How might you discuss a suicidal ideation, an anxiety-provoking topic, with your patients and their parents? After a positive screen, there will be times when you decide your patient should go to an emergency department for an urgent evaluation. However, most of the time you will be able to help the family identify strategies to lower risk and improve safety and resilience, while waiting for a thorough psychiatric evaluation.

Bring in the Parents: Modeling Validation, Structure, and Optimism

If you have identified some degree of suicide risk in your patient, either with a screening instrument or in your clinical interview, ask your patient if you can bring their parents into the conversation. They may resist, and if so, find out why they are hesitant. Are they worried about causing their parents some distress? Are they concerned their parents will be surprised? Disappointed? Scared? Angry? Acknowledge how hard it can be to find a way to talk about such emotional material with parents. What is their communication like with their parents usually? Do they talk every night at dinner or rarely? Are their interactions usually lighthearted or playful? Brief? Irritable and angry? Have they talked about or managed difficult times before as a family? How did that go? Did they feel they ended up supporting an anxious or depressed single parent? Was their parent harsh and punitive? Since involving the parent is essential, if you become concerned that a conversation with the parent would truly increase the risk of suicide, perhaps because of reports of violence at home, then you may need to send your patient to the emergency department so they can be assessed in a safe setting where a clinical team can evaluate your patient while involving more (or different) members of the family.

Most of the time, your patient will describe a situation that will simply be uncomfortable or stressful for their parent. Don’t be dismissive of their concerns. Instead, acknowledge that talking about their inner life will feel hard. Validate that their parents will be sad, worried, and stressed to hear about what they are feeling. Then offer that parents always prefer to know what is happening with their child so they can help, even if that means only being present to bear it alongside them. You can remind them that you will be there, too, to reassure their parents that this is a common problem and that you can face it and help it to get better together. Find out if they would like you to take the lead in speaking about it, but do not let them wait in the waiting room. Discussing the topic with you with both parents and patient in the room will help even those families that are not great communicators to begin to be more connected, even if you do most of the talking. While you need to bring their symptoms and suicidality to their parents’ attention, find out if there are any details they would rather not share. Perhaps they are struggling with questions of gender identity or sexual orientation, or are thinking of giving up an activity their parents may be very invested in. While any future treatment will prioritize honest communication within the family, communication about their emerging identity should not be rushed, and especially not in the setting of concerns about suicide risk.

With the information you do gather, there are often steps you can take to lower the stress level. The parents’ awareness of their suffering, perhaps acknowledging a broken heart, excessive academic pressure, or a major disappointment may suggest steps to lower the stress level. A mental health referral might introduce a sense of hope. A reminder of their meaningful connection to a parent, a team, a religion, or an activity may also remind the adolescent of a positive view of their future.
 

Introducing the Topic

When you bring parents into the room, let them know that there is something important and difficult that you need to discuss with them together. Ask if they have noted any changes in their child’s behavior, school performance, or demeanor. Have they had any worries about their teenager? If they have, affirm that they are picking up on something real, and ask more about it. If they have not, offer that their child has been doing a valiant job of soldiering through their days while managing some strong and difficult thoughts and feelings. Walk them through some of what you have learned from your patient, always inviting your patient to affirm or add to what you are detailing. Most parents are keenly aware of the prevalence of suicidal thoughts during adolescence. Bring it into the open, and offer that the next steps are going to be to add more adults to their child’s orbit to help diagnose and treat any underlying psychiatric illness. Reassure them that you are confident that psychiatric illnesses are treatable, even curable. Reassure them that one of the best safety measures is good communication and connectedness with parents.

Help Parents to Be Good Listeners

Some parents may respond with heightened anxiety and need for reassurance from their child. Others may try to talk their child out of their suicidal thoughts. But your year is going so well! You got a great grade in calculus! Gently model validation: Acknowledge to the parents that it is understandable to feel worried or to look for a rational argument against suicide. Offer that feelings don’t usually respond to logic, but do improve with support and time. It may be better for everyone to treat this topic more like the weather so it is easier to talk about and manage. No one gets defensive or distressed if it’s raining, they just put on the right gear. Has the parent ever felt depressed? Did they ever have suicidal ideation growing up? Can they agree to check in at regular times? Could the child speak up if they are feeling badly? Can all agree that parents should check in if their child seems more down? Help them to acknowledge how hard it is to bear strong feelings, but that it is always better together.

