermatitis: a review of the condition with special attention to treatment options. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2014;15:101-113.
  2. McFarland SL, Polcari IC. Morphology-based diagnosis of acneiform eruptions. Pediatr Ann. 2015;44:E188-E193.
  3. Nguyen V, Eichenfield LF. Periorificial dermatitis in children and adolescents. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;55:781-785.
  4. Kihiczak GG, Cruz MA, Schwartz RA. Periorificial dermatitis in children: an update and description of a child with striking features. Int J Dermatol. 2009;48:304-306.
  5. Laude TA, Salvemini JN. Perioral dermatitis in children. Sem Cutan Med Surg. 1999;18:206-209.
  6. Wilkinson DS, Kirton V, Wilkinson JD. Perioral dermatitis: a 12-year review. Br J Dermatol. 1979;101:245-257.
  7. Manders SM, Lucky AW. Perioral dermatitis in childhood. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1992;27(5 pt 1):688-692.
  8. Savin JA, Alexander S, Marks R. A rosacea-like eruption of children. Br J Dermatol. 1972;87:425-429.
  9. Weston WL, Morelli JG. Steroid rosacea in prepubertal children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000;154:62-64.
  10. Clementson B, Smidt AC. Periorificial dermatitis due to systemic corticosteroids in children: report of two cases. Pediatr Dermatol. 2012;29:331-332.
  11. Takiwaki H, Tsuda H, Arase S, et al. Differences between intrafollicular microorganism profiles in perioral and seborrhoeic dermatitis. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2003;28:531-534.
  12. Abeck D, Geisenfelder B, Brandt O. Physical sunscreens with high sun protection factor may cause perioral dermatitis in children. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2009;7:701-703.
  13. Satyawan I, Oranje AP, van Joost T. Perioral dermatitis in a child due to rosin in chewing gum. Contact Dermatitis. 1990;22:182-183.
  14. Dubus JC, Marguet C, Deschildre A, et al. Local side-effects of inhaled corticosteroids in asthmatic children: influence of drug, dose, age, and device. Allergy. 2001;56:944-948.
  15. Hausen BM, Bruhn G, Koenig WA. New hydroxyisoflavans as contact sensitizers in cocus wood Brya ebenus DC (Fabaceae). Contact Dermatitis. 1991;25:149-155.
  16. Dirschka T, Weber K, Tronnier H. Topical cosmetics and perioral dermatitis. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2004;2:194-199.
  17. Goel NS, Burkhart CN, Morrell DS. Pediatric periorificial dermatitis: clinical course and treatment outcomes in 222 patients. Pediatr Dermatol. 2015;32:333-336.
  18. Cribier B, Lieber-Mbomeyo A, Lipsker D. Clinical and histological study of a case of facial Afro-Caribbean childhood eruption (FACE) [in French][published online July 23, 2008]. Ann Dermatol Venerol. 2008;135:663-667.
  19. Boeck K, Abeck D, Werfel S, et al. Perioral dermatitis in children—clinical presentation, pathogenesis-related factors and response to topical metronidazole. Dermatology. 1997;195:235-238.
  20. Urbatsch AJ, Frieden I, Williams ML, et al. Extrafacial and generalized granulomatous periorificial dermatitis. Arch Dermatol. 2002;138:1354-1358.
  21. Kroshinsky D, Glick SA. Pediatric rosacea. Dermatol Ther. 2006;19:196-201.
  22. Ramelet AA, Delacrétaz J. Histopathologic study of perioral dermatitis [in French]. Dermatologica. 1981;163:361-369.
  23. Ljubojevi´c S, Lipozenci´c J, Turci´c P. Perioral dermatitis. Acta Dermatovenerol Croat. 2008;16:96-100.
  24. Nichols RL, Florman S. Clinical presentations of soft-tissue infections and surgical site infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;33(suppl 2):S84-S93.
  25. Lin RL, Szepietowski JC, Schwartz RA. Tinea faciei, an often deceptive facial eruption. Int J Dermatol. 2004;43:437-440.
References
  1. Tempark T, Shwayder TA. Perioral dermatitis: a review of the condition with special attention to treatment options. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2014;15:101-113.
  2. McFarland SL, Polcari IC. Morphology-based diagnosis of acneiform eruptions. Pediatr Ann. 2015;44:E188-E193.
  3. Nguyen V, Eichenfield LF. Periorificial dermatitis in children and adolescents. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;55:781-785.
  4. Kihiczak GG, Cruz MA, Schwartz RA. Periorificial dermatitis in children: an update and description of a child with striking features. Int J Dermatol. 2009;48:304-306.
  5. Laude TA, Salvemini JN. Perioral dermatitis in children. Sem Cutan Med Surg. 1999;18:206-209.
  6. Wilkinson DS, Kirton V, Wilkinson JD. Perioral dermatitis: a 12-year review. Br J Dermatol. 1979;101:245-257.
  7. Manders SM, Lucky AW. Perioral dermatitis in childhood. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1992;27(5 pt 1):688-692.
  8. Savin JA, Alexander S, Marks R. A rosacea-like eruption of children. Br J Dermatol. 1972;87:425-429.
  9. Weston WL, Morelli JG. Steroid rosacea in prepubertal children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000;154:62-64.
  10. Clementson B, Smidt AC. Periorificial dermatitis due to systemic corticosteroids in children: report of two cases. Pediatr Dermatol. 2012;29:331-332.
  11. Takiwaki H, Tsuda H, Arase S, et al. Differences between intrafollicular microorganism profiles in perioral and seborrhoeic dermatitis. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2003;28:531-534.
  12. Abeck D, Geisenfelder B, Brandt O. Physical sunscreens with high sun protection factor may cause perioral dermatitis in children. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2009;7:701-703.
  13. Satyawan I, Oranje AP, van Joost T. Perioral dermatitis in a child due to rosin in chewing gum. Contact Dermatitis. 1990;22:182-183.
  14. Dubus JC, Marguet C, Deschildre A, et al. Local side-effects of inhaled corticosteroids in asthmatic children: influence of drug, dose, age, and device. Allergy. 2001;56:944-948.
  15. Hausen BM, Bruhn G, Koenig WA. New hydroxyisoflavans as contact sensitizers in cocus wood Brya ebenus DC (Fabaceae). Contact Dermatitis. 1991;25:149-155.
  16. Dirschka T, Weber K, Tronnier H. Topical cosmetics and perioral dermatitis. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2004;2:194-199.
  17. Goel NS, Burkhart CN, Morrell DS. Pediatric periorificial dermatitis: clinical course and treatment outcomes in 222 patients. Pediatr Dermatol. 2015;32:333-336.
  18. Cribier B, Lieber-Mbomeyo A, Lipsker D. Clinical and histological study of a case of facial Afro-Caribbean childhood eruption (FACE) [in French][published online July 23, 2008]. Ann Dermatol Venerol. 2008;135:663-667.
  19. Boeck K, Abeck D, Werfel S, et al. Perioral dermatitis in children—clinical presentation, pathogenesis-related factors and response to topical metronidazole. Dermatology. 1997;195:235-238.
  20. Urbatsch AJ, Frieden I, Williams ML, et al. Extrafacial and generalized granulomatous periorificial dermatitis. Arch Dermatol. 2002;138:1354-1358.
  21. Kroshinsky D, Glick SA. Pediatric rosacea. Dermatol Ther. 2006;19:196-201.
  22. Ramelet AA, Delacrétaz J. Histopathologic study of perioral dermatitis [in French]. Dermatologica. 1981;163:361-369.
  23. Ljubojevi´c S, Lipozenci´c J, Turci´c P. Perioral dermatitis. Acta Dermatovenerol Croat. 2008;16:96-100.
  24. Nichols RL, Florman S. Clinical presentations of soft-tissue infections and surgical site infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;33(suppl 2):S84-S93.
  25. Lin RL, Szepietowski JC, Schwartz RA. Tinea faciei, an often deceptive facial eruption. Int J Dermatol. 2004;43:437-440.
Issue
Cutis - 100(6)
Issue
Cutis - 100(6)
Page Number
385-388
Page Number
385-388
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Pediatric Periorificial Dermatitis
Display Headline
Pediatric Periorificial Dermatitis
Sections
Inside the Article

Practice Points

  • Periorificial dermatitis (POD) affects young children and presents as flesh-colored papules around the mouth, nose, and even groin.
  • Periorificial dermatitis has been associated with prior use of topical or inhaled steroids.
  • Children with POD can be treated with oral erythromycin.
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Article PDF Media

Mississippi has highest varicella vaccination rate

Article Type
Changed

 

Coverage for two doses of varicella vaccine among kindergarten students was highest in Mississippi and lowest in the District of Columbia, said Ranee Seither and associates at the National Center of Immunization and Respiratory Disease at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta.

For the 2016-2017 school year, 99.4% of Mississippi children enrolled in kindergarten received the state-required two doses of varicella vaccine, compared with 84.6% in D.C. The median was 93.8% for the 42 states that require two doses and 96.5% for those 42 plus the 7 states that reported and only require one dose. Oklahoma and Wyoming “did not report data because of widespread problems with the quality of data reported by schools,” the CDC investigators wrote (MMWR 2017;66[40]:1073-80).

Two cities – New York and Houston – reported separately from their respective states, although their data also were included in their states’ overall rates. New York City had a varicella vaccination rate of 97.2% for two doses, and Houston’s rate was 95.7%. Only three of the eight U.S. territories require varicella vaccination for kindergartners: Puerto Rico vaccinated 95.9%, the U.S. Virgin Islands reported a rate of 88.1%, and the Northern Mariana Islands vaccinated 88% in 2016-2017, according the CDC investigators.

The data for the CDC analysis, which included 3,973,172 kindergartners for the 2016-2017 school year, were collected by federally funded immunization programs in the 50 states and D.C.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Coverage for two doses of varicella vaccine among kindergarten students was highest in Mississippi and lowest in the District of Columbia, said Ranee Seither and associates at the National Center of Immunization and Respiratory Disease at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta.

For the 2016-2017 school year, 99.4% of Mississippi children enrolled in kindergarten received the state-required two doses of varicella vaccine, compared with 84.6% in D.C. The median was 93.8% for the 42 states that require two doses and 96.5% for those 42 plus the 7 states that reported and only require one dose. Oklahoma and Wyoming “did not report data because of widespread problems with the quality of data reported by schools,” the CDC investigators wrote (MMWR 2017;66[40]:1073-80).

Two cities – New York and Houston – reported separately from their respective states, although their data also were included in their states’ overall rates. New York City had a varicella vaccination rate of 97.2% for two doses, and Houston’s rate was 95.7%. Only three of the eight U.S. territories require varicella vaccination for kindergartners: Puerto Rico vaccinated 95.9%, the U.S. Virgin Islands reported a rate of 88.1%, and the Northern Mariana Islands vaccinated 88% in 2016-2017, according the CDC investigators.

The data for the CDC analysis, which included 3,973,172 kindergartners for the 2016-2017 school year, were collected by federally funded immunization programs in the 50 states and D.C.

 

Coverage for two doses of varicella vaccine among kindergarten students was highest in Mississippi and lowest in the District of Columbia, said Ranee Seither and associates at the National Center of Immunization and Respiratory Disease at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta.

For the 2016-2017 school year, 99.4% of Mississippi children enrolled in kindergarten received the state-required two doses of varicella vaccine, compared with 84.6% in D.C. The median was 93.8% for the 42 states that require two doses and 96.5% for those 42 plus the 7 states that reported and only require one dose. Oklahoma and Wyoming “did not report data because of widespread problems with the quality of data reported by schools,” the CDC investigators wrote (MMWR 2017;66[40]:1073-80).

Two cities – New York and Houston – reported separately from their respective states, although their data also were included in their states’ overall rates. New York City had a varicella vaccination rate of 97.2% for two doses, and Houston’s rate was 95.7%. Only three of the eight U.S. territories require varicella vaccination for kindergartners: Puerto Rico vaccinated 95.9%, the U.S. Virgin Islands reported a rate of 88.1%, and the Northern Mariana Islands vaccinated 88% in 2016-2017, according the CDC investigators.

The data for the CDC analysis, which included 3,973,172 kindergartners for the 2016-2017 school year, were collected by federally funded immunization programs in the 50 states and D.C.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM MMWR

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default

Pediatric acute appendicitis: Is it time for nonoperative treatment (NOT)?

Article Type
Changed

 

Clinical question

What are the differences in rates of treatment failure, duration of hospitalization, and cost between nonoperative treatment (NOT) for acute uncomplicated appendicitis versus urgent appendectomy?

Background

Acute appendicitis is found in around 5% of children presenting for urgent or emergent evaluation of abdominal pain. It is the most common illness prompting emergency abdominal surgery in children.

