The Journal of Family Practice

References

1. National Institute of Health. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment Guidelines. www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/. Updated October 22, 2020. Accessed October 28, 2020.

References

1. National Institute of Health. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment Guidelines. www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/. Updated October 22, 2020. Accessed October 28, 2020.

References

1. National Institute of Health. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment Guidelines. www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/. Updated October 22, 2020. Accessed October 28, 2020.

Although it appeared that the hair loss was preceded by some dry skin, the patch of hair loss was smooth and nonscarring, consistent with a diagnosis of alopecia areata (AA).

AA typically is found on the scalp in solitary areas but can affect the whole body, including the eyelashes and eyebrows. Affected hair typically is narrower at the proximal end, resembling an exclamation point, as the hair fails to grow and falls out. Sometimes, patches of alopecia may coalesce into a larger area. Nail changes may be noted, as well. Nails may become brittle, with pitting and/or longitudinal ridges. Patients are usually asymptomatic but may complain of pruritus.

AA is believed to be an autoimmune disorder. It affects males and females of all ages but is more common in children and young adults. AA is believed to result from a T-cell–mediated immune response that transitions the hair follicles from the growth phase to the resting phase. This leads to sudden hair loss and inhibition of regrowth of the hair. However, the hair follicle is not permanently destroyed as in other processes of alopecia. There is also an association between AA and other autoimmune disorders such as vitiligo, thyroid disease, and lupus.

The diagnosis usually is made clinically, as in this patient, but a definitive diagnosis can be made by biopsy and pathology. Other differential diagnoses to consider are trichotillomania, tinea, traumatic alopecia, and lupus.

In almost half of cases, AA is self-resolving; therefore, in first episodes of localized disease, watchful waiting is appropriate. Treatment is tailored to the individual patient and may be difficult. Intralesional corticosteroids often are used for mild cases. Typically, 10 mg/mL of a glucocorticoid is injected into the mid-dermis every 4 to 6 weeks; however, this treatment carries a risk of transient or even permanent atrophy of the injection site. Potent topical corticosteroids often are used, especially in children who do not tolerate intralesional injections, and success can be variable. Other topical treatments to consider are photochemotherapy (psoralen plus UVA), or an irritant agent such as anthralin and a vasodilator such as minoxidil. Regrowth can be expected in a few months to a year, but recurrence is common.

‌

Image courtesy of Stacy Nguy, MD, and text courtesy of Stacy Nguy, MD, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.

Although it appeared that the hair loss was preceded by some dry skin, the patch of hair loss was smooth and nonscarring, consistent with a diagnosis of alopecia areata (AA).

AA typically is found on the scalp in solitary areas but can affect the whole body, including the eyelashes and eyebrows. Affected hair typically is narrower at the proximal end, resembling an exclamation point, as the hair fails to grow and falls out. Sometimes, patches of alopecia may coalesce into a larger area. Nail changes may be noted, as well. Nails may become brittle, with pitting and/or longitudinal ridges. Patients are usually asymptomatic but may complain of pruritus.

AA is believed to be an autoimmune disorder. It affects males and females of all ages but is more common in children and young adults. AA is believed to result from a T-cell–mediated immune response that transitions the hair follicles from the growth phase to the resting phase. This leads to sudden hair loss and inhibition of regrowth of the hair. However, the hair follicle is not permanently destroyed as in other processes of alopecia. There is also an association between AA and other autoimmune disorders such as vitiligo, thyroid disease, and lupus.

The diagnosis usually is made clinically, as in this patient, but a definitive diagnosis can be made by biopsy and pathology. Other differential diagnoses to consider are trichotillomania, tinea, traumatic alopecia, and lupus.

In almost half of cases, AA is self-resolving; therefore, in first episodes of localized disease, watchful waiting is appropriate. Treatment is tailored to the individual patient and may be difficult. Intralesional corticosteroids often are used for mild cases. Typically, 10 mg/mL of a glucocorticoid is injected into the mid-dermis every 4 to 6 weeks; however, this treatment carries a risk of transient or even permanent atrophy of the injection site. Potent topical corticosteroids often are used, especially in children who do not tolerate intralesional injections, and success can be variable. Other topical treatments to consider are photochemotherapy (psoralen plus UVA), or an irritant agent such as anthralin and a vasodilator such as minoxidil. Regrowth can be expected in a few months to a year, but recurrence is common.

‌

Image courtesy of Stacy Nguy, MD, and text courtesy of Stacy Nguy, MD, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.

Although it appeared that the hair loss was preceded by some dry skin, the patch of hair loss was smooth and nonscarring, consistent with a diagnosis of alopecia areata (AA).

AA typically is found on the scalp in solitary areas but can affect the whole body, including the eyelashes and eyebrows. Affected hair typically is narrower at the proximal end, resembling an exclamation point, as the hair fails to grow and falls out. Sometimes, patches of alopecia may coalesce into a larger area. Nail changes may be noted, as well. Nails may become brittle, with pitting and/or longitudinal ridges. Patients are usually asymptomatic but may complain of pruritus.

AA is believed to be an autoimmune disorder. It affects males and females of all ages but is more common in children and young adults. AA is believed to result from a T-cell–mediated immune response that transitions the hair follicles from the growth phase to the resting phase. This leads to sudden hair loss and inhibition of regrowth of the hair. However, the hair follicle is not permanently destroyed as in other processes of alopecia. There is also an association between AA and other autoimmune disorders such as vitiligo, thyroid disease, and lupus.

The diagnosis usually is made clinically, as in this patient, but a definitive diagnosis can be made by biopsy and pathology. Other differential diagnoses to consider are trichotillomania, tinea, traumatic alopecia, and lupus.

In almost half of cases, AA is self-resolving; therefore, in first episodes of localized disease, watchful waiting is appropriate. Treatment is tailored to the individual patient and may be difficult. Intralesional corticosteroids often are used for mild cases. Typically, 10 mg/mL of a glucocorticoid is injected into the mid-dermis every 4 to 6 weeks; however, this treatment carries a risk of transient or even permanent atrophy of the injection site. Potent topical corticosteroids often are used, especially in children who do not tolerate intralesional injections, and success can be variable. Other topical treatments to consider are photochemotherapy (psoralen plus UVA), or an irritant agent such as anthralin and a vasodilator such as minoxidil. Regrowth can be expected in a few months to a year, but recurrence is common.

‌

Image courtesy of Stacy Nguy, MD, and text courtesy of Stacy Nguy, MD, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.

A 23-month-old girl with a history of well-controlled atopic dermatitis was admitted to the hospital with fever and a widespread vesicular eruption of 2 days’ duration. Two days prior to admission, the patient had 3 episodes of nonbloody diarrhea and redness in the diaper area. The child’s parents reported that the red areas spread to her arms and legs later that day, and that she subsequently developed a fever, cough, and rhinorrhea. She was taken to an urgent care facility where she was diagnosed with vulvovaginitis and an upper respiratory infection; amoxicillin was prescribed. Shortly thereafter, the patient developed more lesions in and around the mouth, as well as on the trunk, prompting the parents to bring her to the emergency department.

The history revealed that the patient had spent time with her aunt and cousins who had “red spots” on their palms and soles. The patient’s sister had a flare of “cold sores,” about 2 weeks prior to the current presentation. The patient had received a varicella zoster virus (VZV) vaccine several months earlier.

Physical examination was notable for an uncomfortable infant with erythematous macules on the bilateral palms and soles and an erythematous hard palate. The child also had scattered vesicles on an erythematous base with confluent crusted plaques on her lips, perioral skin (FIGURE 1A), abdomen, back, buttocks, arms, legs (FIGURE 1B), and dorsal aspects of her hands and feet.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

Given the history of atopic dermatitis; prodromal diarrhea/rhinorrhea; papulovesicular eruption involving areas of prior dermatitis as well as the palms, soles, and mouth; recent contacts with suspected hand-foot-mouth disease (HFMD); and history of VZV vaccination, the favored diagnosis was eczema coxsackium.

Eczema coxsackium is an atypical form of HFMD that occurs in patients with a history of eczema. Classic HFMD usually is caused by coxsackievirus A16 or enterovirus 71, while atypical HFMD often is caused by coxsackievirus A6.^1,2,3 Patients with HFMD present with painful oral vesicles and ulcers and a papulovesicular eruption on the palms, soles, and sometimes the buttocks and genitalia. Patients may have prodromal fever, fussiness, and diarrhea. Painful oral lesions may result in poor oral intake.^1,2

Differential includes viral eruptions

Other conditions may manifest similarly to eczema coxsackium and must be ruled out before initiating proper treatment.

Eczema herpeticum (EH). In atypical HFMD, the virus can show tropism for active or previously inflamed areas of eczematous skin, leading to a widespread vesicular eruption, which can be difficult to distinguish from EH.¹ Similar to EH, eczema coxsackium does not exclusively affect children with atopic dermatitis. It also has been described in adults and patients with Darier disease, incontinentia pigmenti, and epidermolytic ichthyosis.^4-6

Prompt diagnosis and treatment for eczema coxsackium is critical to prevent unnecessary antiviral therapy.