Identify Coping Strategies

In front of parents, ask your patient if anything helps when they are feeling at their worst. If they can’t identify anything, offer some possibilities: a walk outside together? making art or music? being out in nature? snuggling with a beloved pet? a set of jumping jacks to get their heart rate up? a favorite playlist? Talking to a particular friend or relative? Make a list. Prioritize activities that are healthy and connect them to others when they are feeling their worst.

Focus on the Basics

Make a concrete and practical plan for steps they can all take to improve well-being. Start with strategies to ensure restful sleep at night, regular exercise, and healthy nutrition. Depression and anxiety often interfere with these functions, so families can work together to support them even while waiting for assessment by a psychiatrist. Help them identify modest rules or routines (consistent bedtime, no screens in the bedroom, a daily walk after dinner) that parents can set that will make a difference.

Set Up Speed Bumps

Talk together about setting up some speed bumps to support their child’s safety. Find out if there are firearms in the home. Be crystal clear that they should be locked, preferably with ammunition, in a separate secure place. Their child should have no knowledge of how to access them, or they should be stored out of the home for the time being.

Parents should lock any medications that could be dangerous in overdose (including in homes if the adolescent will be visiting). Educate them about Tylenol and any prescription medications in their home that should be locked. This part of a conversation is always stressful. Acknowledge that, and remind everyone that, these are important strategies. It should be always be easier to ask their parent for help if they are feeling terrible than it is to access something dangerous.
 

Acknowledge the Strain

Finally, it is important to acknowledge how hard it is for your patient to bear these feelings, and that speaking up about them may feel like the last thing they want to do. Applaud them for their strength while reminding them that they need to share if they feel worse. Likewise, model for parents that feeling stressed and worried in this circumstance is normal. They should think about how to take good care of themselves. The same well-being strategies you reviewed for their child can work for them too! They may want to focus on sleep or exercise, enhance their nourishing social connections, protect time for beloved hobbies. Everyone should hear that they should never worry alone. If someone feels more worried, bring it to their parent, therapist, psychiatrist, spouse, or to you. They should trust their instincts if they think it is time to go to the emergency department. With supportive open communication, they will strengthen the protective connections which in turn will see the family through the course of the treatable illnesses that cause suicidal thoughts.

Lastly, this is difficult work for any physician. As psychiatrists, we worry about higher-risk teenagers when we decide that hospitalization carries a bigger risk than benefit. Pediatricians see many more teenagers with suicidal ideation and even though the statistical risk is very low, no one knows how to predict any individual teenager’s behavior. Therefore, pediatricians face the direct stress of the clinical work and the deeper stress of knowing there is always some uncertainty in medicine.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at pdnews@mdedge.com.

How might you discuss a suicidal ideation, an anxiety-provoking topic, with your patients and their parents? After a positive screen, there will be times when you decide your patient should go to an emergency department for an urgent evaluation. However, most of the time you will be able to help the family identify strategies to lower risk and improve safety and resilience, while waiting for a thorough psychiatric evaluation.

Bring in the Parents: Modeling Validation, Structure, and Optimism

If you have identified some degree of suicide risk in your patient, either with a screening instrument or in your clinical interview, ask your patient if you can bring their parents into the conversation. They may resist, and if so, find out why they are hesitant. Are they worried about causing their parents some distress? Are they concerned their parents will be surprised? Disappointed? Scared? Angry? Acknowledge how hard it can be to find a way to talk about such emotional material with parents. What is their communication like with their parents usually? Do they talk every night at dinner or rarely? Are their interactions usually lighthearted or playful? Brief? Irritable and angry? Have they talked about or managed difficult times before as a family? How did that go? Did they feel they ended up supporting an anxious or depressed single parent? Was their parent harsh and punitive? Since involving the parent is essential, if you become concerned that a conversation with the parent would truly increase the risk of suicide, perhaps because of reports of violence at home, then you may need to send your patient to the emergency department so they can be assessed in a safe setting where a clinical team can evaluate your patient while involving more (or different) members of the family.