Dr. Samuel C. Stubblefield
Possible complications from appendicitis include perforation, gangrenous changes, peritonitis, and sepsis. To avoid these significant morbidities, surgical teaching for more than a century has recommended urgent removal of the appendix in acute uncomplicated appendicitis. Appendicitis is classified as “complicated” if there is evidence of perforation, abscess, or gangrenous changes, and “uncomplicated” otherwise.

Several trials in adults have shown that urgent surgery may not be necessary, and NOT of uncomplicated appendicitis may be both effective and safe. NOT involves a course of IV antibiotics and careful clinical monitoring while hospitalized, then a course of oral antibiotics after discharge. Regimens vary but include coverage for aerobic and anaerobic gut flora, such as piperacillin-tazobactam followed by amoxicillin. Little is known about the safety and efficacy of NOT in children.
 

Study design

Meta-analysis.

Search strategy

PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies. This search identified 527 potential articles, of which the authors examined the full text of 68 and ultimately identified 5 single-center trials for analysis (4 prospective cohort trials and 1 randomized, controlled trial).

Synopsis

A total of 404 patients with uncomplicated appendicitis were seen in all trials: 168 received NOT and 236 received standard surgical care (urgent appendectomy). In the single randomized, controlled trial, patients were assigned NOT or surgical care randomly. In the other trials parental preference directed therapy.

The heterogeneity of the design, populations, definitions of illness, duration of follow-up, and NOT treatment regimens made the meta-analysis challenging. Antibiotic options for NOT varied by center but included a course of IV antibiotics followed by 7-10 days of oral antibiotics. NOT success was defined as no need for surgery within 48 hours and no recurrence of appendicitis within 1 month. Of the 236 patients who received standard surgical care, all had appendicitis and 1 had a complication requiring repeat operation. Of the NOT group, 16 (9.5%) had treatment failures, including 3 with perforated appendicitis, and 45 (27%) went on to have an appendectomy within the following year, yielding a risk ratio of failure versus standard treatment of 8.9 (95% confidence interval, 2.7-29.8). A subgroup analysis of patients with appendicoliths who received NOT found that these patients experienced a substantially increased risk of treatment failures and recurrent appendicitis with the risk ratio versus NOT without appendicolith of 10.4 (95% CI, 1.5-74). Of the 30 patients who experienced treatment failure with NOT, 15 had appendicoliths. NOT lengthened hospital stays by 14.3 hours (95% CI, 7.5-21.1) but led to lower total costs by $1,310 (95% CI, $920-$1,690).
 

Bottom line

NOT may be a reasonable alternative to standard surgical management for acute uncomplicated appendicitis without appendicolith in children, with a success rate of greater than 90%. Further larger, randomized prospective studies are required to establish its safety and efficacy.

Citation

Huang L et al. Comparison of antibiotic therapy and appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children: A meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(5):426-34.

Dr. Stubblefield is a pediatric hospitalist at Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Del., and a clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Clinical question

What are the differences in rates of treatment failure, duration of hospitalization, and cost between nonoperative treatment (NOT) for acute uncomplicated appendicitis versus urgent appendectomy?

Background

Acute appendicitis is found in around 5% of children presenting for urgent or emergent evaluation of abdominal pain. It is the most common illness prompting emergency abdominal surgery in children.

Dr. Samuel C. Stubblefield
Possible complications from appendicitis include perforation, gangrenous changes, peritonitis, and sepsis. To avoid these significant morbidities, surgical teaching for more than a century has recommended urgent removal of the appendix in acute uncomplicated appendicitis. Appendicitis is classified as “complicated” if there is evidence of perforation, abscess, or gangrenous changes, and “uncomplicated” otherwise.

Several trials in adults have shown that urgent surgery may not be necessary, and NOT of uncomplicated appendicitis may be both effective and safe. NOT involves a course of IV antibiotics and careful clinical monitoring while hospitalized, then a course of oral antibiotics after discharge. Regimens vary but include coverage for aerobic and anaerobic gut flora, such as piperacillin-tazobactam followed by amoxicillin. Little is known about the safety and efficacy of NOT in children.
 

Study design

Meta-analysis.

Search strategy

PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies. This search identified 527 potential articles, of which the authors examined the full text of 68 and ultimately identified 5 single-center trials for analysis (4 prospective cohort trials and 1 randomized, controlled trial).

Synopsis

A total of 404 patients with uncomplicated appendicitis were seen in all trials: 168 received NOT and 236 received standard surgical care (urgent appendectomy). In the single randomized, controlled trial, patients were assigned NOT or surgical care randomly. In the other trials parental preference directed therapy.

The heterogeneity of the design, populations, definitions of illness, duration of follow-up, and NOT treatment regimens made the meta-analysis challenging. Antibiotic options for NOT varied by center but included a course of IV antibiotics followed by 7-10 days of oral antibiotics. NOT success was defined as no need for surgery within 48 hours and no recurrence of appendicitis within 1 month. Of the 236 patients who received standard surgical care, all had appendicitis and 1 had a complication requiring repeat operation. Of the NOT group, 16 (9.5%) had treatment failures, including 3 with perforated appendicitis, and 45 (27%) went on to have an appendectomy within the following year, yielding a risk ratio of failure versus standard treatment of 8.9 (95% confidence interval, 2.7-29.8). A subgroup analysis of patients with appendicoliths who received NOT found that these patients experienced a substantially increased risk of treatment failures and recurrent appendicitis with the risk ratio versus NOT without appendicolith of 10.4 (95% CI, 1.5-74). Of the 30 patients who experienced treatment failure with NOT, 15 had appendicoliths. NOT lengthened hospital stays by 14.3 hours (95% CI, 7.5-21.1) but led to lower total costs by $1,310 (95% CI, $920-$1,690).
 

Bottom line

NOT may be a reasonable alternative to standard surgical management for acute uncomplicated appendicitis without appendicolith in children, with a success rate of greater than 90%. Further larger, randomized prospective studies are required to establish its safety and efficacy.

Citation

Huang L et al. Comparison of antibiotic therapy and appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children: A meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(5):426-34.

Dr. Stubblefield is a pediatric hospitalist at Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Del., and a clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia.

 

Clinical question

What are the differences in rates of treatment failure, duration of hospitalization, and cost between nonoperative treatment (NOT) for acute uncomplicated appendicitis versus urgent appendectomy?

Background

Acute appendicitis is found in around 5% of children presenting for urgent or emergent evaluation of abdominal pain. It is the most common illness prompting emergency abdominal surgery in children.

Dr. Samuel C. Stubblefield
Possible complications from appendicitis include perforation, gangrenous changes, peritonitis, and sepsis. To avoid these significant morbidities, surgical teaching for more than a century has recommended urgent removal of the appendix in acute uncomplicated appendicitis. Appendicitis is classified as “complicated” if there is evidence of perforation, abscess, or gangrenous changes, and “uncomplicated” otherwise.

Several trials in adults have shown that urgent surgery may not be necessary, and NOT of uncomplicated appendicitis may be both effective and safe. NOT involves a course of IV antibiotics and careful clinical monitoring while hospitalized, then a course of oral antibiotics after discharge. Regimens vary but include coverage for aerobic and anaerobic gut flora, such as piperacillin-tazobactam followed by amoxicillin. Little is known about the safety and efficacy of NOT in children.
 

Study design

Meta-analysis.

Search strategy

PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies. This search identified 527 potential articles, of which the authors examined the full text of 68 and ultimately identified 5 single-center trials for analysis (4 prospective cohort trials and 1 randomized, controlled trial).

Synopsis

A total of 404 patients with uncomplicated appendicitis were seen in all trials: 168 received NOT and 236 received standard surgical care (urgent appendectomy). In the single randomized, controlled trial, patients were assigned NOT or surgical care randomly. In the other trials parental preference directed therapy.

The heterogeneity of the design, populations, definitions of illness, duration of follow-up, and NOT treatment regimens made the meta-analysis challenging. Antibiotic options for NOT varied by center but included a course of IV antibiotics followed by 7-10 days of oral antibiotics. NOT success was defined as no need for surgery within 48 hours and no recurrence of appendicitis within 1 month. Of the 236 patients who received standard surgical care, all had appendicitis and 1 had a complication requiring repeat operation. Of the NOT group, 16 (9.5%) had treatment failures, including 3 with perforated appendicitis, and 45 (27%) went on to have an appendectomy within the following year, yielding a risk ratio of failure versus standard treatment of 8.9 (95% confidence interval, 2.7-29.8). A subgroup analysis of patients with appendicoliths who received NOT found that these patients experienced a substantially increased risk of treatment failures and recurrent appendicitis with the risk ratio versus NOT without appendicolith of 10.4 (95% CI, 1.5-74). Of the 30 patients who experienced treatment failure with NOT, 15 had appendicoliths. NOT lengthened hospital stays by 14.3 hours (95% CI, 7.5-21.1) but led to lower total costs by $1,310 (95% CI, $920-$1,690).
 

Bottom line

NOT may be a reasonable alternative to standard surgical management for acute uncomplicated appendicitis without appendicolith in children, with a success rate of greater than 90%. Further larger, randomized prospective studies are required to establish its safety and efficacy.

Citation

Huang L et al. Comparison of antibiotic therapy and appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children: A meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(5):426-34.

Dr. Stubblefield is a pediatric hospitalist at Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Del., and a clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default

How to decide which ‘birthmarks’ spell trouble

Article Type
Changed

 

When evaluating lumps and bumps in infants, categorizing them can help determine whether they need immediate attention, said James R. Treat, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

When evaluating lumps and bumps in infants, categorizing them can help determine whether they need immediate attention, said James R. Treat, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

 

When evaluating lumps and bumps in infants, categorizing them can help determine whether they need immediate attention, said James R. Treat, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

FROM SDEF WOMEN’S & PEDIATRIC DERMATOLOGY SEMINAR

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default

Self-harm on rise in U.S. among girls aged 10-14

Article Type
Changed

The rate of self-inflicted injuries has increased significantly among young girls since 2009, according to a study of emergency department visits for self-inflicted injuries from 2001 to 2015.

In a research letter, Melissa C. Mercado, PhD, and her associates reached that conclusion based on data from 43,138 emergency department visits for self-inflicted injury among young people aged 10-24 years, which were captured by the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System–All Injury Program (JAMA. 2017;318[19]:1931-3. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.13317).

From 2001 to 2008, the overall weighted, age-adjusted rate of self-inflicted injury showed no statistically significant trend upward or downward, reported Dr. Mercado of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Atlanta, and her associates. From 2009 to 2015, however, the rate increased by a significant 5.7% per year, reaching 303.7 per 100,000 population in 2015, compared with 201.6 in 2001.

This increase was even more pronounced among girls, rising by 8.4% per year from 2008 to 2015 in all females but by 18.8% per year in those aged 10-14 years. In adolescent females aged 15-19, the rate of self-inflicted injury rose 7.2% per year from 2008 to 2015. In young women aged 20-24 years, the rate rose 2% per year from 2001 to 2015.

Meanwhile, the rates of self-inflicted injury for males were stable across all time periods and age groups.

“Self-inflicted injury is one of the strongest risk factors for suicide – the second-leading cause of death among those aged 10 to 24 years during 2015,” Dr. Mercado and her coauthors wrote.

The most common method of self-inflicted injury for females was poisoning. As with the overall rates of injury in females, the rates of this method of harm were stable until 2007, then increased by 5.3% until 2015. Self-inflicted injuries among females using a sharp object increased by 7.1% each year from 2001 to 2015, but the rates of blunt-object injuries were stable from 2006 to 2015.

The authors wrote that the finding of an increase in self-harm among females was consistent with youth suicide data, which also show an increase after 2006, particularly among girls and female adolescents aged 10-14 years.

Dr. Mercado and her associates called for the implementation of evidence-based, comprehensive suicide and self-harm prevention strategies. “These strategies include strengthening access to and delivery of care for suicidal youth within health systems and creating protective environments, promoting youth connectedness, teaching coping and problem-solving skills, and identifying and supporting at-risk youth within communities.”

The study was conducted under the auspices of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The findings, however, do not necessarily represent the views of the CDC. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Publications
Topics
Sections

The rate of self-inflicted injuries has increased significantly among young girls since 2009, according to a study of emergency department visits for self-inflicted injuries from 2001 to 2015.

In a research letter, Melissa C. Mercado, PhD, and her associates reached that conclusion based on data from 43,138 emergency department visits for self-inflicted injury among young people aged 10-24 years, which were captured by the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System–All Injury Program (JAMA. 2017;318[19]:1931-3. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.13317).

From 2001 to 2008, the overall weighted, age-adjusted rate of self-inflicted injury showed no statistically significant trend upward or downward, reported Dr. Mercado of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Atlanta, and her associates. From 2009 to 2015, however, the rate increased by a significant 5.7% per year, reaching 303.7 per 100,000 population in 2015, compared with 201.6 in 2001.