In cases of vesicular eruptions in eczema patients, it is imperative to rule out EH. One prospective study of atypical HFMD compared similarities of the conditions. Both have a predilection for mucosa during primary infection and develop vesicular eruptions on cutaneous eczematous skin.¹ One key difference between eczema coxsackium and EH is that EH tends to produce intraoral vesicles beyond simple erythema; it also tends to predominate in the area of the head and neck.⁷

Continue to: Eczema varicellicum

Eczema varicellicum has been reported, and it has been suggested that some cases of EH may actually be caused by VZV as the 2 are clinically indistinguishable and less than half of EH cases are diagnosed with laboratory confirmation.⁸

Confirm Dx before you treat

To guide management, cases of suspected eczema coxsackium should be confirmed, and HSV/VZV should be ruled out.⁹ Testing modalities include swabbing vesicular fluid for enterovirus polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis (preferred modality), oropharyngeal swab up to 2 weeks after infection, or viral isolate from stool samples up to 3 months after infection.^2,3

Treatment for eczema coxsackium involves supportive care such as intravenous (IV) hydration and antipyretics. Some studies show potential benefit with IV immunoglobulin in treating severe HFMD, while other studies show the exacerbation of widespread HFMD with this treatment.^7,10

Prompt diagnosis and treatment for eczema coxsackium is critical to prevent unnecessary antiviral therapy and to help guide monitoring for associated morbidities including Gianotti-Crosti syndrome–like eruptions, purpuric eruptions, and onychomadesis.

Our patient. Because EH was in the differential, our patient was started on empiric IV acyclovir 10 mg/kg every 8 hours while test results were pending. In addition, she received acetaminophen, IV fluids, gentle sponge baths, and diligent emollient application. Scraping from a vesicle revealed negative herpes simplex virus 1/2 PCR, negative VZV direct fluorescent antibody, and a positive enterovirus PCR—confirming the diagnosis of eczema coxsackium. Interestingly, a viral culture was negative in our patient, consistent with prior reports of enterovirus being difficult to culture.¹¹

With confirmation of the diagnosis of eczema coxsackium, the IV acyclovir was discontinued, and symptoms resolved after 7 days.

CORRESPONDENCE
Shane M. Swink, DO, MS, Division of Dermatology, 1200 South Cedar Crest Boulevard, Allentown, PA 18103; shanesw@pcom.edu

A 23-month-old girl with a history of well-controlled atopic dermatitis was admitted to the hospital with fever and a widespread vesicular eruption of 2 days’ duration. Two days prior to admission, the patient had 3 episodes of nonbloody diarrhea and redness in the diaper area. The child’s parents reported that the red areas spread to her arms and legs later that day, and that she subsequently developed a fever, cough, and rhinorrhea. She was taken to an urgent care facility where she was diagnosed with vulvovaginitis and an upper respiratory infection; amoxicillin was prescribed. Shortly thereafter, the patient developed more lesions in and around the mouth, as well as on the trunk, prompting the parents to bring her to the emergency department.

The history revealed that the patient had spent time with her aunt and cousins who had “red spots” on their palms and soles. The patient’s sister had a flare of “cold sores,” about 2 weeks prior to the current presentation. The patient had received a varicella zoster virus (VZV) vaccine several months earlier.

Physical examination was notable for an uncomfortable infant with erythematous macules on the bilateral palms and soles and an erythematous hard palate. The child also had scattered vesicles on an erythematous base with confluent crusted plaques on her lips, perioral skin (FIGURE 1A), abdomen, back, buttocks, arms, legs (FIGURE 1B), and dorsal aspects of her hands and feet.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

Given the history of atopic dermatitis; prodromal diarrhea/rhinorrhea; papulovesicular eruption involving areas of prior dermatitis as well as the palms, soles, and mouth; recent contacts with suspected hand-foot-mouth disease (HFMD); and history of VZV vaccination, the favored diagnosis was eczema coxsackium.

Eczema coxsackium is an atypical form of HFMD that occurs in patients with a history of eczema. Classic HFMD usually is caused by coxsackievirus A16 or enterovirus 71, while atypical HFMD often is caused by coxsackievirus A6.^1,2,3 Patients with HFMD present with painful oral vesicles and ulcers and a papulovesicular eruption on the palms, soles, and sometimes the buttocks and genitalia. Patients may have prodromal fever, fussiness, and diarrhea. Painful oral lesions may result in poor oral intake.^1,2

Differential includes viral eruptions

Other conditions may manifest similarly to eczema coxsackium and must be ruled out before initiating proper treatment.

Eczema herpeticum (EH). In atypical HFMD, the virus can show tropism for active or previously inflamed areas of eczematous skin, leading to a widespread vesicular eruption, which can be difficult to distinguish from EH.¹ Similar to EH, eczema coxsackium does not exclusively affect children with atopic dermatitis. It also has been described in adults and patients with Darier disease, incontinentia pigmenti, and epidermolytic ichthyosis.^4-6

Prompt diagnosis and treatment for eczema coxsackium is critical to prevent unnecessary antiviral therapy.

In cases of vesicular eruptions in eczema patients, it is imperative to rule out EH. One prospective study of atypical HFMD compared similarities of the conditions. Both have a predilection for mucosa during primary infection and develop vesicular eruptions on cutaneous eczematous skin.¹ One key difference between eczema coxsackium and EH is that EH tends to produce intraoral vesicles beyond simple erythema; it also tends to predominate in the area of the head and neck.⁷

Continue to: Eczema varicellicum

Eczema varicellicum has been reported, and it has been suggested that some cases of EH may actually be caused by VZV as the 2 are clinically indistinguishable and less than half of EH cases are diagnosed with laboratory confirmation.⁸

Confirm Dx before you treat

To guide management, cases of suspected eczema coxsackium should be confirmed, and HSV/VZV should be ruled out.⁹ Testing modalities include swabbing vesicular fluid for enterovirus polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis (preferred modality), oropharyngeal swab up to 2 weeks after infection, or viral isolate from stool samples up to 3 months after infection.^2,3

Treatment for eczema coxsackium involves supportive care such as intravenous (IV) hydration and antipyretics. Some studies show potential benefit with IV immunoglobulin in treating severe HFMD, while other studies show the exacerbation of widespread HFMD with this treatment.^7,10

Prompt diagnosis and treatment for eczema coxsackium is critical to prevent unnecessary antiviral therapy and to help guide monitoring for associated morbidities including Gianotti-Crosti syndrome–like eruptions, purpuric eruptions, and onychomadesis.

Our patient. Because EH was in the differential, our patient was started on empiric IV acyclovir 10 mg/kg every 8 hours while test results were pending. In addition, she received acetaminophen, IV fluids, gentle sponge baths, and diligent emollient application. Scraping from a vesicle revealed negative herpes simplex virus 1/2 PCR, negative VZV direct fluorescent antibody, and a positive enterovirus PCR—confirming the diagnosis of eczema coxsackium. Interestingly, a viral culture was negative in our patient, consistent with prior reports of enterovirus being difficult to culture.¹¹

With confirmation of the diagnosis of eczema coxsackium, the IV acyclovir was discontinued, and symptoms resolved after 7 days.

CORRESPONDENCE
Shane M. Swink, DO, MS, Division of Dermatology, 1200 South Cedar Crest Boulevard, Allentown, PA 18103; shanesw@pcom.edu

A 23-month-old girl with a history of well-controlled atopic dermatitis was admitted to the hospital with fever and a widespread vesicular eruption of 2 days’ duration. Two days prior to admission, the patient had 3 episodes of nonbloody diarrhea and redness in the diaper area. The child’s parents reported that the red areas spread to her arms and legs later that day, and that she subsequently developed a fever, cough, and rhinorrhea. She was taken to an urgent care facility where she was diagnosed with vulvovaginitis and an upper respiratory infection; amoxicillin was prescribed. Shortly thereafter, the patient developed more lesions in and around the mouth, as well as on the trunk, prompting the parents to bring her to the emergency department.

The history revealed that the patient had spent time with her aunt and cousins who had “red spots” on their palms and soles. The patient’s sister had a flare of “cold sores,” about 2 weeks prior to the current presentation. The patient had received a varicella zoster virus (VZV) vaccine several months earlier.

Physical examination was notable for an uncomfortable infant with erythematous macules on the bilateral palms and soles and an erythematous hard palate. The child also had scattered vesicles on an erythematous base with confluent crusted plaques on her lips, perioral skin (FIGURE 1A), abdomen, back, buttocks, arms, legs (FIGURE 1B), and dorsal aspects of her hands and feet.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

Given the history of atopic dermatitis; prodromal diarrhea/rhinorrhea; papulovesicular eruption involving areas of prior dermatitis as well as the palms, soles, and mouth; recent contacts with suspected hand-foot-mouth disease (HFMD); and history of VZV vaccination, the favored diagnosis was eczema coxsackium.

Eczema coxsackium is an atypical form of HFMD that occurs in patients with a history of eczema. Classic HFMD usually is caused by coxsackievirus A16 or enterovirus 71, while atypical HFMD often is caused by coxsackievirus A6.^1,2,3 Patients with HFMD present with painful oral vesicles and ulcers and a papulovesicular eruption on the palms, soles, and sometimes the buttocks and genitalia. Patients may have prodromal fever, fussiness, and diarrhea. Painful oral lesions may result in poor oral intake.^1,2

Differential includes viral eruptions

Other conditions may manifest similarly to eczema coxsackium and must be ruled out before initiating proper treatment.

Eczema herpeticum (EH). In atypical HFMD, the virus can show tropism for active or previously inflamed areas of eczematous skin, leading to a widespread vesicular eruption, which can be difficult to distinguish from EH.¹ Similar to EH, eczema coxsackium does not exclusively affect children with atopic dermatitis. It also has been described in adults and patients with Darier disease, incontinentia pigmenti, and epidermolytic ichthyosis.^4-6

Prompt diagnosis and treatment for eczema coxsackium is critical to prevent unnecessary antiviral therapy.