Most of the time, your patient will describe a situation that will simply be uncomfortable or stressful for their parent. Don’t be dismissive of their concerns. Instead, acknowledge that talking about their inner life will feel hard. Validate that their parents will be sad, worried, and stressed to hear about what they are feeling. Then offer that parents always prefer to know what is happening with their child so they can help, even if that means only being present to bear it alongside them. You can remind them that you will be there, too, to reassure their parents that this is a common problem and that you can face it and help it to get better together. Find out if they would like you to take the lead in speaking about it, but do not let them wait in the waiting room. Discussing the topic with you with both parents and patient in the room will help even those families that are not great communicators to begin to be more connected, even if you do most of the talking. While you need to bring their symptoms and suicidality to their parents’ attention, find out if there are any details they would rather not share. Perhaps they are struggling with questions of gender identity or sexual orientation, or are thinking of giving up an activity their parents may be very invested in. While any future treatment will prioritize honest communication within the family, communication about their emerging identity should not be rushed, and especially not in the setting of concerns about suicide risk.

With the information you do gather, there are often steps you can take to lower the stress level. The parents’ awareness of their suffering, perhaps acknowledging a broken heart, excessive academic pressure, or a major disappointment may suggest steps to lower the stress level. A mental health referral might introduce a sense of hope. A reminder of their meaningful connection to a parent, a team, a religion, or an activity may also remind the adolescent of a positive view of their future.
 

Introducing the Topic

When you bring parents into the room, let them know that there is something important and difficult that you need to discuss with them together. Ask if they have noted any changes in their child’s behavior, school performance, or demeanor. Have they had any worries about their teenager? If they have, affirm that they are picking up on something real, and ask more about it. If they have not, offer that their child has been doing a valiant job of soldiering through their days while managing some strong and difficult thoughts and feelings. Walk them through some of what you have learned from your patient, always inviting your patient to affirm or add to what you are detailing. Most parents are keenly aware of the prevalence of suicidal thoughts during adolescence. Bring it into the open, and offer that the next steps are going to be to add more adults to their child’s orbit to help diagnose and treat any underlying psychiatric illness. Reassure them that you are confident that psychiatric illnesses are treatable, even curable. Reassure them that one of the best safety measures is good communication and connectedness with parents.

Help Parents to Be Good Listeners

Some parents may respond with heightened anxiety and need for reassurance from their child. Others may try to talk their child out of their suicidal thoughts. But your year is going so well! You got a great grade in calculus! Gently model validation: Acknowledge to the parents that it is understandable to feel worried or to look for a rational argument against suicide. Offer that feelings don’t usually respond to logic, but do improve with support and time. It may be better for everyone to treat this topic more like the weather so it is easier to talk about and manage. No one gets defensive or distressed if it’s raining, they just put on the right gear. Has the parent ever felt depressed? Did they ever have suicidal ideation growing up? Can they agree to check in at regular times? Could the child speak up if they are feeling badly? Can all agree that parents should check in if their child seems more down? Help them to acknowledge how hard it is to bear strong feelings, but that it is always better together.

Identify Coping Strategies

In front of parents, ask your patient if anything helps when they are feeling at their worst. If they can’t identify anything, offer some possibilities: a walk outside together? making art or music? being out in nature? snuggling with a beloved pet? a set of jumping jacks to get their heart rate up? a favorite playlist? Talking to a particular friend or relative? Make a list. Prioritize activities that are healthy and connect them to others when they are feeling their worst.

Focus on the Basics

Make a concrete and practical plan for steps they can all take to improve well-being. Start with strategies to ensure restful sleep at night, regular exercise, and healthy nutrition. Depression and anxiety often interfere with these functions, so families can work together to support them even while waiting for assessment by a psychiatrist. Help them identify modest rules or routines (consistent bedtime, no screens in the bedroom, a daily walk after dinner) that parents can set that will make a difference.

Set Up Speed Bumps

Talk together about setting up some speed bumps to support their child’s safety. Find out if there are firearms in the home. Be crystal clear that they should be locked, preferably with ammunition, in a separate secure place. Their child should have no knowledge of how to access them, or they should be stored out of the home for the time being.