This increase was even more pronounced among girls, rising by 8.4% per year from 2008 to 2015 in all females but by 18.8% per year in those aged 10-14 years. In adolescent females aged 15-19, the rate of self-inflicted injury rose 7.2% per year from 2008 to 2015. In young women aged 20-24 years, the rate rose 2% per year from 2001 to 2015.

Meanwhile, the rates of self-inflicted injury for males were stable across all time periods and age groups.

“Self-inflicted injury is one of the strongest risk factors for suicide – the second-leading cause of death among those aged 10 to 24 years during 2015,” Dr. Mercado and her coauthors wrote.

The most common method of self-inflicted injury for females was poisoning. As with the overall rates of injury in females, the rates of this method of harm were stable until 2007, then increased by 5.3% until 2015. Self-inflicted injuries among females using a sharp object increased by 7.1% each year from 2001 to 2015, but the rates of blunt-object injuries were stable from 2006 to 2015.

The authors wrote that the finding of an increase in self-harm among females was consistent with youth suicide data, which also show an increase after 2006, particularly among girls and female adolescents aged 10-14 years.

Dr. Mercado and her associates called for the implementation of evidence-based, comprehensive suicide and self-harm prevention strategies. “These strategies include strengthening access to and delivery of care for suicidal youth within health systems and creating protective environments, promoting youth connectedness, teaching coping and problem-solving skills, and identifying and supporting at-risk youth within communities.”

The study was conducted under the auspices of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The findings, however, do not necessarily represent the views of the CDC. No conflicts of interest were declared.

The rate of self-inflicted injuries has increased significantly among young girls since 2009, according to a study of emergency department visits for self-inflicted injuries from 2001 to 2015.

In a research letter, Melissa C. Mercado, PhD, and her associates reached that conclusion based on data from 43,138 emergency department visits for self-inflicted injury among young people aged 10-24 years, which were captured by the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System–All Injury Program (JAMA. 2017;318[19]:1931-3. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.13317).

From 2001 to 2008, the overall weighted, age-adjusted rate of self-inflicted injury showed no statistically significant trend upward or downward, reported Dr. Mercado of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Atlanta, and her associates. From 2009 to 2015, however, the rate increased by a significant 5.7% per year, reaching 303.7 per 100,000 population in 2015, compared with 201.6 in 2001.

This increase was even more pronounced among girls, rising by 8.4% per year from 2008 to 2015 in all females but by 18.8% per year in those aged 10-14 years. In adolescent females aged 15-19, the rate of self-inflicted injury rose 7.2% per year from 2008 to 2015. In young women aged 20-24 years, the rate rose 2% per year from 2001 to 2015.

Meanwhile, the rates of self-inflicted injury for males were stable across all time periods and age groups.

“Self-inflicted injury is one of the strongest risk factors for suicide – the second-leading cause of death among those aged 10 to 24 years during 2015,” Dr. Mercado and her coauthors wrote.

The most common method of self-inflicted injury for females was poisoning. As with the overall rates of injury in females, the rates of this method of harm were stable until 2007, then increased by 5.3% until 2015. Self-inflicted injuries among females using a sharp object increased by 7.1% each year from 2001 to 2015, but the rates of blunt-object injuries were stable from 2006 to 2015.

The authors wrote that the finding of an increase in self-harm among females was consistent with youth suicide data, which also show an increase after 2006, particularly among girls and female adolescents aged 10-14 years.

Dr. Mercado and her associates called for the implementation of evidence-based, comprehensive suicide and self-harm prevention strategies. “These strategies include strengthening access to and delivery of care for suicidal youth within health systems and creating protective environments, promoting youth connectedness, teaching coping and problem-solving skills, and identifying and supporting at-risk youth within communities.”

The study was conducted under the auspices of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The findings, however, do not necessarily represent the views of the CDC. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM JAMA

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Rates of self-inflicted injury rose significantly in young women between 2009 and 2015, particularly in those aged 10-14 years.

Major finding: The rate of emergency department visits for self-inflicted injury rose 18.8% per year from 2009 to 2015 in females aged 10-14 years.

Data source: Analysis of data from 43,138 emergency department visits of young people aged 10-24 years for self-inflicted injury.

Disclosures: The study was conducted under the auspices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but the findings do not necessarily represent the views of the CDC. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Disqus Comments
Default

Antibiotic overprescribing: Still a major concern

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Antibiotic overprescribing: Still a major concern
 

Despite universal agreement that antibiotic overprescribing is a problem, the practice continues to vex us. Antibiotic use—whether appropriate or not—has been linked to rising rates of antimicrobial resistance, disruption of the gut microbiome leading to Clostridium difficile infections, allergic reactions, and increased health care costs (TABLE 11-6). And yet, physicians continue to overprescribe this class of medication.

A 2016 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report estimates that at least 30% of antibiotics prescribed in US outpatient settings are unnecessary.7 Another report cites a slightly higher figure across a variety of health care settings.8 Pair these findings with the fact that there are currently few new drugs in development to target resistant bacteria, and you have the potential for a post-antibiotic era in which common infections could become lethal.7

In 2003, the CDC launched its “Get Smart: Know When Antibiotics Work” program, focused on decreasing inappropriate antibiotic use in the outpatient setting.9 In 2014, the White House released the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria with a goal of decreasing inappropriate outpatient antibiotic use by 50% and inappropriate inpatient use by 20% by 2020.10 And, on an international level, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed a 5-year strategic framework in 2015 for implementing its Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance.11

Family practitioners are on the front lines of this battle. Here’s what we can do now.

[polldaddy:9885811]

When and where are antibiotics most often inappropriately prescribed?

The diagnosis leading to the most frequent inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics is acute respiratory tract infection (ARTI), which includes bronchitis, otitis media, pharyngitis, sinusitis, tonsillitis, the common cold, and pneumonia. Up to 40% of antibiotic prescriptions for these conditions are unnecessary.8,12 Bronchitis is the most common ARTI diagnosis associated with inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions, while sinusitis, suppurative otitis media, and pharyngitis are the diagnoses associated with the lion’s share of all (appropriate and inappropriate) antibiotic prescriptions within the ARTI category.8,9,12,13 There are national clinical guidelines delineating when antibiotic treatment is appropriate for these conditions.14-16

With respect to setting, studies have presented conflicting results as to whether there is a difference between antibiotic prescribing in office-based vs emergency department (ED) settings. Here is a sample of some of the literature to date:

  • One study found a higher rate of antibiotic prescribing during ED visits (21%) than office visits (9%), despite the fact that between 2007 and 2009, more antibiotic prescriptions were written for adults in primary care offices than in either outpatient hospital clinics or EDs.17
  • A cross-sectional study focused on the frequency with which antibiotics were prescribed for uncomplicated acute rhinosinusitis. Researchers analyzed data from 2005 to 2010 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys (NAMCS) and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys (NHAMCS) and found that more than half of the patients received prescriptions for antibiotics, but that there was no overall difference in antibiotic prescriptions between primary care and ED presentation.18
  • A retrospective analysis that examined antibiotic prescribing found that between 2006 and 2010, outpatient hospital practices (56%) and community-practice offices (60%) prescribed more antibiotics for ARTIs than EDs (51%).12

Stick to narrow-spectrum agents when possible

Using broad-spectrum antibiotics, such as quinolones or imipenem, first line, contributes more to the problem of antibiotic resistance than does prescribing narrow-spectrum antibiotics such as amoxicillin, cephalexin, or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.7 Yet between 2007 and 2009, broad-spectrum agents were prescribed for 61% of outpatient adult visits in which patients received an antibiotic prescription.17 Quinolones (25%), macrolides (20%), and aminopenicillins (12%) were most commonly prescribed, and antibiotic prescriptions were most often written for respiratory conditions, such as bronchitis, for which we now know antibiotics are rarely indicated.17

Up to 40% of antibiotic prescriptions for acute respiratory tract infections are unnecessary.

Between 2006 and 2008, pediatric patients who received antibiotic prescriptions were given broad-spectrum agents 50% of the time, of which macrolides were the class most commonly prescribed.13

More recently, researchers examined the frequency with which physicians prescribe narrow-spectrum, first-line antibiotics for otitis media, sinusitis, and pharyngitis using 2010 to 2011 NAMCS/NHAMCS data. They found that physicians used first-line agents recommended by professional guidelines 52% of the time, although it was estimated that they would have been appropriate in 80% of cases; pediatric patients were more likely to receive appropriate first-line antibiotics than adult patients.19 Macrolides, especially azithromycin, were the most common non–first-line antibiotics prescribed.19,20 The bottom line is that when antibiotics are indicated for upper respiratory infections (otitis media, sinusitis, and pharyngitis), physicians should prescribe a narrow-spectrum antibiotic first.

Antibiotic overprescribing affects the gut and beyond

The human intestinal microbiome is composed of a diverse array of bacteria, viruses, and parasites.21 The main functions of the gut microbiome include interacting with the immune system and participating in biochemical reactions in the gut, such as absorption of fat-soluble vitamins and the production of vitamin K.

 

 

 

As we know, antibiotics decrease the diversity of gut bacteria, which, in turn, can cause less efficient nutrient extraction, as well as a vulnerability to enteric infections.21 It is well known, for example, that the bacterial gut microbiome can either inhibit or promote diarrheal illnesses such as those caused by C. difficile. C. difficile infection (CDI) is now the most common health care-related infection, accounting for approximately a half million health care facility infections a year.22 CDI extends hospital stays an average of almost 10 days and is estimated to cost the health care system $6.3 billion annually.23

We should pause before prescribing drugs that can alter our microbiome in complex and only partially understood ways.

Antibiotics can also eliminate antibiotic-susceptible organisms, allowing resistant organisms to proliferate.4 They also promote the transmission of genes for antibiotic resistance between gut bacteria.4

Beyond the gut

Less well known is that gut bacteria can promote or inhibit extraintestinal infections.

Gut bacteria and HIV. In early human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections, for example, gut populations of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacteria are reduced, and the gut barrier becomes compromised.24 Increasing translocation of bacterial products is associated with HIV disease progression. Preservation of Lactobacillus populations in the gut is associated with markers predictive of better HIV outcomes, including a higher CD4 count, a lower viral load, and less evidence of gut microbial translocation.24 This underscores the importance of maintaining a healthy gut flora in patients with HIV, using such steps as avoiding unnecessary antibiotics.

Gut bacteria and stress, depression. Antibiotics directly induce the expression of key genes that affect the stress response.25 While causative studies are lacking, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that the gut microbiome is involved in 2-way communication with the brain and can affect, and be affected by, stress and depression.21,26-30 Diseases and conditions that seem to have a putative connection to a disordered microbiome (dysbiosis) include depression, anxiety, Crohn’s disease, type 2 diabetes, and obesity.

Gut bacteria and childhood obesity. Repeated use of broader-spectrum antibiotics in children <24 months of age increases the risk of developing childhood obesity.1,6 One theory for the association is that the effects of broad-spectrum antibiotics on the intestinal flora of young children may alter long-term energy homeostasis resulting in a higher risk for obesity.1

Gut bacteria and asthma. Studies demonstrate differences in the gut microbiome of asthmatic and nonasthmatic patients. These differences affect the activities of helper T-cell subsets (Th1 and Th2), which in turn affect the development of immune tolerance.31

Although additional studies are needed to confirm these findings, the evidence collected thus far should make us all pause before prescribing drugs that can alter our microbiome in complex and only partially understood ways.

What can we do right now?

The issues created by the inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics have been known for decades, and multiple attempts have been made to find solutions and implement change. Although some small successes have occurred, little overall progress has been made in reducing antibiotic prescribing in the general population. A historical review of why physicians prescribe antibiotics inappropriately and the interventions that have successfully reduced this prescribing may prove valuable as we continue to look for new, effective answers.

Why do we overprescribe antibiotics? A 2015 systematic literature review found that patient demand, pharmaceutical company marketing activities, limited up-to-date information sources, and physician fear of losing their patients are major reasons physicians cite for prescribing antibiotics.32

Monthly emails to physicians comparing their prescribing habits to peers and top performers reduced inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections.

In a separate study that explored antibiotic prescribing habits for acute bronchitis,33 clinicians cited “patient demand” as the major reason for prescribing antibiotics. Respondents also reported that “other physicians were responsible for inappropriate antibiotic prescribing.”33

Strategies that work

Some early intervention programs directed at reducing antibiotic prescribing demonstrated success (TABLE 2).34-36 One example comes from a 1996 to 1998 study of 4 primary care practices.34 Researchers evaluated the impact of a multidimensional intervention effort targeted at clinicians and patients and aimed at lowering the use of antimicrobial agents for acute uncomplicated bronchitis in adults. It incorporated a number of elements, including office-based and household patient educational materials, and a clinician intervention involving education, practice profiling, and academic detailing. Physicians in this program reduced their rates of antibiotic prescribing for uncomplicated bronchitis from 74% to 48%.34

Employing EMRs. A more recent study focused on using electronic medical records (EMRs) and communications to modify physician antibiotic prescribing.35 By sending physicians monthly emails comparing their prescribing patterns to peers and “typical top performers,” inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions for ARTIs went from 19.9% to 3.7%.35

Patients and parents reported higher satisfaction with physicians who explained why antibiotics were not indicated vs physicians who simply prescribed them.