In cases of vesicular eruptions in eczema patients, it is imperative to rule out EH. One prospective study of atypical HFMD compared similarities of the conditions. Both have a predilection for mucosa during primary infection and develop vesicular eruptions on cutaneous eczematous skin.¹ One key difference between eczema coxsackium and EH is that EH tends to produce intraoral vesicles beyond simple erythema; it also tends to predominate in the area of the head and neck.⁷

Continue to: Eczema varicellicum

Eczema varicellicum has been reported, and it has been suggested that some cases of EH may actually be caused by VZV as the 2 are clinically indistinguishable and less than half of EH cases are diagnosed with laboratory confirmation.⁸

Confirm Dx before you treat

To guide management, cases of suspected eczema coxsackium should be confirmed, and HSV/VZV should be ruled out.⁹ Testing modalities include swabbing vesicular fluid for enterovirus polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis (preferred modality), oropharyngeal swab up to 2 weeks after infection, or viral isolate from stool samples up to 3 months after infection.^2,3

Treatment for eczema coxsackium involves supportive care such as intravenous (IV) hydration and antipyretics. Some studies show potential benefit with IV immunoglobulin in treating severe HFMD, while other studies show the exacerbation of widespread HFMD with this treatment.^7,10

Prompt diagnosis and treatment for eczema coxsackium is critical to prevent unnecessary antiviral therapy and to help guide monitoring for associated morbidities including Gianotti-Crosti syndrome–like eruptions, purpuric eruptions, and onychomadesis.

Our patient. Because EH was in the differential, our patient was started on empiric IV acyclovir 10 mg/kg every 8 hours while test results were pending. In addition, she received acetaminophen, IV fluids, gentle sponge baths, and diligent emollient application. Scraping from a vesicle revealed negative herpes simplex virus 1/2 PCR, negative VZV direct fluorescent antibody, and a positive enterovirus PCR—confirming the diagnosis of eczema coxsackium. Interestingly, a viral culture was negative in our patient, consistent with prior reports of enterovirus being difficult to culture.¹¹

With confirmation of the diagnosis of eczema coxsackium, the IV acyclovir was discontinued, and symptoms resolved after 7 days.

CORRESPONDENCE
Shane M. Swink, DO, MS, Division of Dermatology, 1200 South Cedar Crest Boulevard, Allentown, PA 18103; shanesw@pcom.edu

The characteristic finding of small, scattered vesicular lesions on the hands that sometimes coalesce, and often are itchy or irritated led to the diagnosis of vesicular hand dermatitis, a form of eczema. It also is referred to as dyshidrotic eczema or pompholyx. (Worth noting is the fact that common warts and flat warts usually present as raised papular—not vesicular—lesions on the hands.)

The exact etiology of vesicular hand dermatitis is unknown. It is more common in women than men and often occurs in patients 20 to 40 years of age who tend to have a positive family history of eczema. It usually develops acutely and often is triggered by topical irritants or frequent hand washing. Treatment during the acute phase includes topical steroids. Avoidance of topical irritants, use of mild cleansers instead of harsh soaps, reduction of hand washing frequency (if possible), and frequent application of emollients can reduce recurrence.

This patient’s eczema had been successfully treated with betamethasone dipropionate ointment 0.05% in the past. Since she still had some at home, she was instructed to use it twice daily along with topical emmolients. She reported great improvement within 1 week.

Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.

The characteristic finding of small, scattered vesicular lesions on the hands that sometimes coalesce, and often are itchy or irritated led to the diagnosis of vesicular hand dermatitis, a form of eczema. It also is referred to as dyshidrotic eczema or pompholyx. (Worth noting is the fact that common warts and flat warts usually present as raised papular—not vesicular—lesions on the hands.)

The exact etiology of vesicular hand dermatitis is unknown. It is more common in women than men and often occurs in patients 20 to 40 years of age who tend to have a positive family history of eczema. It usually develops acutely and often is triggered by topical irritants or frequent hand washing. Treatment during the acute phase includes topical steroids. Avoidance of topical irritants, use of mild cleansers instead of harsh soaps, reduction of hand washing frequency (if possible), and frequent application of emollients can reduce recurrence.

This patient’s eczema had been successfully treated with betamethasone dipropionate ointment 0.05% in the past. Since she still had some at home, she was instructed to use it twice daily along with topical emmolients. She reported great improvement within 1 week.

Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.

The characteristic finding of small, scattered vesicular lesions on the hands that sometimes coalesce, and often are itchy or irritated led to the diagnosis of vesicular hand dermatitis, a form of eczema. It also is referred to as dyshidrotic eczema or pompholyx. (Worth noting is the fact that common warts and flat warts usually present as raised papular—not vesicular—lesions on the hands.)

The exact etiology of vesicular hand dermatitis is unknown. It is more common in women than men and often occurs in patients 20 to 40 years of age who tend to have a positive family history of eczema. It usually develops acutely and often is triggered by topical irritants or frequent hand washing. Treatment during the acute phase includes topical steroids. Avoidance of topical irritants, use of mild cleansers instead of harsh soaps, reduction of hand washing frequency (if possible), and frequent application of emollients can reduce recurrence.

This patient’s eczema had been successfully treated with betamethasone dipropionate ointment 0.05% in the past. Since she still had some at home, she was instructed to use it twice daily along with topical emmolients. She reported great improvement within 1 week.

Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A 2016 systematic review identified 2 RCTs that examined whether early introduction of peanuts affects subsequent allergies.¹ The first RCT recruited 1303 3-month-old infants from the general population in the United Kingdom.² All patients had either a negative skin prick test (SPT) to peanuts or a negative oral peanut challenge (if an initial SPT was positive). The control group breastfed exclusively until age 6 months, at which time allergenic foods could be introduced at parental discretion.

Timing doesn’t affect peanut allergy in nonallergic patients

The intervention group received 6 common allergenic foods (peanuts, eggs, cow’s milk, wheat, sesame, and whitefish) twice weekly between ages 3 and 6 months. Researchers then performed double-blinded, placebo-controlled oral food challenges at ages 12 and 36 months.

More patients in the late-introduction group demonstrated peanut allergies by age 36 months than in the early-introduction group, but the difference wasn’t significant (2.5% vs 1.2%; P = 0.11).A key weakness of the study was combining peanuts with other common food allergens.²

Children with eczema, egg allergy benefit from earlier peanut introduction

The second RCT divided 640 infants with severe eczema, egg allergy, or both into 2 groups according to their response to an SPT to peanuts: patients with no wheal and patients with a positive wheal measuring 1 to 4 mm.³ Researchers then randomized patients to either early exposure (peanut products given from ages 4 to 11 months) or avoidance (no peanuts until age 60 months). The primary endpoint was a positive clinical response to oral peanut allergen at age 60 months.

In the negative SPT group (atopic children expected to have a lower risk for allergy), patients introduced to peanuts later had a higher rate of subsequent allergy than children exposed earlier (14% vs 2%; absolute risk reduction [ARR] = 12%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3%-20%; number needed to treat [NNT] = 9).³

In the positive SPT group (atopic children expected to have a higher risk for allergy), later peanut introduction likewise increased risk compared to earlier introduction (35% vs 11%; ARR = 24%; 95% CI, 5%-43%; NNT = 5). Children in the early-exposure group, however, had more URIs, viral exanthems, gastroenteritis, urticaria, and conjunctivitis (4527 events in the early-exposure group vs 4287 in the avoidance group, P = 0.02; about 1 more event per patient over the course of the study).³

In a general pediatric population, introducing peanuts at ages 3 to 6 months doesn’t alter subsequent peanut allergy rates compared with introduction after age 6 months.

The authors of the systematic review performed a meta-analysis of the 2 RCTs (1793 patients). They concluded that early introduction of peanuts to an infant’s diet (between ages 3 and 11 months) decreased the risk for eventual peanut allergy (relative risk [RR] = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.11-0.74), compared with introduction at or after age 1 year.¹ A key weakness, however, was the researchers’ choice to combine trials with very different inclusion criteria (infants with severe eczema and a general population).

Continue to: RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS

A 2017 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases guideline recommends a 3-tiered approach to peanut introduction: ⁴

• For children with severe eczema or egg allergy who aren’t currently allergic to peanuts (per SPT or immunoglobulin E [IgE] test), the guideline advises adding peanuts to the diet between ages 4 and 6 months. (Patients with positive SPT or IgE should be referred to an allergy specialist.)
• Children with mild or moderate eczema can be introduced to peanuts around age 6 months “in accordance with family preferences and cultural practices.”
• Children with no evidence of allergy or eczema can be “freely introduced” to peanut-containing foods with no specific guidance on age.

Editor’s takeaway

Good-quality evidence supports family physicians encouraging introduction of foods containing peanuts at age 4 to 6 months for children at increased risk because of atopy, allergies, or eczema.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A 2016 systematic review identified 2 RCTs that examined whether early introduction of peanuts affects subsequent allergies.¹ The first RCT recruited 1303 3-month-old infants from the general population in the United Kingdom.² All patients had either a negative skin prick test (SPT) to peanuts or a negative oral peanut challenge (if an initial SPT was positive). The control group breastfed exclusively until age 6 months, at which time allergenic foods could be introduced at parental discretion.

Timing doesn’t affect peanut allergy in nonallergic patients

The intervention group received 6 common allergenic foods (peanuts, eggs, cow’s milk, wheat, sesame, and whitefish) twice weekly between ages 3 and 6 months. Researchers then performed double-blinded, placebo-controlled oral food challenges at ages 12 and 36 months.

More patients in the late-introduction group demonstrated peanut allergies by age 36 months than in the early-introduction group, but the difference wasn’t significant (2.5% vs 1.2%; P = 0.11).A key weakness of the study was combining peanuts with other common food allergens.²

Children with eczema, egg allergy benefit from earlier peanut introduction

The second RCT divided 640 infants with severe eczema, egg allergy, or both into 2 groups according to their response to an SPT to peanuts: patients with no wheal and patients with a positive wheal measuring 1 to 4 mm.³ Researchers then randomized patients to either early exposure (peanut products given from ages 4 to 11 months) or avoidance (no peanuts until age 60 months). The primary endpoint was a positive clinical response to oral peanut allergen at age 60 months.