In another effort, the same researchers modified physicians’ EMRs to detect when potentially inappropriate antibiotics were prescribed. The system then prompted the physician to provide an “antibiotic justification note,” which remained visible in the patient’s chart. This approach, which encouraged physicians to follow prescribing guidelines by taking advantage of their concerns about their reputations, produced a 77% reduction in antibiotic prescribing.35

Focusing on the public. Studies have also examined the effectiveness of educating the public about when antibiotics are not likely to be helpful and of the harms of unnecessary antibiotics. Studies conducted in Tennessee and Wisconsin that combined prescriber and community education about unnecessary antibiotics for children found that the intervention reduced antibiotic prescribing in both locations by about 19% compared with about a 9% reduction in the control groups.36,37

 

 

 

Does prescribing antibiotics affect patient satisfaction?

The results are mixed as to whether prescribing antibiotics affects patient satisfaction. Two studies in the early 2000s found that both patients and parents reported higher satisfaction with physicians who explained why antibiotics were not indicated vs physicians who simply prescribed them, and that such explanations do not need to take a lot of time.37,38 (See TABLE 39,37,38 for patient care tips.)

A more recent study found that higher antibiotic prescribing practices in Britain were associated with modestly higher patient satisfaction ratings.39 The authors of this study noted, however, that reduced antibiotic prescribing may be a proxy for other practice patterns that affected satisfaction ratings.

Reducing antibiotic prescribing reduces resistance

There is also strong evidence that when physicians decrease antibiotic prescribing, antimicrobial resistance follows suit. One of the earlier landmark studies to demonstrate this was a Finnish study published in 1997.40 The authors found that a reduction of macrolide antibiotic consumption in Finland led to a reduction in streptococci macrolide resistance from 16.5% to 8.6%.40

There is strong evidence that when physicians decrease antibiotic prescribing, antimicrobial resistance follows suit.

Since then, multiple studies have demonstrated similar results for both respiratory and urinary tract infections.41,42 A 2017 meta-analysis analyzing 32 studies found that antibiotic stewardship programs reduced the incidence of infections and colonization with multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (51% reduction), extended-spectrum beta-lactamase–producing Gram-negative bacteria (48%), and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (37%). There was also a reduction in the incidence of C. difficile infections (32%).43

CORRESPONDENCE
David C. Fiore, MD, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine, Brigham Bldg, MS 316, Reno, NV 89557; dfiore@medicine.nevada.edu.

References

1. Bailey LC, Forrest CB, Zhang P, et al. Association of antibiotics in infancy with early childhood obesity. JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168:1063-1069.

2. Costelloe C, Metcalfe C, Lovering A, et al. Effect of antibiotic prescribing in primary care on antimicrobial resistance in individual patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2010;340:c2096.

3. Gleckman RA, Czachor JS. Antibiotic side effects. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;21:53-60.

4. Jernberg C, Löfmark S, Edlund C, et al. Long-term impacts of antibiotic exposure on the human intestinal microbiota. Microbiology. 2010;156:3216-3223.

5. Logan AC, Jacka FN, Craig JM, et al. The microbiome and mental health: looking back, moving forward with lessons from allergic diseases. Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci. 2016;14:131-147.

6. Marra F, Marra CA, Richardson K, et al. Antibiotic use in children is associated with increased risk of asthma. Pediatrics. 2009;123:1003-1010.

7. Harris AM, Hicks LA, Qaseem A, for the High Value Care Task Force of the American College of Physicians and for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Appropriate antibiotic use for acute respiratory tract infection in adults: advice for high-value care from the American College of Physicians and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:425-434.

8. Fleming-Dutra KE, Hersh AL, Shapiro DJ, et al. Prevalence of inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions among US ambulatory care visits, 2010-2011. JAMA. 2016;315:1864-1873.

9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Antibiotic prescribing and use. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/getsmart/. Accessed October 23, 2017.

10. The White House. National action plan for combating antibiotic-resistant bacteria. March 2015:1-63. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/national_action_plan_for_combating_antibotic-resistant_bacteria.pdf. Accessed October 23, 2017.

11. World Health Organization. Global action plan on antimicrobial resistance. 2015. Available at: http://www.who.int/drugresistance/global_action_plan/en/. Accessed October 23, 2017.

12. Barlam TF, Soria-Saucedo R, Cabral HJ, et al. Unnecessary antibiotics for acute respiratory tract infections: association with care setting and patient demographics. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2016;3:1-7.

13. Hersh AL, Shapiro DJ, Pavia AT, et al. Antibiotic prescribing in ambulatory pediatrics in the United States. Pediatrics. 2011;128:1053-1061.

14. Chow AW, Benninger MS, Brook I, et al. Executive summary: IDSA Clinical Practice Guideline for Acute Bacterial Rhinosinusitis in Children and Adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;54:1041-1045.

15. Rosenfeld RM, Piccirillo JF, Chandrasekhar SS, et al. Clinical practice guideline (update): adult sinusitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;152(2 Suppl):S1-S39.

16. Shulman ST, Bisno AL, Clegg HW, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and management of group A streptococcal pharyngitis: 2012 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55:1279-1282.

17. Shapiro DJ, Hicks LA, Pavia AT, et al. Antibiotic prescribing for adults in ambulatory care in the USA, 2007-09. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014;69:234-240.

18. Bergmark RW, Sedaghat AR. Antibiotic prescription for acute rhinosinusitis: emergency departments versus primary care providers. Laryngoscope. 2016;(November):1-6.

19. Hersh AL, Fleming-Dutra KE, Shapiro DJ, et al. Frequency of first-line antibiotic selection among US ambulatory care visits for otitis media, sinusitis, and pharyngitis. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176:1870-1872.

20. Hicks LA, Bartoces MG, Roberts RM, et al. US outpatient antibiotic prescribing variation according to geography, patient population, and provider specialty in 2011. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60:1308-1316.

21. Langdon A, Crook N, Dantas G. The effects of antibiotics on the microbiome throughout development and alternative approaches for therapeutic modulation. Genome Med. 2016;8:39.

22. Lessa FC, Gould CV, McDonald CL. Current status of Clostridium difficile infection epidemiology. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55(Suppl 2):S65-S70.

23. Zhang S, Palazuelos-Munoz S, Balsells EM, et al. Cost of hospital management of Clostridium difficile infection in United States—a meta-analysis and modelling study. BMC Infect Dis. 2016;16:447.

24. Pérez-Santiago J, Gianella S, Massanella M, et al. Gut lactobacillales are associated with higher CD4 and less microbial translocation during HIV infection. AIDS. 2013;27:1921-1931.

25. Maurice CF, Haiser HJ, Turnbaugh PJ. Xenobiotics shape the physiology and gene expression of the active human gut microbiome. Cell. 2013;152:39-50.

26. Bravo JA, Julio-Pieper M, Forsythe P, et al. Communication between gastrointestinal bacteria and the nervous system. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2012;12:667-672.

27. Clemente JC, Ursell LK, Parfrey LW, et al. The impact of the gut microbiota on human health: An integrative view. Cell. 2012;148:1258-1270.

28. Dinan TG, Cryan JF. Regulation of the stress response by the gut microbiota: implications for psychoneuroendocrinology. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2012;37:1369-1378.

29. Foster JA, McVey Neufeld KA. Gut-brain axis: how the microbiome influences anxiety and depression. Trends Neurosci. 2013;36:305-312.

30. Wang Y, Kasper LH. The role of microbiome in central nervous system disorders. Brain Behav Immun. 2014;38:1-12.

31. Riiser A. The human microbiome, asthma, and allergy. Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology. 2015;11:35.

32. Md Rezal RS, Hassali MA, Alrasheedy AA, et al. Physicians’ knowledge, perceptions and behaviour towards antibiotic prescribing: a systematic review of the literature. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2015;13:665-680.

33. Dempsey PP, Businger AC, Whaley LE, et al. Primary care clinicians’ perceptions about antibiotic prescribing for acute bronchitis: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2014;15:194.

34. Gonzales R, Steiner JF, Lum A, et al. Decreasing antibiotic use in ambulatory practice. JAMA. 1999;281:1512-1519.

35. Meeker D, Linder JA, Fox CR, et al. Effect of behavioral interventions on inappropriate antibiotic prescribing among primary care practices: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;315:562-570.

36. Perz JF, Craig AS, Coffey CS, et al. Changes in antibiotic prescribing for children after a community-wide campaign. JAMA. 2002;287:3103-3109.

37. Belongia EA, Sullivan BJ, Chyou PH, et al. A community intervention trial to promote judicious antibiotic use and reduce penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae carriage in children. Pediatrics. 2001;108:575-583.

38. Mangione-Smith R, McGlynn EA, Elliott MN, et al. Parent expectations for antibiotics, physician-parent communication, and satisfaction. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;155:800-806.

39. Ashworth M, White P, Jongsma H,et al. Antibiotic prescribing and patient satisfaction in primary care in England: cross-sectional analysis of national patient survey data and prescribing data. Br J Gen Pract. 2016;66:e40-e46.

40. Seppälä H, Klaukka T, Vuopio-Varkila J, et al. The effect of changes in the consumption of macrolide antibiotics on erythromycin resistance in group A streptococci in Finland. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:441-446.

41. Guillemot D, Varon E, Bernède C, et al. Reduction of antibiotic use in the community reduces the rate of colonization with penicillin g–nonsusceptible Streptococcus pneumoniae. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41:930-938.

42. Butler CC, Dunstan F, Heginbothom M, et al. Containing antibiotic resistance: decreased antibiotic-resistant coliform urinary tract infections with reduction in antibiotic prescribing by general practices. Br J Gen Pract. 2007;57:785-792.

43. Baur D, Gladstone BP, Burkert F, et al. Effect of antibiotic stewardship on the incidence of infection and colonisation with antibiotic-resistant bacteria and Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017;17:990-1001.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine
dfiore@medicine.nevada.edu

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 66(12)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
730-736
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine
dfiore@medicine.nevada.edu

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine
dfiore@medicine.nevada.edu

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF
 

Despite universal agreement that antibiotic overprescribing is a problem, the practice continues to vex us. Antibiotic use—whether appropriate or not—has been linked to rising rates of antimicrobial resistance, disruption of the gut microbiome leading to Clostridium difficile infections, allergic reactions, and increased health care costs (TABLE 11-6). And yet, physicians continue to overprescribe this class of medication.

A 2016 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report estimates that at least 30% of antibiotics prescribed in US outpatient settings are unnecessary.7 Another report cites a slightly higher figure across a variety of health care settings.8 Pair these findings with the fact that there are currently few new drugs in development to target resistant bacteria, and you have the potential for a post-antibiotic era in which common infections could become lethal.7

In 2003, the CDC launched its “Get Smart: Know When Antibiotics Work” program, focused on decreasing inappropriate antibiotic use in the outpatient setting.9 In 2014, the White House released the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria with a goal of decreasing inappropriate outpatient antibiotic use by 50% and inappropriate inpatient use by 20% by 2020.10 And, on an international level, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed a 5-year strategic framework in 2015 for implementing its Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance.11

Family practitioners are on the front lines of this battle. Here’s what we can do now.

[polldaddy:9885811]

When and where are antibiotics most often inappropriately prescribed?

The diagnosis leading to the most frequent inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics is acute respiratory tract infection (ARTI), which includes bronchitis, otitis media, pharyngitis, sinusitis, tonsillitis, the common cold, and pneumonia. Up to 40% of antibiotic prescriptions for these conditions are unnecessary.8,12 Bronchitis is the most common ARTI diagnosis associated with inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions, while sinusitis, suppurative otitis media, and pharyngitis are the diagnoses associated with the lion’s share of all (appropriate and inappropriate) antibiotic prescriptions within the ARTI category.8,9,12,13 There are national clinical guidelines delineating when antibiotic treatment is appropriate for these conditions.14-16

With respect to setting, studies have presented conflicting results as to whether there is a difference between antibiotic prescribing in office-based vs emergency department (ED) settings. Here is a sample of some of the literature to date:

  • One study found a higher rate of antibiotic prescribing during ED visits (21%) than office visits (9%), despite the fact that between 2007 and 2009, more antibiotic prescriptions were written for adults in primary care offices than in either outpatient hospital clinics or EDs.17
  • A cross-sectional study focused on the frequency with which antibiotics were prescribed for uncomplicated acute rhinosinusitis. Researchers analyzed data from 2005 to 2010 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys (NAMCS) and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys (NHAMCS) and found that more than half of the patients received prescriptions for antibiotics, but that there was no overall difference in antibiotic prescriptions between primary care and ED presentation.18
  • A retrospective analysis that examined antibiotic prescribing found that between 2006 and 2010, outpatient hospital practices (56%) and community-practice offices (60%) prescribed more antibiotics for ARTIs than EDs (51%).12

Stick to narrow-spectrum agents when possible

Using broad-spectrum antibiotics, such as quinolones or imipenem, first line, contributes more to the problem of antibiotic resistance than does prescribing narrow-spectrum antibiotics such as amoxicillin, cephalexin, or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.7 Yet between 2007 and 2009, broad-spectrum agents were prescribed for 61% of outpatient adult visits in which patients received an antibiotic prescription.17 Quinolones (25%), macrolides (20%), and aminopenicillins (12%) were most commonly prescribed, and antibiotic prescriptions were most often written for respiratory conditions, such as bronchitis, for which we now know antibiotics are rarely indicated.17

Up to 40% of antibiotic prescriptions for acute respiratory tract infections are unnecessary.

Between 2006 and 2008, pediatric patients who received antibiotic prescriptions were given broad-spectrum agents 50% of the time, of which macrolides were the class most commonly prescribed.13

More recently, researchers examined the frequency with which physicians prescribe narrow-spectrum, first-line antibiotics for otitis media, sinusitis, and pharyngitis using 2010 to 2011 NAMCS/NHAMCS data. They found that physicians used first-line agents recommended by professional guidelines 52% of the time, although it was estimated that they would have been appropriate in 80% of cases; pediatric patients were more likely to receive appropriate first-line antibiotics than adult patients.19 Macrolides, especially azithromycin, were the most common non–first-line antibiotics prescribed.19,20 The bottom line is that when antibiotics are indicated for upper respiratory infections (otitis media, sinusitis, and pharyngitis), physicians should prescribe a narrow-spectrum antibiotic first.

Antibiotic overprescribing affects the gut and beyond

The human intestinal microbiome is composed of a diverse array of bacteria, viruses, and parasites.21 The main functions of the gut microbiome include interacting with the immune system and participating in biochemical reactions in the gut, such as absorption of fat-soluble vitamins and the production of vitamin K.

 

 

 

As we know, antibiotics decrease the diversity of gut bacteria, which, in turn, can cause less efficient nutrient extraction, as well as a vulnerability to enteric infections.21 It is well known, for example, that the bacterial gut microbiome can either inhibit or promote diarrheal illnesses such as those caused by C. difficile. C. difficile infection (CDI) is now the most common health care-related infection, accounting for approximately a half million health care facility infections a year.22 CDI extends hospital stays an average of almost 10 days and is estimated to cost the health care system $6.3 billion annually.23

We should pause before prescribing drugs that can alter our microbiome in complex and only partially understood ways.

Antibiotics can also eliminate antibiotic-susceptible organisms, allowing resistant organisms to proliferate.4 They also promote the transmission of genes for antibiotic resistance between gut bacteria.4

Beyond the gut

Less well known is that gut bacteria can promote or inhibit extraintestinal infections.

Gut bacteria and HIV. In early human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections, for example, gut populations of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacteria are reduced, and the gut barrier becomes compromised.24 Increasing translocation of bacterial products is associated with HIV disease progression. Preservation of Lactobacillus populations in the gut is associated with markers predictive of better HIV outcomes, including a higher CD4 count, a lower viral load, and less evidence of gut microbial translocation.24 This underscores the importance of maintaining a healthy gut flora in patients with HIV, using such steps as avoiding unnecessary antibiotics.

Gut bacteria and stress, depression. Antibiotics directly induce the expression of key genes that affect the stress response.25 While causative studies are lacking, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that the gut microbiome is involved in 2-way communication with the brain and can affect, and be affected by, stress and depression.21,26-30 Diseases and conditions that seem to have a putative connection to a disordered microbiome (dysbiosis) include depression, anxiety, Crohn’s disease, type 2 diabetes, and obesity.

Gut bacteria and childhood obesity. Repeated use of broader-spectrum antibiotics in children <24 months of age increases the risk of developing childhood obesity.1,6 One theory for the association is that the effects of broad-spectrum antibiotics on the intestinal flora of young children may alter long-term energy homeostasis resulting in a higher risk for obesity.1

Gut bacteria and asthma. Studies demonstrate differences in the gut microbiome of asthmatic and nonasthmatic patients. These differences affect the activities of helper T-cell subsets (Th1 and Th2), which in turn affect the development of immune tolerance.31

Although additional studies are needed to confirm these findings, the evidence collected thus far should make us all pause before prescribing drugs that can alter our microbiome in complex and only partially understood ways.

What can we do right now?

The issues created by the inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics have been known for decades, and multiple attempts have been made to find solutions and implement change. Although some small successes have occurred, little overall progress has been made in reducing antibiotic prescribing in the general population. A historical review of why physicians prescribe antibiotics inappropriately and the interventions that have successfully reduced this prescribing may prove valuable as we continue to look for new, effective answers.

Why do we overprescribe antibiotics? A 2015 systematic literature review found that patient demand, pharmaceutical company marketing activities, limited up-to-date information sources, and physician fear of losing their patients are major reasons physicians cite for prescribing antibiotics.32

Monthly emails to physicians comparing their prescribing habits to peers and top performers reduced inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections.

In a separate study that explored antibiotic prescribing habits for acute bronchitis,33 clinicians cited “patient demand” as the major reason for prescribing antibiotics. Respondents also reported that “other physicians were responsible for inappropriate antibiotic prescribing.”33

Strategies that work

Some early intervention programs directed at reducing antibiotic prescribing demonstrated success (TABLE 2).34-36 One example comes from a 1996 to 1998 study of 4 primary care practices.34 Researchers evaluated the impact of a multidimensional intervention effort targeted at clinicians and patients and aimed at lowering the use of antimicrobial agents for acute uncomplicated bronchitis in adults. It incorporated a number of elements, including office-based and household patient educational materials, and a clinician intervention involving education, practice profiling, and academic detailing. Physicians in this program reduced their rates of antibiotic prescribing for uncomplicated bronchitis from 74% to 48%.34

Employing EMRs. A more recent study focused on using electronic medical records (EMRs) and communications to modify physician antibiotic prescribing.35 By sending physicians monthly emails comparing their prescribing patterns to peers and “typical top performers,” inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions for ARTIs went from 19.9% to 3.7%.35

Patients and parents reported higher satisfaction with physicians who explained why antibiotics were not indicated vs physicians who simply prescribed them.

In another effort, the same researchers modified physicians’ EMRs to detect when potentially inappropriate antibiotics were prescribed. The system then prompted the physician to provide an “antibiotic justification note,” which remained visible in the patient’s chart. This approach, which encouraged physicians to follow prescribing guidelines by taking advantage of their concerns about their reputations, produced a 77% reduction in antibiotic prescribing.35

Focusing on the public. Studies have also examined the effectiveness of educating the public about when antibiotics are not likely to be helpful and of the harms of unnecessary antibiotics. Studies conducted in Tennessee and Wisconsin that combined prescriber and community education about unnecessary antibiotics for children found that the intervention reduced antibiotic prescribing in both locations by about 19% compared with about a 9% reduction in the control groups.36,37

 

 

 

Does prescribing antibiotics affect patient satisfaction?

The results are mixed as to whether prescribing antibiotics affects patient satisfaction. Two studies in the early 2000s found that both patients and parents reported higher satisfaction with physicians who explained why antibiotics were not indicated vs physicians who simply prescribed them, and that such explanations do not need to take a lot of time.37,38 (See TABLE 39,37,38 for patient care tips.)

A more recent study found that higher antibiotic prescribing practices in Britain were associated with modestly higher patient satisfaction ratings.39 The authors of this study noted, however, that reduced antibiotic prescribing may be a proxy for other practice patterns that affected satisfaction ratings.

Reducing antibiotic prescribing reduces resistance

There is also strong evidence that when physicians decrease antibiotic prescribing, antimicrobial resistance follows suit. One of the earlier landmark studies to demonstrate this was a Finnish study published in 1997.40 The authors found that a reduction of macrolide antibiotic consumption in Finland led to a reduction in streptococci macrolide resistance from 16.5% to 8.6%.40

There is strong evidence that when physicians decrease antibiotic prescribing, antimicrobial resistance follows suit.

Since then, multiple studies have demonstrated similar results for both respiratory and urinary tract infections.41,42 A 2017 meta-analysis analyzing 32 studies found that antibiotic stewardship programs reduced the incidence of infections and colonization with multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (51% reduction), extended-spectrum beta-lactamase–producing Gram-negative bacteria (48%), and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (37%). There was also a reduction in the incidence of C. difficile infections (32%).43

CORRESPONDENCE
David C. Fiore, MD, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine, Brigham Bldg, MS 316, Reno, NV 89557; dfiore@medicine.nevada.edu.

 

Despite universal agreement that antibiotic overprescribing is a problem, the practice continues to vex us. Antibiotic use—whether appropriate or not—has been linked to rising rates of antimicrobial resistance, disruption of the gut microbiome leading to Clostridium difficile infections, allergic reactions, and increased health care costs (TABLE 11-6). And yet, physicians continue to overprescribe this class of medication.

A 2016 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report estimates that at least 30% of antibiotics prescribed in US outpatient settings are unnecessary.7 Another report cites a slightly higher figure across a variety of health care settings.8 Pair these findings with the fact that there are currently few new drugs in development to target resistant bacteria, and you have the potential for a post-antibiotic era in which common infections could become lethal.7

In 2003, the CDC launched its “Get Smart: Know When Antibiotics Work” program, focused on decreasing inappropriate antibiotic use in the outpatient setting.9 In 2014, the White House released the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria with a goal of decreasing inappropriate outpatient antibiotic use by 50% and inappropriate inpatient use by 20% by 2020.10 And, on an international level, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed a 5-year strategic framework in 2015 for implementing its Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance.11

Family practitioners are on the front lines of this battle. Here’s what we can do now.

[polldaddy:9885811]

When and where are antibiotics most often inappropriately prescribed?

The diagnosis leading to the most frequent inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics is acute respiratory tract infection (ARTI), which includes bronchitis, otitis media, pharyngitis, sinusitis, tonsillitis, the common cold, and pneumonia. Up to 40% of antibiotic prescriptions for these conditions are unnecessary.8,12 Bronchitis is the most common ARTI diagnosis associated with inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions, while sinusitis, suppurative otitis media, and pharyngitis are the diagnoses associated with the lion’s share of all (appropriate and inappropriate) antibiotic prescriptions within the ARTI category.8,9,12,13 There are national clinical guidelines delineating when antibiotic treatment is appropriate for these conditions.14-16

With respect to setting, studies have presented conflicting results as to whether there is a difference between antibiotic prescribing in office-based vs emergency department (ED) settings. Here is a sample of some of the literature to date:

  • One study found a higher rate of antibiotic prescribing during ED visits (21%) than office visits (9%), despite the fact that between 2007 and 2009, more antibiotic prescriptions were written for adults in primary care offices than in either outpatient hospital clinics or EDs.17
  • A cross-sectional study focused on the frequency with which antibiotics were prescribed for uncomplicated acute rhinosinusitis. Researchers analyzed data from 2005 to 2010 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys (NAMCS) and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys (NHAMCS) and found that more than half of the patients received prescriptions for antibiotics, but that there was no overall difference in antibiotic prescriptions between primary care and ED presentation.18
  • A retrospective analysis that examined antibiotic prescribing found that between 2006 and 2010, outpatient hospital practices (56%) and community-practice offices (60%) prescribed more antibiotics for ARTIs than EDs (51%).12

Stick to narrow-spectrum agents when possible

Using broad-spectrum antibiotics, such as quinolones or imipenem, first line, contributes more to the problem of antibiotic resistance than does prescribing narrow-spectrum antibiotics such as amoxicillin, cephalexin, or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.7 Yet between 2007 and 2009, broad-spectrum agents were prescribed for 61% of outpatient adult visits in which patients received an antibiotic prescription.17 Quinolones (25%), macrolides (20%), and aminopenicillins (12%) were most commonly prescribed, and antibiotic prescriptions were most often written for respiratory conditions, such as bronchitis, for which we now know antibiotics are rarely indicated.17

Up to 40% of antibiotic prescriptions for acute respiratory tract infections are unnecessary.