In the negative SPT group (atopic children expected to have a lower risk for allergy), patients introduced to peanuts later had a higher rate of subsequent allergy than children exposed earlier (14% vs 2%; absolute risk reduction [ARR] = 12%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3%-20%; number needed to treat [NNT] = 9).³

In the positive SPT group (atopic children expected to have a higher risk for allergy), later peanut introduction likewise increased risk compared to earlier introduction (35% vs 11%; ARR = 24%; 95% CI, 5%-43%; NNT = 5). Children in the early-exposure group, however, had more URIs, viral exanthems, gastroenteritis, urticaria, and conjunctivitis (4527 events in the early-exposure group vs 4287 in the avoidance group, P = 0.02; about 1 more event per patient over the course of the study).³

In a general pediatric population, introducing peanuts at ages 3 to 6 months doesn’t alter subsequent peanut allergy rates compared with introduction after age 6 months.

The authors of the systematic review performed a meta-analysis of the 2 RCTs (1793 patients). They concluded that early introduction of peanuts to an infant’s diet (between ages 3 and 11 months) decreased the risk for eventual peanut allergy (relative risk [RR] = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.11-0.74), compared with introduction at or after age 1 year.¹ A key weakness, however, was the researchers’ choice to combine trials with very different inclusion criteria (infants with severe eczema and a general population).

Continue to: RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS

A 2017 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases guideline recommends a 3-tiered approach to peanut introduction: ⁴

• For children with severe eczema or egg allergy who aren’t currently allergic to peanuts (per SPT or immunoglobulin E [IgE] test), the guideline advises adding peanuts to the diet between ages 4 and 6 months. (Patients with positive SPT or IgE should be referred to an allergy specialist.)
• Children with mild or moderate eczema can be introduced to peanuts around age 6 months “in accordance with family preferences and cultural practices.”
• Children with no evidence of allergy or eczema can be “freely introduced” to peanut-containing foods with no specific guidance on age.

Editor’s takeaway

Good-quality evidence supports family physicians encouraging introduction of foods containing peanuts at age 4 to 6 months for children at increased risk because of atopy, allergies, or eczema.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A 2016 systematic review identified 2 RCTs that examined whether early introduction of peanuts affects subsequent allergies.¹ The first RCT recruited 1303 3-month-old infants from the general population in the United Kingdom.² All patients had either a negative skin prick test (SPT) to peanuts or a negative oral peanut challenge (if an initial SPT was positive). The control group breastfed exclusively until age 6 months, at which time allergenic foods could be introduced at parental discretion.

Timing doesn’t affect peanut allergy in nonallergic patients

The intervention group received 6 common allergenic foods (peanuts, eggs, cow’s milk, wheat, sesame, and whitefish) twice weekly between ages 3 and 6 months. Researchers then performed double-blinded, placebo-controlled oral food challenges at ages 12 and 36 months.

More patients in the late-introduction group demonstrated peanut allergies by age 36 months than in the early-introduction group, but the difference wasn’t significant (2.5% vs 1.2%; P = 0.11).A key weakness of the study was combining peanuts with other common food allergens.²

Children with eczema, egg allergy benefit from earlier peanut introduction

The second RCT divided 640 infants with severe eczema, egg allergy, or both into 2 groups according to their response to an SPT to peanuts: patients with no wheal and patients with a positive wheal measuring 1 to 4 mm.³ Researchers then randomized patients to either early exposure (peanut products given from ages 4 to 11 months) or avoidance (no peanuts until age 60 months). The primary endpoint was a positive clinical response to oral peanut allergen at age 60 months.

In the negative SPT group (atopic children expected to have a lower risk for allergy), patients introduced to peanuts later had a higher rate of subsequent allergy than children exposed earlier (14% vs 2%; absolute risk reduction [ARR] = 12%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3%-20%; number needed to treat [NNT] = 9).³

In the positive SPT group (atopic children expected to have a higher risk for allergy), later peanut introduction likewise increased risk compared to earlier introduction (35% vs 11%; ARR = 24%; 95% CI, 5%-43%; NNT = 5). Children in the early-exposure group, however, had more URIs, viral exanthems, gastroenteritis, urticaria, and conjunctivitis (4527 events in the early-exposure group vs 4287 in the avoidance group, P = 0.02; about 1 more event per patient over the course of the study).³

In a general pediatric population, introducing peanuts at ages 3 to 6 months doesn’t alter subsequent peanut allergy rates compared with introduction after age 6 months.

The authors of the systematic review performed a meta-analysis of the 2 RCTs (1793 patients). They concluded that early introduction of peanuts to an infant’s diet (between ages 3 and 11 months) decreased the risk for eventual peanut allergy (relative risk [RR] = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.11-0.74), compared with introduction at or after age 1 year.¹ A key weakness, however, was the researchers’ choice to combine trials with very different inclusion criteria (infants with severe eczema and a general population).

Continue to: RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS

A 2017 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases guideline recommends a 3-tiered approach to peanut introduction: ⁴

• For children with severe eczema or egg allergy who aren’t currently allergic to peanuts (per SPT or immunoglobulin E [IgE] test), the guideline advises adding peanuts to the diet between ages 4 and 6 months. (Patients with positive SPT or IgE should be referred to an allergy specialist.)
• Children with mild or moderate eczema can be introduced to peanuts around age 6 months “in accordance with family preferences and cultural practices.”
• Children with no evidence of allergy or eczema can be “freely introduced” to peanut-containing foods with no specific guidance on age.

Editor’s takeaway

Good-quality evidence supports family physicians encouraging introduction of foods containing peanuts at age 4 to 6 months for children at increased risk because of atopy, allergies, or eczema.

Low back pain in not uncommon in children and adolescents.^1-3 Although the prevalence of low back pain in children < 7 years is low, it increases with age, with studies reporting lifetime prevalence at age 12 years between 16% and 18% and rates as high as 66% by 16 years of age.^4,5 Although children and adolescents usually have pain that is transient and benign without a defined cause, structural causes of low back pain should be considered in school-aged children with pain that persists for > 3 to 6 weeks. ⁴ The most common structural causes of adolescent low back pain are reviewed here.

Etiology: A mixed bag

Back pain in school-aged children is most commonly due to muscular strain, overuse, or poor posture. The pain is often transient in nature and responds to rest and postural education.^4,6 A herniated disc is an uncommon finding in younger school-aged children, but incidence increases slightly among older adolescents, particularly those who are active in collision sports and/or weight-lifting.^7,8 Pain caused by a herniated disc often radiates along the distribution of the sciatic nerve and worsens during lumbar flexion.

Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis are important causes of back pain in children. Spondylolysis is defined as a defect or abnormality of the pars interarticularis and surrounding lamina and pedicle. Spondylolisthesis, which is less common, is defined as the translation or “slippage” of one vertebral segment in relation to the next caudal segment. These conditions commonly occur as a result of repetitive stress.

In a prospective study of adolescents < 19 years with low back pain for > 2 weeks, the prevalence of spondylolysis was 39.7%.⁹ Adolescent athletes with symptomatic low back pain are more likely to have spondylolysis than nonathletes (32% vs 2%, respectively).^2,10 Pain is often made worse by extension of the spine. Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis can be congenital or acquired, and both can be asymptomatic. Children and teens who are athletes are at higher risk for symptomatic spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis.^10-12 This is especially true for those involved in gymnastics, dance, football, and/or volleyball, where a repetitive load is placed onto an extended spine.

Idiopathic scoliosis is an abnormal lateral curvature of the spine that usually develops during adolescence and worsens with growth. Historically, painful scoliosis was considered rare, but more recently researchers determined that children with scoliosis have a higher rate of pain compared to their peers.^13,14 School-aged children with scoliosis were found to be at 2 times the risk of low back pain compared to those without scoliosis.¹³ It is important to identify scoliosis in adolescents so that progression can be monitored.

Hyperextension in a single-leg stance, commonly known as the Stork test, is positive for unilateral spondylolysis when it reproduces pain on the ipsilateral side.

Screening for scoliosis in primary care is somewhat controversial. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) finds insufficient evidence for screening asymptomatic adolescents for scoliosis.¹⁵ This recommendation is based on the fact that there is little evidence on the effect of screening on long-term outcomes. Screening may also lead to unnecessary radiation. Conversely, a position statement released by the Scoliosis Research Society, the Pediatric Orthopedic Society of North America, the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons, and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends scoliosis screening during routine pediatric office visits.¹⁶ Screening for girls is recommended at ages 10 and 12 years, and for boys, once between ages 13 and 14 years. The statement highlights evidence showing that focused screening by appropriate personnel has value in detecting a clinically significant curve (> 20°).

Scheuermann disease is a rare cause of back pain in children that usually develops during adolescence and results in increasing thoracic kyphosis. An autosomal dominant mutation plays a role in this disease of the growth cartilage endplate; repetitive strain on the growth cartilage is also a contributing factor.^17,18 An atypical variant manifests with kyphosis in the thoracolumbar region.¹⁷

Continue to: Other causes of low back pain

Other causes of low back pain—including inflammatory arthritis, infection (eg, discitis), and tumor—are rare in children but must always be considered, especially in the setting of persistent symptoms.^4,19-21 More on the features of these conditions is listed in TABLE 1.^{1-7,13-15,17-30}

History: Focus on onset, timing, and duration of symptoms

As with adults, obtaining a history that includes the onset, timing, and duration of symptoms is key in the evaluation of low back pain in children, as is obtaining a history of the patient’s activities; sports that repetitively load the lumbar spine in an extended position increase the risk of injury.¹⁰

Specific risk factors for low back pain in children and adolescents are poorly understood.^4,9,31 Pain can be associated with trauma, or it can have a more progressive or insidious onset. Generally, pain that is present for up to 6 weeks and is intermittent or improving has a self-limited course. Pain that persists beyond 3 to 6 weeks or is worsening is more likely to have an anatomical cause that needs further evaluation.^2,3,10,21

Identifying exacerbating and alleviating factors can provide useful information. Pain that is worse with lumbar flexion is more likely to come from muscular strain or disc pathology. Pain with extension is more likely due to a structural cause such as spondylolysis/spondylolisthesis, scoliosis, or Scheuermann disease.^{2,4,10,17,18,21} See TABLE 2 for red flag symptoms that indicate the need for imaging and further work-up.