Between 2006 and 2008, pediatric patients who received antibiotic prescriptions were given broad-spectrum agents 50% of the time, of which macrolides were the class most commonly prescribed.13

More recently, researchers examined the frequency with which physicians prescribe narrow-spectrum, first-line antibiotics for otitis media, sinusitis, and pharyngitis using 2010 to 2011 NAMCS/NHAMCS data. They found that physicians used first-line agents recommended by professional guidelines 52% of the time, although it was estimated that they would have been appropriate in 80% of cases; pediatric patients were more likely to receive appropriate first-line antibiotics than adult patients.19 Macrolides, especially azithromycin, were the most common non–first-line antibiotics prescribed.19,20 The bottom line is that when antibiotics are indicated for upper respiratory infections (otitis media, sinusitis, and pharyngitis), physicians should prescribe a narrow-spectrum antibiotic first.

Antibiotic overprescribing affects the gut and beyond

The human intestinal microbiome is composed of a diverse array of bacteria, viruses, and parasites.21 The main functions of the gut microbiome include interacting with the immune system and participating in biochemical reactions in the gut, such as absorption of fat-soluble vitamins and the production of vitamin K.

 

 

 

As we know, antibiotics decrease the diversity of gut bacteria, which, in turn, can cause less efficient nutrient extraction, as well as a vulnerability to enteric infections.21 It is well known, for example, that the bacterial gut microbiome can either inhibit or promote diarrheal illnesses such as those caused by C. difficile. C. difficile infection (CDI) is now the most common health care-related infection, accounting for approximately a half million health care facility infections a year.22 CDI extends hospital stays an average of almost 10 days and is estimated to cost the health care system $6.3 billion annually.23

We should pause before prescribing drugs that can alter our microbiome in complex and only partially understood ways.

Antibiotics can also eliminate antibiotic-susceptible organisms, allowing resistant organisms to proliferate.4 They also promote the transmission of genes for antibiotic resistance between gut bacteria.4

Beyond the gut

Less well known is that gut bacteria can promote or inhibit extraintestinal infections.

Gut bacteria and HIV. In early human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections, for example, gut populations of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacteria are reduced, and the gut barrier becomes compromised.24 Increasing translocation of bacterial products is associated with HIV disease progression. Preservation of Lactobacillus populations in the gut is associated with markers predictive of better HIV outcomes, including a higher CD4 count, a lower viral load, and less evidence of gut microbial translocation.24 This underscores the importance of maintaining a healthy gut flora in patients with HIV, using such steps as avoiding unnecessary antibiotics.

Gut bacteria and stress, depression. Antibiotics directly induce the expression of key genes that affect the stress response.25 While causative studies are lacking, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that the gut microbiome is involved in 2-way communication with the brain and can affect, and be affected by, stress and depression.21,26-30 Diseases and conditions that seem to have a putative connection to a disordered microbiome (dysbiosis) include depression, anxiety, Crohn’s disease, type 2 diabetes, and obesity.

Gut bacteria and childhood obesity. Repeated use of broader-spectrum antibiotics in children <24 months of age increases the risk of developing childhood obesity.1,6 One theory for the association is that the effects of broad-spectrum antibiotics on the intestinal flora of young children may alter long-term energy homeostasis resulting in a higher risk for obesity.1

Gut bacteria and asthma. Studies demonstrate differences in the gut microbiome of asthmatic and nonasthmatic patients. These differences affect the activities of helper T-cell subsets (Th1 and Th2), which in turn affect the development of immune tolerance.31

Although additional studies are needed to confirm these findings, the evidence collected thus far should make us all pause before prescribing drugs that can alter our microbiome in complex and only partially understood ways.

What can we do right now?

The issues created by the inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics have been known for decades, and multiple attempts have been made to find solutions and implement change. Although some small successes have occurred, little overall progress has been made in reducing antibiotic prescribing in the general population. A historical review of why physicians prescribe antibiotics inappropriately and the interventions that have successfully reduced this prescribing may prove valuable as we continue to look for new, effective answers.

Why do we overprescribe antibiotics? A 2015 systematic literature review found that patient demand, pharmaceutical company marketing activities, limited up-to-date information sources, and physician fear of losing their patients are major reasons physicians cite for prescribing antibiotics.32

Monthly emails to physicians comparing their prescribing habits to peers and top performers reduced inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections.

In a separate study that explored antibiotic prescribing habits for acute bronchitis,33 clinicians cited “patient demand” as the major reason for prescribing antibiotics. Respondents also reported that “other physicians were responsible for inappropriate antibiotic prescribing.”33

Strategies that work

Some early intervention programs directed at reducing antibiotic prescribing demonstrated success (TABLE 2).34-36 One example comes from a 1996 to 1998 study of 4 primary care practices.34 Researchers evaluated the impact of a multidimensional intervention effort targeted at clinicians and patients and aimed at lowering the use of antimicrobial agents for acute uncomplicated bronchitis in adults. It incorporated a number of elements, including office-based and household patient educational materials, and a clinician intervention involving education, practice profiling, and academic detailing. Physicians in this program reduced their rates of antibiotic prescribing for uncomplicated bronchitis from 74% to 48%.34

Employing EMRs. A more recent study focused on using electronic medical records (EMRs) and communications to modify physician antibiotic prescribing.35 By sending physicians monthly emails comparing their prescribing patterns to peers and “typical top performers,” inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions for ARTIs went from 19.9% to 3.7%.35

Patients and parents reported higher satisfaction with physicians who explained why antibiotics were not indicated vs physicians who simply prescribed them.

In another effort, the same researchers modified physicians’ EMRs to detect when potentially inappropriate antibiotics were prescribed. The system then prompted the physician to provide an “antibiotic justification note,” which remained visible in the patient’s chart. This approach, which encouraged physicians to follow prescribing guidelines by taking advantage of their concerns about their reputations, produced a 77% reduction in antibiotic prescribing.35

Focusing on the public. Studies have also examined the effectiveness of educating the public about when antibiotics are not likely to be helpful and of the harms of unnecessary antibiotics. Studies conducted in Tennessee and Wisconsin that combined prescriber and community education about unnecessary antibiotics for children found that the intervention reduced antibiotic prescribing in both locations by about 19% compared with about a 9% reduction in the control groups.36,37

 

 

 

Does prescribing antibiotics affect patient satisfaction?

The results are mixed as to whether prescribing antibiotics affects patient satisfaction. Two studies in the early 2000s found that both patients and parents reported higher satisfaction with physicians who explained why antibiotics were not indicated vs physicians who simply prescribed them, and that such explanations do not need to take a lot of time.37,38 (See TABLE 39,37,38 for patient care tips.)

A more recent study found that higher antibiotic prescribing practices in Britain were associated with modestly higher patient satisfaction ratings.39 The authors of this study noted, however, that reduced antibiotic prescribing may be a proxy for other practice patterns that affected satisfaction ratings.

Reducing antibiotic prescribing reduces resistance

There is also strong evidence that when physicians decrease antibiotic prescribing, antimicrobial resistance follows suit. One of the earlier landmark studies to demonstrate this was a Finnish study published in 1997.40 The authors found that a reduction of macrolide antibiotic consumption in Finland led to a reduction in streptococci macrolide resistance from 16.5% to 8.6%.40

There is strong evidence that when physicians decrease antibiotic prescribing, antimicrobial resistance follows suit.

Since then, multiple studies have demonstrated similar results for both respiratory and urinary tract infections.41,42 A 2017 meta-analysis analyzing 32 studies found that antibiotic stewardship programs reduced the incidence of infections and colonization with multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (51% reduction), extended-spectrum beta-lactamase–producing Gram-negative bacteria (48%), and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (37%). There was also a reduction in the incidence of C. difficile infections (32%).43

CORRESPONDENCE
David C. Fiore, MD, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine, Brigham Bldg, MS 316, Reno, NV 89557; dfiore@medicine.nevada.edu.

References

1. Bailey LC, Forrest CB, Zhang P, et al. Association of antibiotics in infancy with early childhood obesity. JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168:1063-1069.

2. Costelloe C, Metcalfe C, Lovering A, et al. Effect of antibiotic prescribing in primary care on antimicrobial resistance in individual patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2010;340:c2096.

3. Gleckman RA, Czachor JS. Antibiotic side effects. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;21:53-60.

4. Jernberg C, Löfmark S, Edlund C, et al. Long-term impacts of antibiotic exposure on the human intestinal microbiota. Microbiology. 2010;156:3216-3223.

5. Logan AC, Jacka FN, Craig JM, et al. The microbiome and mental health: looking back, moving forward with lessons from allergic diseases. Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci. 2016;14:131-147.

6. Marra F, Marra CA, Richardson K, et al. Antibiotic use in children is associated with increased risk of asthma. Pediatrics. 2009;123:1003-1010.

7. Harris AM, Hicks LA, Qaseem A, for the High Value Care Task Force of the American College of Physicians and for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Appropriate antibiotic use for acute respiratory tract infection in adults: advice for high-value care from the American College of Physicians and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:425-434.

8. Fleming-Dutra KE, Hersh AL, Shapiro DJ, et al. Prevalence of inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions among US ambulatory care visits, 2010-2011. JAMA. 2016;315:1864-1873.

9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Antibiotic prescribing and use. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/getsmart/. Accessed October 23, 2017.

10. The White House. National action plan for combating antibiotic-resistant bacteria. March 2015:1-63. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/national_action_plan_for_combating_antibotic-resistant_bacteria.pdf. Accessed October 23, 2017.

11. World Health Organization. Global action plan on antimicrobial resistance. 2015. Available at: http://www.who.int/drugresistance/global_action_plan/en/. Accessed October 23, 2017.

12. Barlam TF, Soria-Saucedo R, Cabral HJ, et al. Unnecessary antibiotics for acute respiratory tract infections: association with care setting and patient demographics. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2016;3:1-7.

13. Hersh AL, Shapiro DJ, Pavia AT, et al. Antibiotic prescribing in ambulatory pediatrics in the United States. Pediatrics. 2011;128:1053-1061.

14. Chow AW, Benninger MS, Brook I, et al. Executive summary: IDSA Clinical Practice Guideline for Acute Bacterial Rhinosinusitis in Children and Adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;54:1041-1045.

15. Rosenfeld RM, Piccirillo JF, Chandrasekhar SS, et al. Clinical practice guideline (update): adult sinusitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;152(2 Suppl):S1-S39.

16. Shulman ST, Bisno AL, Clegg HW, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and management of group A streptococcal pharyngitis: 2012 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55:1279-1282.

17. Shapiro DJ, Hicks LA, Pavia AT, et al. Antibiotic prescribing for adults in ambulatory care in the USA, 2007-09. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014;69:234-240.

18. Bergmark RW, Sedaghat AR. Antibiotic prescription for acute rhinosinusitis: emergency departments versus primary care providers. Laryngoscope. 2016;(November):1-6.

19. Hersh AL, Fleming-Dutra KE, Shapiro DJ, et al. Frequency of first-line antibiotic selection among US ambulatory care visits for otitis media, sinusitis, and pharyngitis. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176:1870-1872.

20. Hicks LA, Bartoces MG, Roberts RM, et al. US outpatient antibiotic prescribing variation according to geography, patient population, and provider specialty in 2011. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60:1308-1316.

21. Langdon A, Crook N, Dantas G. The effects of antibiotics on the microbiome throughout development and alternative approaches for therapeutic modulation. Genome Med. 2016;8:39.

22. Lessa FC, Gould CV, McDonald CL. Current status of Clostridium difficile infection epidemiology. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55(Suppl 2):S65-S70.

23. Zhang S, Palazuelos-Munoz S, Balsells EM, et al. Cost of hospital management of Clostridium difficile infection in United States—a meta-analysis and modelling study. BMC Infect Dis. 2016;16:447.

24. Pérez-Santiago J, Gianella S, Massanella M, et al. Gut lactobacillales are associated with higher CD4 and less microbial translocation during HIV infection. AIDS. 2013;27:1921-1931.

25. Maurice CF, Haiser HJ, Turnbaugh PJ. Xenobiotics shape the physiology and gene expression of the active human gut microbiome. Cell. 2013;152:39-50.

26. Bravo JA, Julio-Pieper M, Forsythe P, et al. Communication between gastrointestinal bacteria and the nervous system. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2012;12:667-672.

27. Clemente JC, Ursell LK, Parfrey LW, et al. The impact of the gut microbiota on human health: An integrative view. Cell. 2012;148:1258-1270.

28. Dinan TG, Cryan JF. Regulation of the stress response by the gut microbiota: implications for psychoneuroendocrinology. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2012;37:1369-1378.

29. Foster JA, McVey Neufeld KA. Gut-brain axis: how the microbiome influences anxiety and depression. Trends Neurosci. 2013;36:305-312.

30. Wang Y, Kasper LH. The role of microbiome in central nervous system disorders. Brain Behav Immun. 2014;38:1-12.

31. Riiser A. The human microbiome, asthma, and allergy. Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology. 2015;11:35.

32. Md Rezal RS, Hassali MA, Alrasheedy AA, et al. Physicians’ knowledge, perceptions and behaviour towards antibiotic prescribing: a systematic review of the literature. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2015;13:665-680.

33. Dempsey PP, Businger AC, Whaley LE, et al. Primary care clinicians’ perceptions about antibiotic prescribing for acute bronchitis: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2014;15:194.

34. Gonzales R, Steiner JF, Lum A, et al. Decreasing antibiotic use in ambulatory practice. JAMA. 1999;281:1512-1519.

35. Meeker D, Linder JA, Fox CR, et al. Effect of behavioral interventions on inappropriate antibiotic prescribing among primary care practices: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;315:562-570.

36. Perz JF, Craig AS, Coffey CS, et al. Changes in antibiotic prescribing for children after a community-wide campaign. JAMA. 2002;287:3103-3109.

37. Belongia EA, Sullivan BJ, Chyou PH, et al. A community intervention trial to promote judicious antibiotic use and reduce penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae carriage in children. Pediatrics. 2001;108:575-583.

38. Mangione-Smith R, McGlynn EA, Elliott MN, et al. Parent expectations for antibiotics, physician-parent communication, and satisfaction. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;155:800-806.

39. Ashworth M, White P, Jongsma H,et al. Antibiotic prescribing and patient satisfaction in primary care in England: cross-sectional analysis of national patient survey data and prescribing data. Br J Gen Pract. 2016;66:e40-e46.

40. Seppälä H, Klaukka T, Vuopio-Varkila J, et al. The effect of changes in the consumption of macrolide antibiotics on erythromycin resistance in group A streptococci in Finland. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:441-446.

41. Guillemot D, Varon E, Bernède C, et al. Reduction of antibiotic use in the community reduces the rate of colonization with penicillin g–nonsusceptible Streptococcus pneumoniae. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41:930-938.

42. Butler CC, Dunstan F, Heginbothom M, et al. Containing antibiotic resistance: decreased antibiotic-resistant coliform urinary tract infections with reduction in antibiotic prescribing by general practices. Br J Gen Pract. 2007;57:785-792.

43. Baur D, Gladstone BP, Burkert F, et al. Effect of antibiotic stewardship on the incidence of infection and colonisation with antibiotic-resistant bacteria and Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017;17:990-1001.

References

1. Bailey LC, Forrest CB, Zhang P, et al. Association of antibiotics in infancy with early childhood obesity. JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168:1063-1069.

2. Costelloe C, Metcalfe C, Lovering A, et al. Effect of antibiotic prescribing in primary care on antimicrobial resistance in individual patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2010;340:c2096.

3. Gleckman RA, Czachor JS. Antibiotic side effects. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;21:53-60.

4. Jernberg C, Löfmark S, Edlund C, et al. Long-term impacts of antibiotic exposure on the human intestinal microbiota. Microbiology. 2010;156:3216-3223.

5. Logan AC, Jacka FN, Craig JM, et al. The microbiome and mental health: looking back, moving forward with lessons from allergic diseases. Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci. 2016;14:131-147.

6. Marra F, Marra CA, Richardson K, et al. Antibiotic use in children is associated with increased risk of asthma. Pediatrics. 2009;123:1003-1010.

7. Harris AM, Hicks LA, Qaseem A, for the High Value Care Task Force of the American College of Physicians and for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Appropriate antibiotic use for acute respiratory tract infection in adults: advice for high-value care from the American College of Physicians and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:425-434.

8. Fleming-Dutra KE, Hersh AL, Shapiro DJ, et al. Prevalence of inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions among US ambulatory care visits, 2010-2011. JAMA. 2016;315:1864-1873.

9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Antibiotic prescribing and use. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/getsmart/. Accessed October 23, 2017.

10. The White House. National action plan for combating antibiotic-resistant bacteria. March 2015:1-63. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/national_action_plan_for_combating_antibotic-resistant_bacteria.pdf. Accessed October 23, 2017.

11. World Health Organization. Global action plan on antimicrobial resistance. 2015. Available at: http://www.who.int/drugresistance/global_action_plan/en/. Accessed October 23, 2017.

12. Barlam TF, Soria-Saucedo R, Cabral HJ, et al. Unnecessary antibiotics for acute respiratory tract infections: association with care setting and patient demographics. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2016;3:1-7.

13. Hersh AL, Shapiro DJ, Pavia AT, et al. Antibiotic prescribing in ambulatory pediatrics in the United States. Pediatrics. 2011;128:1053-1061.

14. Chow AW, Benninger MS, Brook I, et al. Executive summary: IDSA Clinical Practice Guideline for Acute Bacterial Rhinosinusitis in Children and Adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;54:1041-1045.

15. Rosenfeld RM, Piccirillo JF, Chandrasekhar SS, et al. Clinical practice guideline (update): adult sinusitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;152(2 Suppl):S1-S39.

16. Shulman ST, Bisno AL, Clegg HW, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and management of group A streptococcal pharyngitis: 2012 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55:1279-1282.

17. Shapiro DJ, Hicks LA, Pavia AT, et al. Antibiotic prescribing for adults in ambulatory care in the USA, 2007-09. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014;69:234-240.

18. Bergmark RW, Sedaghat AR. Antibiotic prescription for acute rhinosinusitis: emergency departments versus primary care providers. Laryngoscope. 2016;(November):1-6.

19. Hersh AL, Fleming-Dutra KE, Shapiro DJ, et al. Frequency of first-line antibiotic selection among US ambulatory care visits for otitis media, sinusitis, and pharyngitis. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176:1870-1872.

20. Hicks LA, Bartoces MG, Roberts RM, et al. US outpatient antibiotic prescribing variation according to geography, patient population, and provider specialty in 2011. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60:1308-1316.

21. Langdon A, Crook N, Dantas G. The effects of antibiotics on the microbiome throughout development and alternative approaches for therapeutic modulation. Genome Med. 2016;8:39.

22. Lessa FC, Gould CV, McDonald CL. Current status of Clostridium difficile infection epidemiology. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55(Suppl 2):S65-S70.

23. Zhang S, Palazuelos-Munoz S, Balsells EM, et al. Cost of hospital management of Clostridium difficile infection in United States—a meta-analysis and modelling study. BMC Infect Dis. 2016;16:447.

24. Pérez-Santiago J, Gianella S, Massanella M, et al. Gut lactobacillales are associated with higher CD4 and less microbial translocation during HIV infection. AIDS. 2013;27:1921-1931.

25. Maurice CF, Haiser HJ, Turnbaugh PJ. Xenobiotics shape the physiology and gene expression of the active human gut microbiome. Cell. 2013;152:39-50.

26. Bravo JA, Julio-Pieper M, Forsythe P, et al. Communication between gastrointestinal bacteria and the nervous system. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2012;12:667-672.

27. Clemente JC, Ursell LK, Parfrey LW, et al. The impact of the gut microbiota on human health: An integrative view. Cell. 2012;148:1258-1270.

28. Dinan TG, Cryan JF. Regulation of the stress response by the gut microbiota: implications for psychoneuroendocrinology. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2012;37:1369-1378.

29. Foster JA, McVey Neufeld KA. Gut-brain axis: how the microbiome influences anxiety and depression. Trends Neurosci. 2013;36:305-312.

30. Wang Y, Kasper LH. The role of microbiome in central nervous system disorders. Brain Behav Immun. 2014;38:1-12.

31. Riiser A. The human microbiome, asthma, and allergy. Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology. 2015;11:35.

32. Md Rezal RS, Hassali MA, Alrasheedy AA, et al. Physicians’ knowledge, perceptions and behaviour towards antibiotic prescribing: a systematic review of the literature. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2015;13:665-680.

33. Dempsey PP, Businger AC, Whaley LE, et al. Primary care clinicians’ perceptions about antibiotic prescribing for acute bronchitis: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2014;15:194.

34. Gonzales R, Steiner JF, Lum A, et al. Decreasing antibiotic use in ambulatory practice. JAMA. 1999;281:1512-1519.

35. Meeker D, Linder JA, Fox CR, et al. Effect of behavioral interventions on inappropriate antibiotic prescribing among primary care practices: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;315:562-570.

36. Perz JF, Craig AS, Coffey CS, et al. Changes in antibiotic prescribing for children after a community-wide campaign. JAMA. 2002;287:3103-3109.

37. Belongia EA, Sullivan BJ, Chyou PH, et al. A community intervention trial to promote judicious antibiotic use and reduce penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae carriage in children. Pediatrics. 2001;108:575-583.

38. Mangione-Smith R, McGlynn EA, Elliott MN, et al. Parent expectations for antibiotics, physician-parent communication, and satisfaction. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;155:800-806.

39. Ashworth M, White P, Jongsma H,et al. Antibiotic prescribing and patient satisfaction in primary care in England: cross-sectional analysis of national patient survey data and prescribing data. Br J Gen Pract. 2016;66:e40-e46.

40. Seppälä H, Klaukka T, Vuopio-Varkila J, et al. The effect of changes in the consumption of macrolide antibiotics on erythromycin resistance in group A streptococci in Finland. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:441-446.

41. Guillemot D, Varon E, Bernède C, et al. Reduction of antibiotic use in the community reduces the rate of colonization with penicillin g–nonsusceptible Streptococcus pneumoniae. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41:930-938.

42. Butler CC, Dunstan F, Heginbothom M, et al. Containing antibiotic resistance: decreased antibiotic-resistant coliform urinary tract infections with reduction in antibiotic prescribing by general practices. Br J Gen Pract. 2007;57:785-792.

43. Baur D, Gladstone BP, Burkert F, et al. Effect of antibiotic stewardship on the incidence of infection and colonisation with antibiotic-resistant bacteria and Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017;17:990-1001.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 66(12)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 66(12)
Page Number
730-736
Page Number
730-736
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Antibiotic overprescribing: Still a major concern
Display Headline
Antibiotic overprescribing: Still a major concern
Sections
Inside the Article

PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS

› Explain to patients the rationale for not prescribing antibiotics when they are not indicated. A

› Advocate for health care system electronic medical record systems designed to limit antibiotic prescribing to only appropriate cases. A

› Provide patients and your community with educational materials to increase understanding of the risks of antibiotic overprescribing. B

Strength of recommendation (SOR)

A Good-quality patient-oriented evidence
B Inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
C Consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence, case series

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
PubMed ID
29202142
Disqus Comments
Default
Article PDF Media

Consider different T. capitis presentations in children with hair loss

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Consider different T. capitis presentations in children with hair loss

 

Categorizing hair loss in children depends on many factors, but it is important to rule out an infectious etiology as early as possible, according to Sheila Fallon Friedlander, MD.

“What can Tinea capitis look like? Anything,” she said in a presentation at Skin Disease Education Foundation’s Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.

Although T. capitis most often presents in children aged 3-7 years as a pattern of localized hair loss, often with scaling, sometimes with nodules, other possibilities include pustules, boggy masses, and diffuse hair loss, said Dr. Friedlander, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.

Sometimes the hair loss may be so subtle that families come in complaining of “dandruff” rather than hair loss, she noted. Evaluating the patient for the presence of cervical or occipital lymph nodes is crucial; big nodes are usually a tip-off that infection is present.

Dr. Sheila Fallon Friedlander
The prevalence and etiology of tinea remains a moving target, and T. capitis varies with place and time, Dr. Friedlander observed. Historically, T. capitis has been most common in inner-city communities and developing countries, but “change is in the air,” she said, citing recent epidemiologic data from countries including Egypt, Palestine, Kuwait, Tunisia, and Saudi Arabia showing Microsporum canis overtaking Trichophyton violaceum as the dominant organism causing T. capitis. The upswing in M. canis traces back to family pets, especially cats and dogs, but “don’t forget hamsters,” she said.

Clinicians treating T. capitis should ask about family pets, advised Dr. Friedlander, adding that city dwellers’ conditions may be more likely caused by Trichophyton tonsurans, T. violaceum, or Trichophyton soudanense. Also consider immigration status and family history when evaluating T. capitis, and use a Wood’s lamp for diagnosis if one is available, she advised. M. canis will fluoresce and T. tonsurans will not, she pointed out.

Other strategies to evaluate the condition include KOH, culture, polymerase chain reaction, and trichoscopy.
 
Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

Categorizing hair loss in children depends on many factors, but it is important to rule out an infectious etiology as early as possible, according to Sheila Fallon Friedlander, MD.

“What can Tinea capitis look like? Anything,” she said in a presentation at Skin Disease Education Foundation’s Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.

Although T. capitis most often presents in children aged 3-7 years as a pattern of localized hair loss, often with scaling, sometimes with nodules, other possibilities include pustules, boggy masses, and diffuse hair loss, said Dr. Friedlander, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.