The physical exam: Visualize, assess range of motion, and reproduce pain

The physical examination of any patient with low back pain should include direct visualization and inspection of the back, spine, and pelvis; palpation of the spine and paraspinal regions; assessment of lumbar range of motion and of the lumbar nerve roots, including tests of sensation, strength, and deep tendon reflexes; and an evaluation of the patient’s posture, which can provide clues to underlying causes of pain.

Continue to: Increased thoracic kyphosis...

Increased thoracic kyphosis that is not reversible is concerning for Scheuermann disease.^9,17,18 A significant elevation in one shoulder or side of the pelvis can be indicative of scoliosis. Increased lumbar lordosis may predispose a patient to spondylolysis.

In patients with spondylolysis, lumbar extension will usually reproduce pain, which is often unilateral. Hyperextension in a single-leg stance, commonly known as the Stork test, is positive for unilateral spondylolysis when it reproduces pain on the ipsilateral side. The sensitivity of the Stork test for unilateral spondylolysis is approximately 50%.³² (For more information on the Stork test, see www.physio-pedia.com/Stork_test.)

Pain reproduced with lumbar flexion is less concerning for bony pathology and is most often related to soft-tissue strain. Lumbar flexion with concomitant radicular pain is associated with disc pathology.⁸ Pain with a straight-leg raise is also associated with disk pathology, especially if raising the contralateral leg increases pain.⁸

Using a scoliometer. Evaluate the flexed spine for the presence of asymmetry, which can indicate scoliosis.³³ If asymmetry is present, use a scoliometer to determine the degree of asymmetry. Zero to 5° is considered clinically insignificant; monitor and reevaluate these patients at subsequent visits.^34,35 Ten degrees or more of asymmetry with a scoliometer should prompt you to order radiographs.^35,36 A smartphone-based scoliometer for iPhones was evaluated in 1 study and was shown to have reasonable reliability and validity for clinical use.³⁷

Deformity of the lower extremities. Because low back pain may be caused by biomechanical or structural deformity of the lower extremities, examine the flexibility of the hip flexors, gluteal musculature, hamstrings, and the iliotibial band.³⁸ In addition, evaluate for leg-length discrepancy and lower-extremity malalignment, such as femoral anteversion, tibial torsion, or pes planus.

Continue to: Imaging

Imaging: Know when it’s needed

Although imaging of the lumbar spine is often unnecessary in the presence of acute low back pain in children, always consider imaging in the setting of bony tenderness, pain that wakes a patient from sleep, and in the setting of other red flag symptoms (see TABLE 2). Low back pain in children that is reproducible with lumbar extension is concerning for spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis. If the pain with extension persists beyond 3 to 6 weeks, order imaging starting with radiographs.^2,39

Traditionally, 4 views of the spine—­anteroposterior (AP), lateral, and oblique (one right and one left)—were obtained, but recent evidence indicates that 2 views (AP and lateral) have similar sensitivity and specificity to 4 views with significantly reduced radiation exposure.^2,39 Because the sensitivity of plain films is relatively low, consider more advanced imaging if spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis is strongly suspected. Recent studies indicate that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be as effective as computed tomography (CT) or bone scan and has the advantage of lower radiation (FIGURE 1).^2,22

Similarly, order radiographs if there is > 10° of asymmetry noted on physical exam using a scoliometer.^15,23 Calculate the Cobb angle to determine the severity of scoliosis. Refer patients with angles ≥ 20° to a pediatric orthopedist for monitoring of progression and consideration of bracing (FIGURE 2).^23,34 For patients with curvatures between 10° and 19°, repeat imaging every 6 to 12 months. Because scoliosis is a risk factor for spondylolysis, evaluate radiographs in the setting of painful scoliosis for the presence of a spondylolysis.^34,35

Pain reproduced with lumbar flexion is less concerning for bony pathology and is most often related to soft-tissue strain.

If excessive kyphosis is noted on exam, order radiographs to evaluate for Scheuermann disease. Classic imaging findings include Schmorl nodes, vertebral endplate changes, and anterior wedging (FIGURE 3).^17,18

In the absence of the above concerns, defer imaging of the lumbar spine until after adequate rest and rehabilitation have been attempted.

Continue to: Treatment typically involves restor physical therapy

Most cases of low back pain in children and adolescents are benign and self-limited. Many children with low back pain can be treated with relative rest from the offending activity. For children with more persistent pain, physical therapy (PT) is often indicated. Similar to that for adults, there is little evidence for specific PT programs to help children with low back pain. Rehabilitation should be individualized based on the condition being treated.

Medications. There have been no high-quality studies on the benefit of medications to treat low back pain in children. Studies have shown nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have value in adults, and they are likely safe for use in children,⁴⁰ but the risk of opiate abuse is significantly increased in adolescents who have been prescribed opiate pain medication prior to 12th grade.⁴¹

Lumbar disc herniation. Although still relatively rare, lumbar disc herniation is more common in older children and adolescents than in younger children and is treated similarly to that in adults.⁸ Range-of-motion exercise to restore lumbar motion is often first-line treatment. Research has shown that exercises that strengthen the abdominal or “core” musculature help prevent the return of low back pain.^24,25

In the case of spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis, rest from activity is generally required for a minimum of 4 to 6 weeks. Rehabilitation in the form of range of motion, especially into the lumbar extension, and spinal stabilization exercises are effective for both reducing pain and restoring range-­of-motion and strength.⁴² Have patients avoid heavy backpacks, which can reproduce pain. Children often benefit from leaving a second set of schoolbooks at home. For most patients with spondylolysis, conservative treatment with rehabilitation is equal to or better than surgical intervention in returning the patient to his/her pre-injury activity level.^26,43,44 When returning athletes to their sport, aggressive PT, defined as rest for < 10 weeks prior to initiating PT, is superior to delaying PT beyond 10 weeks of rest.²⁷

Idiopathic scoliosis. Much of the literature on the treatment of scoliosis is focused on limiting progression of the scoliotic curvature. Researchers thought that more severe curves were associated with more severe pain, but a recent systematic review showed that back pain can occur in patients with even small curvatures.²⁸ Treatment for patients with smaller degrees of curvature is similar to that for mechanical low back pain. PT may have a role in the treatment of scoliosis, but there is little evidence in the literature of its effectiveness.

Continue to: A Cochrane review showed...

Always consider imaging in the setting of bony tenderness, pain that wakes the patient from sleep, and when there is > 10° of asymmetry on physical exam using a scoliometer.

A Cochrane review showed that PT and exercise-based treatments had no effect on back pain or disability in patients with scoliosis.²⁹ And outpatient PT alone, in the absence of bracing, does not arrest progression of the scoliotic curvature.³⁵ One trial did demonstrate that an intensive inpatient treatment program of 4 to 6 weeks for patients with curvature of at least 40° reduced progression of curvature compared to an untreated control group at 1 year.³⁴ The outcomes of functional mobility and pain were not measured. Follow-up data on curve progression beyond 1 year are not available. Unfortunately, intensive inpatient treatment is not readily available or cost-effective for most patients with scoliosis.

Scheuermann disease. The mainstay of treatment for mild Scheuermann disease is advising the patient to avoid repetitive loading of the spine. Patients should avoid sports such as competitive weight-lifting, gymnastics, and football. Lower impact athletics are encouraged. Refer patients with pain to PT to address posture and core stabilization. Patients with severe kyphosis may require surgery.^17,18

Bracing: Rarely helpful for low back pain

The use of lumbar braces or corsets is rarely helpful for low back pain in children. Bracing in the setting of spondylolysis is controversial.One study indicated that bracing in combination with activity restriction and lumbar extension exercise is superior to activity restriction and lumbar flexion exercises alone.⁴³ But a meta-analysis did not demonstrate a significant difference in recovery when bracing was added.⁴⁴ Bracing may help to reduce pain initially in patients with spondylolysis who have pain at rest. Bracing is not recommended for patients with pain that abates with activity modification.

Scoliosis and Scheuermann kyphosis. Treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis usually consists of observation and periodic reevaluation. Bracing is a mainstay of the nonsurgical management of scoliosis and is appropriate for curves of 20° to 40°; studies have reported successful control of curve progression in > 70% of patients.³⁶ According to 1 study, the number of cases of scoliosis needed to treat with bracing to prevent 1 surgery is 3.³⁰ Surgery is often indicated for patients with curvatures > 40°, although this is also debated.³³

Bracing is used rarely for Scheuermann kyphosis but may be helpful in more severe or painful cases.¹⁷

CORRESPONDENCE
Shawn F. Phillips, MD, MSPT, 500 University Drive H154, Hershey, PA, 17033; sphillips6@pennstatehealth.psu.edu.

Low back pain in not uncommon in children and adolescents.^1-3 Although the prevalence of low back pain in children < 7 years is low, it increases with age, with studies reporting lifetime prevalence at age 12 years between 16% and 18% and rates as high as 66% by 16 years of age.^4,5 Although children and adolescents usually have pain that is transient and benign without a defined cause, structural causes of low back pain should be considered in school-aged children with pain that persists for > 3 to 6 weeks. ⁴ The most common structural causes of adolescent low back pain are reviewed here.

Etiology: A mixed bag

Back pain in school-aged children is most commonly due to muscular strain, overuse, or poor posture. The pain is often transient in nature and responds to rest and postural education.^4,6 A herniated disc is an uncommon finding in younger school-aged children, but incidence increases slightly among older adolescents, particularly those who are active in collision sports and/or weight-lifting.^7,8 Pain caused by a herniated disc often radiates along the distribution of the sciatic nerve and worsens during lumbar flexion.

Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis are important causes of back pain in children. Spondylolysis is defined as a defect or abnormality of the pars interarticularis and surrounding lamina and pedicle. Spondylolisthesis, which is less common, is defined as the translation or “slippage” of one vertebral segment in relation to the next caudal segment. These conditions commonly occur as a result of repetitive stress.

In a prospective study of adolescents < 19 years with low back pain for > 2 weeks, the prevalence of spondylolysis was 39.7%.⁹ Adolescent athletes with symptomatic low back pain are more likely to have spondylolysis than nonathletes (32% vs 2%, respectively).^2,10 Pain is often made worse by extension of the spine. Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis can be congenital or acquired, and both can be asymptomatic. Children and teens who are athletes are at higher risk for symptomatic spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis.^10-12 This is especially true for those involved in gymnastics, dance, football, and/or volleyball, where a repetitive load is placed onto an extended spine.

Idiopathic scoliosis is an abnormal lateral curvature of the spine that usually develops during adolescence and worsens with growth. Historically, painful scoliosis was considered rare, but more recently researchers determined that children with scoliosis have a higher rate of pain compared to their peers.^13,14 School-aged children with scoliosis were found to be at 2 times the risk of low back pain compared to those without scoliosis.¹³ It is important to identify scoliosis in adolescents so that progression can be monitored.

Hyperextension in a single-leg stance, commonly known as the Stork test, is positive for unilateral spondylolysis when it reproduces pain on the ipsilateral side.

Screening for scoliosis in primary care is somewhat controversial. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) finds insufficient evidence for screening asymptomatic adolescents for scoliosis.¹⁵ This recommendation is based on the fact that there is little evidence on the effect of screening on long-term outcomes. Screening may also lead to unnecessary radiation. Conversely, a position statement released by the Scoliosis Research Society, the Pediatric Orthopedic Society of North America, the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons, and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends scoliosis screening during routine pediatric office visits.¹⁶ Screening for girls is recommended at ages 10 and 12 years, and for boys, once between ages 13 and 14 years. The statement highlights evidence showing that focused screening by appropriate personnel has value in detecting a clinically significant curve (> 20°).

Scheuermann disease is a rare cause of back pain in children that usually develops during adolescence and results in increasing thoracic kyphosis. An autosomal dominant mutation plays a role in this disease of the growth cartilage endplate; repetitive strain on the growth cartilage is also a contributing factor.^17,18 An atypical variant manifests with kyphosis in the thoracolumbar region.¹⁷

Continue to: Other causes of low back pain

Other causes of low back pain—including inflammatory arthritis, infection (eg, discitis), and tumor—are rare in children but must always be considered, especially in the setting of persistent symptoms.^4,19-21 More on the features of these conditions is listed in TABLE 1.^{1-7,13-15,17-30}

History: Focus on onset, timing, and duration of symptoms

As with adults, obtaining a history that includes the onset, timing, and duration of symptoms is key in the evaluation of low back pain in children, as is obtaining a history of the patient’s activities; sports that repetitively load the lumbar spine in an extended position increase the risk of injury.¹⁰

Specific risk factors for low back pain in children and adolescents are poorly understood.^4,9,31 Pain can be associated with trauma, or it can have a more progressive or insidious onset. Generally, pain that is present for up to 6 weeks and is intermittent or improving has a self-limited course. Pain that persists beyond 3 to 6 weeks or is worsening is more likely to have an anatomical cause that needs further evaluation.^2,3,10,21

Identifying exacerbating and alleviating factors can provide useful information. Pain that is worse with lumbar flexion is more likely to come from muscular strain or disc pathology. Pain with extension is more likely due to a structural cause such as spondylolysis/spondylolisthesis, scoliosis, or Scheuermann disease.^{2,4,10,17,18,21} See TABLE 2 for red flag symptoms that indicate the need for imaging and further work-up.

The physical exam: Visualize, assess range of motion, and reproduce pain

The physical examination of any patient with low back pain should include direct visualization and inspection of the back, spine, and pelvis; palpation of the spine and paraspinal regions; assessment of lumbar range of motion and of the lumbar nerve roots, including tests of sensation, strength, and deep tendon reflexes; and an evaluation of the patient’s posture, which can provide clues to underlying causes of pain.

Continue to: Increased thoracic kyphosis...

Increased thoracic kyphosis that is not reversible is concerning for Scheuermann disease.^9,17,18 A significant elevation in one shoulder or side of the pelvis can be indicative of scoliosis. Increased lumbar lordosis may predispose a patient to spondylolysis.

In patients with spondylolysis, lumbar extension will usually reproduce pain, which is often unilateral. Hyperextension in a single-leg stance, commonly known as the Stork test, is positive for unilateral spondylolysis when it reproduces pain on the ipsilateral side. The sensitivity of the Stork test for unilateral spondylolysis is approximately 50%.³² (For more information on the Stork test, see www.physio-pedia.com/Stork_test.)

Pain reproduced with lumbar flexion is less concerning for bony pathology and is most often related to soft-tissue strain. Lumbar flexion with concomitant radicular pain is associated with disc pathology.⁸ Pain with a straight-leg raise is also associated with disk pathology, especially if raising the contralateral leg increases pain.⁸

Using a scoliometer. Evaluate the flexed spine for the presence of asymmetry, which can indicate scoliosis.³³ If asymmetry is present, use a scoliometer to determine the degree of asymmetry. Zero to 5° is considered clinically insignificant; monitor and reevaluate these patients at subsequent visits.^34,35 Ten degrees or more of asymmetry with a scoliometer should prompt you to order radiographs.^35,36 A smartphone-based scoliometer for iPhones was evaluated in 1 study and was shown to have reasonable reliability and validity for clinical use.³⁷

Deformity of the lower extremities. Because low back pain may be caused by biomechanical or structural deformity of the lower extremities, examine the flexibility of the hip flexors, gluteal musculature, hamstrings, and the iliotibial band.³⁸ In addition, evaluate for leg-length discrepancy and lower-extremity malalignment, such as femoral anteversion, tibial torsion, or pes planus.

Continue to: Imaging

Imaging: Know when it’s needed

Although imaging of the lumbar spine is often unnecessary in the presence of acute low back pain in children, always consider imaging in the setting of bony tenderness, pain that wakes a patient from sleep, and in the setting of other red flag symptoms (see TABLE 2). Low back pain in children that is reproducible with lumbar extension is concerning for spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis. If the pain with extension persists beyond 3 to 6 weeks, order imaging starting with radiographs.^2,39

Traditionally, 4 views of the spine—­anteroposterior (AP), lateral, and oblique (one right and one left)—were obtained, but recent evidence indicates that 2 views (AP and lateral) have similar sensitivity and specificity to 4 views with significantly reduced radiation exposure.^2,39 Because the sensitivity of plain films is relatively low, consider more advanced imaging if spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis is strongly suspected. Recent studies indicate that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be as effective as computed tomography (CT) or bone scan and has the advantage of lower radiation (FIGURE 1).^2,22

Similarly, order radiographs if there is > 10° of asymmetry noted on physical exam using a scoliometer.^15,23 Calculate the Cobb angle to determine the severity of scoliosis. Refer patients with angles ≥ 20° to a pediatric orthopedist for monitoring of progression and consideration of bracing (FIGURE 2).^23,34 For patients with curvatures between 10° and 19°, repeat imaging every 6 to 12 months. Because scoliosis is a risk factor for spondylolysis, evaluate radiographs in the setting of painful scoliosis for the presence of a spondylolysis.^34,35

Pain reproduced with lumbar flexion is less concerning for bony pathology and is most often related to soft-tissue strain.

If excessive kyphosis is noted on exam, order radiographs to evaluate for Scheuermann disease. Classic imaging findings include Schmorl nodes, vertebral endplate changes, and anterior wedging (FIGURE 3).^17,18

In the absence of the above concerns, defer imaging of the lumbar spine until after adequate rest and rehabilitation have been attempted.

Continue to: Treatment typically involves restor physical therapy

Most cases of low back pain in children and adolescents are benign and self-limited. Many children with low back pain can be treated with relative rest from the offending activity. For children with more persistent pain, physical therapy (PT) is often indicated. Similar to that for adults, there is little evidence for specific PT programs to help children with low back pain. Rehabilitation should be individualized based on the condition being treated.

Medications. There have been no high-quality studies on the benefit of medications to treat low back pain in children. Studies have shown nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have value in adults, and they are likely safe for use in children,⁴⁰ but the risk of opiate abuse is significantly increased in adolescents who have been prescribed opiate pain medication prior to 12th grade.⁴¹

Lumbar disc herniation. Although still relatively rare, lumbar disc herniation is more common in older children and adolescents than in younger children and is treated similarly to that in adults.⁸ Range-of-motion exercise to restore lumbar motion is often first-line treatment. Research has shown that exercises that strengthen the abdominal or “core” musculature help prevent the return of low back pain.^24,25

In the case of spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis, rest from activity is generally required for a minimum of 4 to 6 weeks. Rehabilitation in the form of range of motion, especially into the lumbar extension, and spinal stabilization exercises are effective for both reducing pain and restoring range-­of-motion and strength.⁴² Have patients avoid heavy backpacks, which can reproduce pain. Children often benefit from leaving a second set of schoolbooks at home. For most patients with spondylolysis, conservative treatment with rehabilitation is equal to or better than surgical intervention in returning the patient to his/her pre-injury activity level.^26,43,44 When returning athletes to their sport, aggressive PT, defined as rest for < 10 weeks prior to initiating PT, is superior to delaying PT beyond 10 weeks of rest.²⁷

Idiopathic scoliosis. Much of the literature on the treatment of scoliosis is focused on limiting progression of the scoliotic curvature. Researchers thought that more severe curves were associated with more severe pain, but a recent systematic review showed that back pain can occur in patients with even small curvatures.²⁸ Treatment for patients with smaller degrees of curvature is similar to that for mechanical low back pain. PT may have a role in the treatment of scoliosis, but there is little evidence in the literature of its effectiveness.