Sometimes the hair loss may be so subtle that families come in complaining of “dandruff” rather than hair loss, she noted. Evaluating the patient for the presence of cervical or occipital lymph nodes is crucial; big nodes are usually a tip-off that infection is present.

Dr. Sheila Fallon Friedlander
The prevalence and etiology of tinea remains a moving target, and T. capitis varies with place and time, Dr. Friedlander observed. Historically, T. capitis has been most common in inner-city communities and developing countries, but “change is in the air,” she said, citing recent epidemiologic data from countries including Egypt, Palestine, Kuwait, Tunisia, and Saudi Arabia showing Microsporum canis overtaking Trichophyton violaceum as the dominant organism causing T. capitis. The upswing in M. canis traces back to family pets, especially cats and dogs, but “don’t forget hamsters,” she said.

Clinicians treating T. capitis should ask about family pets, advised Dr. Friedlander, adding that city dwellers’ conditions may be more likely caused by Trichophyton tonsurans, T. violaceum, or Trichophyton soudanense. Also consider immigration status and family history when evaluating T. capitis, and use a Wood’s lamp for diagnosis if one is available, she advised. M. canis will fluoresce and T. tonsurans will not, she pointed out.

Other strategies to evaluate the condition include KOH, culture, polymerase chain reaction, and trichoscopy.
 

 

Categorizing hair loss in children depends on many factors, but it is important to rule out an infectious etiology as early as possible, according to Sheila Fallon Friedlander, MD.

“What can Tinea capitis look like? Anything,” she said in a presentation at Skin Disease Education Foundation’s Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.

Although T. capitis most often presents in children aged 3-7 years as a pattern of localized hair loss, often with scaling, sometimes with nodules, other possibilities include pustules, boggy masses, and diffuse hair loss, said Dr. Friedlander, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.

Sometimes the hair loss may be so subtle that families come in complaining of “dandruff” rather than hair loss, she noted. Evaluating the patient for the presence of cervical or occipital lymph nodes is crucial; big nodes are usually a tip-off that infection is present.

Dr. Sheila Fallon Friedlander
The prevalence and etiology of tinea remains a moving target, and T. capitis varies with place and time, Dr. Friedlander observed. Historically, T. capitis has been most common in inner-city communities and developing countries, but “change is in the air,” she said, citing recent epidemiologic data from countries including Egypt, Palestine, Kuwait, Tunisia, and Saudi Arabia showing Microsporum canis overtaking Trichophyton violaceum as the dominant organism causing T. capitis. The upswing in M. canis traces back to family pets, especially cats and dogs, but “don’t forget hamsters,” she said.

Clinicians treating T. capitis should ask about family pets, advised Dr. Friedlander, adding that city dwellers’ conditions may be more likely caused by Trichophyton tonsurans, T. violaceum, or Trichophyton soudanense. Also consider immigration status and family history when evaluating T. capitis, and use a Wood’s lamp for diagnosis if one is available, she advised. M. canis will fluoresce and T. tonsurans will not, she pointed out.

Other strategies to evaluate the condition include KOH, culture, polymerase chain reaction, and trichoscopy.
 
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Consider different T. capitis presentations in children with hair loss
Display Headline
Consider different T. capitis presentations in children with hair loss
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

FROM SDEF WOMEN’S & PEDIATRIC DERMATOLOGY SEMINAR

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default

Eating disorders over the holidays

Article Type
Changed

 

For many, the holiday season is a time to celebrate, relax, and enjoy the company of family. Much of this celebrating centers on eating and food. For youth struggling with eating disorders, holidays can be a particularly challenging time. Historically, eating disorders were associated with young, straight, cisgender, white females. Data collected over the past 15 years suggest that eating disorders can affect youth of all ethnicities and genders.

Ingram Publishing/ThinkStock
Studies suggest that many adolescents engage in disordered eating behaviors. A national study in 2000 of high school students found that 25% of girls and 11% of boys reported disordered eating and weight control symptoms severe enough to warrant clinical evaluation.1 Studies indicate that anorexia nervosa affects 0.3%-1% of adolescents, and bulimia nervosa affects approximately 0.9%-3% of adolescents.2,3,4 Data in sexual and gender minority youth are sparse but suggest that these youth may be at increased risk of disordered eating behaviors. A 2015 study of 289,000 U.S. college students reported an approximately four times increased risk of eating disorder diagnosis and an approximately 2 times increased risk of disordered eating behaviors (diet pill use, vomiting, or laxative use).5 Two national studies of LGB-identified youth demonstrated higher rates of binge eating, purging, and diet pill use, compared with their heterosexual identified peers.6,7

Below are some tips from the National Eating Disorder Association that may be helpful for youth struggling with an eating disorder over the holiday season:

• Eat regularly and in a consistent pattern. Avoid skipping meals or restricting intake in preparation for a holiday meal.

• Discuss any anticipated struggles around food or family with your parents, therapist, health care provider, dietitian, or other members of your support group. This can allow you to plan ahead for any challenges that may arise, and could prevent potential negative or harmful coping behaviors

Dr. Gayathri Chelvakumar
• Think of someone to call if you are struggling with negative behaviors, thoughts, or emotions. Alert them ahead of time so they are aware of the possibility of you needing them for support.

• Consider choosing a loved one to be your “reality check” with food, to either help fix a plate for you or to give you sound feedback on the food portion sizes you make for yourself.

• Have a game plan before you go to a holiday event. Know who your support people are and how you’ll recognize when it may be time to make a quick exit and get connected with needed support.

• Avoid overextending yourself. A lower stress level can decrease the need to turn to eating-disordered behaviors or other unhelpful coping strategies.

• Work on being flexible in your thoughts. Learn to be flexible when setting guidelines for yourself and expectations of yourself and others. Strive to be flexible in what you can eat during the holidays. Take a holiday from self-imposed criticism, rigidity, and perfectionism.
 

Dr. Chelvakumar is an attending physician in the division of adolescent medicine at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at the Ohio State University, both in Columbus. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.

Resources

National Eating Disorders Association: www.nationaleatingdisorders.org

“Body image and eating disorders among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth” (Pediatr Clin North Am. 2016 Dec;63[6]:1079-90.

References

1. Prev Chronic Dis. 2008 Oct;5(4):A114.

2. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011 Jul;68(7):714-23.

3. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2016 Dec;63(6):1079-90.

4. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2012 Aug;14(4):391-7.

5. J Adolesc Health. 2015 Aug;57(2):144-9.

6. Am J Public Health. 2013 Feb;103(2):e16-22.

7. J Adolesc Health. 2009 Sep;45(3):238-45.
 

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

For many, the holiday season is a time to celebrate, relax, and enjoy the company of family. Much of this celebrating centers on eating and food. For youth struggling with eating disorders, holidays can be a particularly challenging time. Historically, eating disorders were associated with young, straight, cisgender, white females. Data collected over the past 15 years suggest that eating disorders can affect youth of all ethnicities and genders.

Ingram Publishing/ThinkStock
Studies suggest that many adolescents engage in disordered eating behaviors. A national study in 2000 of high school students found that 25% of girls and 11% of boys reported disordered eating and weight control symptoms severe enough to warrant clinical evaluation.1 Studies indicate that anorexia nervosa affects 0.3%-1% of adolescents, and bulimia nervosa affects approximately 0.9%-3% of adolescents.2,3,4 Data in sexual and gender minority youth are sparse but suggest that these youth may be at increased risk of disordered eating behaviors. A 2015 study of 289,000 U.S. college students reported an approximately four times increased risk of eating disorder diagnosis and an approximately 2 times increased risk of disordered eating behaviors (diet pill use, vomiting, or laxative use).5 Two national studies of LGB-identified youth demonstrated higher rates of binge eating, purging, and diet pill use, compared with their heterosexual identified peers.6,7

Below are some tips from the National Eating Disorder Association that may be helpful for youth struggling with an eating disorder over the holiday season:

• Eat regularly and in a consistent pattern. Avoid skipping meals or restricting intake in preparation for a holiday meal.

• Discuss any anticipated struggles around food or family with your parents, therapist, health care provider, dietitian, or other members of your support group. This can allow you to plan ahead for any challenges that may arise, and could prevent potential negative or harmful coping behaviors

Dr. Gayathri Chelvakumar
• Think of someone to call if you are struggling with negative behaviors, thoughts, or emotions. Alert them ahead of time so they are aware of the possibility of you needing them for support.

• Consider choosing a loved one to be your “reality check” with food, to either help fix a plate for you or to give you sound feedback on the food portion sizes you make for yourself.

• Have a game plan before you go to a holiday event. Know who your support people are and how you’ll recognize when it may be time to make a quick exit and get connected with needed support.

• Avoid overextending yourself. A lower stress level can decrease the need to turn to eating-disordered behaviors or other unhelpful coping strategies.

• Work on being flexible in your thoughts. Learn to be flexible when setting guidelines for yourself and expectations of yourself and others. Strive to be flexible in what you can eat during the holidays. Take a holiday from self-imposed criticism, rigidity, and perfectionism.
 

Dr. Chelvakumar is an attending physician in the division of adolescent medicine at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at the Ohio State University, both in Columbus. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.

Resources

National Eating Disorders Association: www.nationaleatingdisorders.org

“Body image and eating disorders among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth” (Pediatr Clin North Am. 2016 Dec;63[6]:1079-90.

References

1. Prev Chronic Dis. 2008 Oct;5(4):A114.

2. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011 Jul;68(7):714-23.

3. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2016 Dec;63(6):1079-90.

4. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2012 Aug;14(4):391-7.

5. J Adolesc Health. 2015 Aug;57(2):144-9.

6. Am J Public Health. 2013 Feb;103(2):e16-22.

7. J Adolesc Health. 2009 Sep;45(3):238-45.
 

 

For many, the holiday season is a time to celebrate, relax, and enjoy the company of family. Much of this celebrating centers on eating and food. For youth struggling with eating disorders, holidays can be a particularly challenging time. Historically, eating disorders were associated with young, straight, cisgender, white females. Data collected over the past 15 years suggest that eating disorders can affect youth of all ethnicities and genders.

Ingram Publishing/ThinkStock
Studies suggest that many adolescents engage in disordered eating behaviors. A national study in 2000 of high school students found that 25% of girls and 11% of boys reported disordered eating and weight control symptoms severe enough to warrant clinical evaluation.1 Studies indicate that anorexia nervosa affects 0.3%-1% of adolescents, and bulimia nervosa affects approximately 0.9%-3% of adolescents.2,3,4 Data in sexual and gender minority youth are sparse but suggest that these youth may be at increased risk of disordered eating behaviors. A 2015 study of 289,000 U.S. college students reported an approximately four times increased risk of eating disorder diagnosis and an approximately 2 times increased risk of disordered eating behaviors (diet pill use, vomiting, or laxative use).5 Two national studies of LGB-identified youth demonstrated higher rates of binge eating, purging, and diet pill use, compared with their heterosexual identified peers.6,7

Below are some tips from the National Eating Disorder Association that may be helpful for youth struggling with an eating disorder over the holiday season:

• Eat regularly and in a consistent pattern. Avoid skipping meals or restricting intake in preparation for a holiday meal.

• Discuss any anticipated struggles around food or family with your parents, therapist, health care provider, dietitian, or other members of your support group. This can allow you to plan ahead for any challenges that may arise, and could prevent potential negative or harmful coping behaviors

Dr. Gayathri Chelvakumar
• Think of someone to call if you are struggling with negative behaviors, thoughts, or emotions. Alert them ahead of time so they are aware of the possibility of you needing them for support.

• Consider choosing a loved one to be your “reality check” with food, to either help fix a plate for you or to give you sound feedback on the food portion sizes you make for yourself.

• Have a game plan before you go to a holiday event. Know who your support people are and how you’ll recognize when it may be time to make a quick exit and get connected with needed support.

• Avoid overextending yourself. A lower stress level can decrease the need to turn to eating-disordered behaviors or other unhelpful coping strategies.

• Work on being flexible in your thoughts. Learn to be flexible when setting guidelines for yourself and expectations of yourself and others. Strive to be flexible in what you can eat during the holidays. Take a holiday from self-imposed criticism, rigidity, and perfectionism.
 

Dr. Chelvakumar is an attending physician in the division of adolescent medicine at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at the Ohio State University, both in Columbus. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.

Resources

National Eating Disorders Association: www.nationaleatingdisorders.org

“Body image and eating disorders among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth” (Pediatr Clin North Am. 2016 Dec;63[6]:1079-90.

References

1. Prev Chronic Dis. 2008 Oct;5(4):A114.

2. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011 Jul;68(7):714-23.

3. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2016 Dec;63(6):1079-90.

4. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2012 Aug;14(4):391-7.

5. J Adolesc Health. 2015 Aug;57(2):144-9.

6. Am J Public Health. 2013 Feb;103(2):e16-22.

7. J Adolesc Health. 2009 Sep;45(3):238-45.
 

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default