Continue to: A Cochrane review showed...

Always consider imaging in the setting of bony tenderness, pain that wakes the patient from sleep, and when there is > 10° of asymmetry on physical exam using a scoliometer.

A Cochrane review showed that PT and exercise-based treatments had no effect on back pain or disability in patients with scoliosis.²⁹ And outpatient PT alone, in the absence of bracing, does not arrest progression of the scoliotic curvature.³⁵ One trial did demonstrate that an intensive inpatient treatment program of 4 to 6 weeks for patients with curvature of at least 40° reduced progression of curvature compared to an untreated control group at 1 year.³⁴ The outcomes of functional mobility and pain were not measured. Follow-up data on curve progression beyond 1 year are not available. Unfortunately, intensive inpatient treatment is not readily available or cost-effective for most patients with scoliosis.

Scheuermann disease. The mainstay of treatment for mild Scheuermann disease is advising the patient to avoid repetitive loading of the spine. Patients should avoid sports such as competitive weight-lifting, gymnastics, and football. Lower impact athletics are encouraged. Refer patients with pain to PT to address posture and core stabilization. Patients with severe kyphosis may require surgery.^17,18

Bracing: Rarely helpful for low back pain

The use of lumbar braces or corsets is rarely helpful for low back pain in children. Bracing in the setting of spondylolysis is controversial.One study indicated that bracing in combination with activity restriction and lumbar extension exercise is superior to activity restriction and lumbar flexion exercises alone.⁴³ But a meta-analysis did not demonstrate a significant difference in recovery when bracing was added.⁴⁴ Bracing may help to reduce pain initially in patients with spondylolysis who have pain at rest. Bracing is not recommended for patients with pain that abates with activity modification.

Scoliosis and Scheuermann kyphosis. Treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis usually consists of observation and periodic reevaluation. Bracing is a mainstay of the nonsurgical management of scoliosis and is appropriate for curves of 20° to 40°; studies have reported successful control of curve progression in > 70% of patients.³⁶ According to 1 study, the number of cases of scoliosis needed to treat with bracing to prevent 1 surgery is 3.³⁰ Surgery is often indicated for patients with curvatures > 40°, although this is also debated.³³

Bracing is used rarely for Scheuermann kyphosis but may be helpful in more severe or painful cases.¹⁷

CORRESPONDENCE
Shawn F. Phillips, MD, MSPT, 500 University Drive H154, Hershey, PA, 17033; sphillips6@pennstatehealth.psu.edu.

Low back pain in not uncommon in children and adolescents.^1-3 Although the prevalence of low back pain in children < 7 years is low, it increases with age, with studies reporting lifetime prevalence at age 12 years between 16% and 18% and rates as high as 66% by 16 years of age.^4,5 Although children and adolescents usually have pain that is transient and benign without a defined cause, structural causes of low back pain should be considered in school-aged children with pain that persists for > 3 to 6 weeks. ⁴ The most common structural causes of adolescent low back pain are reviewed here.

Etiology: A mixed bag

Back pain in school-aged children is most commonly due to muscular strain, overuse, or poor posture. The pain is often transient in nature and responds to rest and postural education.^4,6 A herniated disc is an uncommon finding in younger school-aged children, but incidence increases slightly among older adolescents, particularly those who are active in collision sports and/or weight-lifting.^7,8 Pain caused by a herniated disc often radiates along the distribution of the sciatic nerve and worsens during lumbar flexion.

Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis are important causes of back pain in children. Spondylolysis is defined as a defect or abnormality of the pars interarticularis and surrounding lamina and pedicle. Spondylolisthesis, which is less common, is defined as the translation or “slippage” of one vertebral segment in relation to the next caudal segment. These conditions commonly occur as a result of repetitive stress.

In a prospective study of adolescents < 19 years with low back pain for > 2 weeks, the prevalence of spondylolysis was 39.7%.⁹ Adolescent athletes with symptomatic low back pain are more likely to have spondylolysis than nonathletes (32% vs 2%, respectively).^2,10 Pain is often made worse by extension of the spine. Spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis can be congenital or acquired, and both can be asymptomatic. Children and teens who are athletes are at higher risk for symptomatic spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis.^10-12 This is especially true for those involved in gymnastics, dance, football, and/or volleyball, where a repetitive load is placed onto an extended spine.

Idiopathic scoliosis is an abnormal lateral curvature of the spine that usually develops during adolescence and worsens with growth. Historically, painful scoliosis was considered rare, but more recently researchers determined that children with scoliosis have a higher rate of pain compared to their peers.^13,14 School-aged children with scoliosis were found to be at 2 times the risk of low back pain compared to those without scoliosis.¹³ It is important to identify scoliosis in adolescents so that progression can be monitored.

Hyperextension in a single-leg stance, commonly known as the Stork test, is positive for unilateral spondylolysis when it reproduces pain on the ipsilateral side.

Screening for scoliosis in primary care is somewhat controversial. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) finds insufficient evidence for screening asymptomatic adolescents for scoliosis.¹⁵ This recommendation is based on the fact that there is little evidence on the effect of screening on long-term outcomes. Screening may also lead to unnecessary radiation. Conversely, a position statement released by the Scoliosis Research Society, the Pediatric Orthopedic Society of North America, the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons, and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends scoliosis screening during routine pediatric office visits.¹⁶ Screening for girls is recommended at ages 10 and 12 years, and for boys, once between ages 13 and 14 years. The statement highlights evidence showing that focused screening by appropriate personnel has value in detecting a clinically significant curve (> 20°).

Scheuermann disease is a rare cause of back pain in children that usually develops during adolescence and results in increasing thoracic kyphosis. An autosomal dominant mutation plays a role in this disease of the growth cartilage endplate; repetitive strain on the growth cartilage is also a contributing factor.^17,18 An atypical variant manifests with kyphosis in the thoracolumbar region.¹⁷

Continue to: Other causes of low back pain

Other causes of low back pain—including inflammatory arthritis, infection (eg, discitis), and tumor—are rare in children but must always be considered, especially in the setting of persistent symptoms.^4,19-21 More on the features of these conditions is listed in TABLE 1.^{1-7,13-15,17-30}

History: Focus on onset, timing, and duration of symptoms

As with adults, obtaining a history that includes the onset, timing, and duration of symptoms is key in the evaluation of low back pain in children, as is obtaining a history of the patient’s activities; sports that repetitively load the lumbar spine in an extended position increase the risk of injury.¹⁰

Specific risk factors for low back pain in children and adolescents are poorly understood.^4,9,31 Pain can be associated with trauma, or it can have a more progressive or insidious onset. Generally, pain that is present for up to 6 weeks and is intermittent or improving has a self-limited course. Pain that persists beyond 3 to 6 weeks or is worsening is more likely to have an anatomical cause that needs further evaluation.^2,3,10,21

Identifying exacerbating and alleviating factors can provide useful information. Pain that is worse with lumbar flexion is more likely to come from muscular strain or disc pathology. Pain with extension is more likely due to a structural cause such as spondylolysis/spondylolisthesis, scoliosis, or Scheuermann disease.^{2,4,10,17,18,21} See TABLE 2 for red flag symptoms that indicate the need for imaging and further work-up.

The physical exam: Visualize, assess range of motion, and reproduce pain

The physical examination of any patient with low back pain should include direct visualization and inspection of the back, spine, and pelvis; palpation of the spine and paraspinal regions; assessment of lumbar range of motion and of the lumbar nerve roots, including tests of sensation, strength, and deep tendon reflexes; and an evaluation of the patient’s posture, which can provide clues to underlying causes of pain.

Continue to: Increased thoracic kyphosis...

Increased thoracic kyphosis that is not reversible is concerning for Scheuermann disease.^9,17,18 A significant elevation in one shoulder or side of the pelvis can be indicative of scoliosis. Increased lumbar lordosis may predispose a patient to spondylolysis.

In patients with spondylolysis, lumbar extension will usually reproduce pain, which is often unilateral. Hyperextension in a single-leg stance, commonly known as the Stork test, is positive for unilateral spondylolysis when it reproduces pain on the ipsilateral side. The sensitivity of the Stork test for unilateral spondylolysis is approximately 50%.³² (For more information on the Stork test, see www.physio-pedia.com/Stork_test.)

Pain reproduced with lumbar flexion is less concerning for bony pathology and is most often related to soft-tissue strain. Lumbar flexion with concomitant radicular pain is associated with disc pathology.⁸ Pain with a straight-leg raise is also associated with disk pathology, especially if raising the contralateral leg increases pain.⁸

Using a scoliometer. Evaluate the flexed spine for the presence of asymmetry, which can indicate scoliosis.³³ If asymmetry is present, use a scoliometer to determine the degree of asymmetry. Zero to 5° is considered clinically insignificant; monitor and reevaluate these patients at subsequent visits.^34,35 Ten degrees or more of asymmetry with a scoliometer should prompt you to order radiographs.^35,36 A smartphone-based scoliometer for iPhones was evaluated in 1 study and was shown to have reasonable reliability and validity for clinical use.³⁷

Deformity of the lower extremities. Because low back pain may be caused by biomechanical or structural deformity of the lower extremities, examine the flexibility of the hip flexors, gluteal musculature, hamstrings, and the iliotibial band.³⁸ In addition, evaluate for leg-length discrepancy and lower-extremity malalignment, such as femoral anteversion, tibial torsion, or pes planus.

Continue to: Imaging

Imaging: Know when it’s needed

Although imaging of the lumbar spine is often unnecessary in the presence of acute low back pain in children, always consider imaging in the setting of bony tenderness, pain that wakes a patient from sleep, and in the setting of other red flag symptoms (see TABLE 2). Low back pain in children that is reproducible with lumbar extension is concerning for spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis. If the pain with extension persists beyond 3 to 6 weeks, order imaging starting with radiographs.^2,39

Traditionally, 4 views of the spine—­anteroposterior (AP), lateral, and oblique (one right and one left)—were obtained, but recent evidence indicates that 2 views (AP and lateral) have similar sensitivity and specificity to 4 views with significantly reduced radiation exposure.^2,39 Because the sensitivity of plain films is relatively low, consider more advanced imaging if spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis is strongly suspected. Recent studies indicate that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be as effective as computed tomography (CT) or bone scan and has the advantage of lower radiation (FIGURE 1).^2,22

Similarly, order radiographs if there is > 10° of asymmetry noted on physical exam using a scoliometer.^15,23 Calculate the Cobb angle to determine the severity of scoliosis. Refer patients with angles ≥ 20° to a pediatric orthopedist for monitoring of progression and consideration of bracing (FIGURE 2).^23,34 For patients with curvatures between 10° and 19°, repeat imaging every 6 to 12 months. Because scoliosis is a risk factor for spondylolysis, evaluate radiographs in the setting of painful scoliosis for the presence of a spondylolysis.^34,35

Pain reproduced with lumbar flexion is less concerning for bony pathology and is most often related to soft-tissue strain.

If excessive kyphosis is noted on exam, order radiographs to evaluate for Scheuermann disease. Classic imaging findings include Schmorl nodes, vertebral endplate changes, and anterior wedging (FIGURE 3).^17,18

In the absence of the above concerns, defer imaging of the lumbar spine until after adequate rest and rehabilitation have been attempted.

Continue to: Treatment typically involves restor physical therapy

Most cases of low back pain in children and adolescents are benign and self-limited. Many children with low back pain can be treated with relative rest from the offending activity. For children with more persistent pain, physical therapy (PT) is often indicated. Similar to that for adults, there is little evidence for specific PT programs to help children with low back pain. Rehabilitation should be individualized based on the condition being treated.

Medications. There have been no high-quality studies on the benefit of medications to treat low back pain in children. Studies have shown nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have value in adults, and they are likely safe for use in children,⁴⁰ but the risk of opiate abuse is significantly increased in adolescents who have been prescribed opiate pain medication prior to 12th grade.⁴¹

Lumbar disc herniation. Although still relatively rare, lumbar disc herniation is more common in older children and adolescents than in younger children and is treated similarly to that in adults.⁸ Range-of-motion exercise to restore lumbar motion is often first-line treatment. Research has shown that exercises that strengthen the abdominal or “core” musculature help prevent the return of low back pain.^24,25

In the case of spondylolysis or spondylolisthesis, rest from activity is generally required for a minimum of 4 to 6 weeks. Rehabilitation in the form of range of motion, especially into the lumbar extension, and spinal stabilization exercises are effective for both reducing pain and restoring range-­of-motion and strength.⁴² Have patients avoid heavy backpacks, which can reproduce pain. Children often benefit from leaving a second set of schoolbooks at home. For most patients with spondylolysis, conservative treatment with rehabilitation is equal to or better than surgical intervention in returning the patient to his/her pre-injury activity level.^26,43,44 When returning athletes to their sport, aggressive PT, defined as rest for < 10 weeks prior to initiating PT, is superior to delaying PT beyond 10 weeks of rest.²⁷

Idiopathic scoliosis. Much of the literature on the treatment of scoliosis is focused on limiting progression of the scoliotic curvature. Researchers thought that more severe curves were associated with more severe pain, but a recent systematic review showed that back pain can occur in patients with even small curvatures.²⁸ Treatment for patients with smaller degrees of curvature is similar to that for mechanical low back pain. PT may have a role in the treatment of scoliosis, but there is little evidence in the literature of its effectiveness.

Continue to: A Cochrane review showed...

Always consider imaging in the setting of bony tenderness, pain that wakes the patient from sleep, and when there is > 10° of asymmetry on physical exam using a scoliometer.

A Cochrane review showed that PT and exercise-based treatments had no effect on back pain or disability in patients with scoliosis.²⁹ And outpatient PT alone, in the absence of bracing, does not arrest progression of the scoliotic curvature.³⁵ One trial did demonstrate that an intensive inpatient treatment program of 4 to 6 weeks for patients with curvature of at least 40° reduced progression of curvature compared to an untreated control group at 1 year.³⁴ The outcomes of functional mobility and pain were not measured. Follow-up data on curve progression beyond 1 year are not available. Unfortunately, intensive inpatient treatment is not readily available or cost-effective for most patients with scoliosis.

Scheuermann disease. The mainstay of treatment for mild Scheuermann disease is advising the patient to avoid repetitive loading of the spine. Patients should avoid sports such as competitive weight-lifting, gymnastics, and football. Lower impact athletics are encouraged. Refer patients with pain to PT to address posture and core stabilization. Patients with severe kyphosis may require surgery.^17,18

Bracing: Rarely helpful for low back pain

The use of lumbar braces or corsets is rarely helpful for low back pain in children. Bracing in the setting of spondylolysis is controversial.One study indicated that bracing in combination with activity restriction and lumbar extension exercise is superior to activity restriction and lumbar flexion exercises alone.⁴³ But a meta-analysis did not demonstrate a significant difference in recovery when bracing was added.⁴⁴ Bracing may help to reduce pain initially in patients with spondylolysis who have pain at rest. Bracing is not recommended for patients with pain that abates with activity modification.

Scoliosis and Scheuermann kyphosis. Treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis usually consists of observation and periodic reevaluation. Bracing is a mainstay of the nonsurgical management of scoliosis and is appropriate for curves of 20° to 40°; studies have reported successful control of curve progression in > 70% of patients.³⁶ According to 1 study, the number of cases of scoliosis needed to treat with bracing to prevent 1 surgery is 3.³⁰ Surgery is often indicated for patients with curvatures > 40°, although this is also debated.³³

Bracing is used rarely for Scheuermann kyphosis but may be helpful in more severe or painful cases.¹⁷

CORRESPONDENCE
Shawn F. Phillips, MD, MSPT, 500 University Drive H154, Hershey, PA, 17033; sphillips6@pennstatehealth.psu.edu.

The year 2020 was marked by historic protests across the United States and the globe sparked by the deaths of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and so many other Black people. The protests heightened awareness of racism as a public health crisis and triggered an antiracism movement. Racism is a pervasive and systemic issue that has profound adverse effects on health.^1,2 Racism is associated with poorer mental and physical health outcomes and negative patient experiences in the health care system.^3,4 As evidenced by the current coronavirus pandemic, race is a sociopolitical construct that continues to disadvantage Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and other People of Color.^5,6,7,8 The association between racism and adverse health outcomes has been discussed for decades in the medical literature, including the family medicine literature. Today there is a renewed call to action for family medicine, a specialty that emerged as a counterculture to reform mainstream medicine,⁹ to both confront systemic racism and eliminate health disparities. This effort will require collaboration, commitment, education, and transformative conversations around racism, health inequity, and advocacy so that we can better serve our patients and our communities.

The editors of several North American family medicine publications have come together to address this call to action and share resources on racism across our readerships. We acknowledge those members of the family medicine scholar community who have been fighting for equity consistent with the Black Lives Matter movement by writing about racism, health inequities, and personal experiences of practicing as Black family physicians. While we recognize that much more work is needed, we want to amplify these voices. We have compiled a bibliography of scholarship generated by the family medicine community on the topic of racism in medicine.

The collection can be accessed here.

While this list is likely not complete, it does include over 250 published manuscripts and demonstrates expertise as well as a commitment to addressing these complex issues. For example, in 2016, Dr. J. Nwando Olayiwola, chair of the Department of Family Medicine at Ohio State University, wrote an essay on her experiences taking care of patients as a Black family physician.¹⁰ In January of 2019, Family Medicine published an entire issue devoted to racism in education and training.¹¹ Dr. Eduardo Medina, a family physician and public health scholar, co-authored a call to action in 2016 for health professionals to dismantle structural racism and support Black lives to achieve health equity. His recent 2020 article builds on that theme and describes the disproportionate deaths of Black people due to racial injustice and the COVID-19 pandemic as converging public health emergencies.^12,13 In the wake of these emergencies a fundamental transformation is warranted, and family physicians can play a key role.

We, the editors of family medicine journals, commit to actively examine the effects of racism on society and health and to take action to eliminate structural racism in our editorial processes. As an intellectual home for our profession, we have a unique responsibility and opportunity to educate and continue the conversation about institutional racism, health inequities, and antiracism in medicine. We will take immediate steps to enact tangible advances on these fronts. We will encourage and mentor authors from groups underrepresented in medicine. We will ensure that content includes an emphasis on cultural humility, diversity and inclusion, implicit bias, and the impact of racism on medicine and health. We will recruit editors and editorial board members from groups underrepresented in medicine. We will encourage collaboration and accountability within our specialty to confront systemic racism through content and processes in all of our individual publications. We recognize that these are small steps in an ongoing process of active antiracism, but we believe these steps are crucial. As editors in family medicine, we are committed to progress toward equity and justice.

Simultaneously published in American Family Physician, Annals of Family Medicine, Canadian Family Physician, Family Medicine, FP Essentials, FPIN/Evidence Based Practice, FPM, Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, The Journal of Family Practice, and PRiMER.

Acknowledgement –

The authors thank Renee Crichlow, MD, Byron Jasper, MD, MPH, and Victoria Murrain, DO, for their insightful comments on this editorial.