Parents should lock any medications that could be dangerous in overdose (including in homes if the adolescent will be visiting). Educate them about Tylenol and any prescription medications in their home that should be locked. This part of a conversation is always stressful. Acknowledge that, and remind everyone that, these are important strategies. It should be always be easier to ask their parent for help if they are feeling terrible than it is to access something dangerous.
 

Acknowledge the Strain

Finally, it is important to acknowledge how hard it is for your patient to bear these feelings, and that speaking up about them may feel like the last thing they want to do. Applaud them for their strength while reminding them that they need to share if they feel worse. Likewise, model for parents that feeling stressed and worried in this circumstance is normal. They should think about how to take good care of themselves. The same well-being strategies you reviewed for their child can work for them too! They may want to focus on sleep or exercise, enhance their nourishing social connections, protect time for beloved hobbies. Everyone should hear that they should never worry alone. If someone feels more worried, bring it to their parent, therapist, psychiatrist, spouse, or to you. They should trust their instincts if they think it is time to go to the emergency department. With supportive open communication, they will strengthen the protective connections which in turn will see the family through the course of the treatable illnesses that cause suicidal thoughts.

Lastly, this is difficult work for any physician. As psychiatrists, we worry about higher-risk teenagers when we decide that hospitalization carries a bigger risk than benefit. Pediatricians see many more teenagers with suicidal ideation and even though the statistical risk is very low, no one knows how to predict any individual teenager’s behavior. Therefore, pediatricians face the direct stress of the clinical work and the deeper stress of knowing there is always some uncertainty in medicine.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at pdnews@mdedge.com.

How might you discuss a suicidal ideation, an anxiety-provoking topic, with your patients and their parents? After a positive screen, there will be times when you decide your patient should go to an emergency department for an urgent evaluation. However, most of the time you will be able to help the family identify strategies to lower risk and improve safety and resilience, while waiting for a thorough psychiatric evaluation.

Bring in the Parents: Modeling Validation, Structure, and Optimism

If you have identified some degree of suicide risk in your patient, either with a screening instrument or in your clinical interview, ask your patient if you can bring their parents into the conversation. They may resist, and if so, find out why they are hesitant. Are they worried about causing their parents some distress? Are they concerned their parents will be surprised? Disappointed? Scared? Angry? Acknowledge how hard it can be to find a way to talk about such emotional material with parents. What is their communication like with their parents usually? Do they talk every night at dinner or rarely? Are their interactions usually lighthearted or playful? Brief? Irritable and angry? Have they talked about or managed difficult times before as a family? How did that go? Did they feel they ended up supporting an anxious or depressed single parent? Was their parent harsh and punitive? Since involving the parent is essential, if you become concerned that a conversation with the parent would truly increase the risk of suicide, perhaps because of reports of violence at home, then you may need to send your patient to the emergency department so they can be assessed in a safe setting where a clinical team can evaluate your patient while involving more (or different) members of the family.

Most of the time, your patient will describe a situation that will simply be uncomfortable or stressful for their parent. Don’t be dismissive of their concerns. Instead, acknowledge that talking about their inner life will feel hard. Validate that their parents will be sad, worried, and stressed to hear about what they are feeling. Then offer that parents always prefer to know what is happening with their child so they can help, even if that means only being present to bear it alongside them. You can remind them that you will be there, too, to reassure their parents that this is a common problem and that you can face it and help it to get better together. Find out if they would like you to take the lead in speaking about it, but do not let them wait in the waiting room. Discussing the topic with you with both parents and patient in the room will help even those families that are not great communicators to begin to be more connected, even if you do most of the talking. While you need to bring their symptoms and suicidality to their parents’ attention, find out if there are any details they would rather not share. Perhaps they are struggling with questions of gender identity or sexual orientation, or are thinking of giving up an activity their parents may be very invested in. While any future treatment will prioritize honest communication within the family, communication about their emerging identity should not be rushed, and especially not in the setting of concerns about suicide risk.

With the information you do gather, there are often steps you can take to lower the stress level. The parents’ awareness of their suffering, perhaps acknowledging a broken heart, excessive academic pressure, or a major disappointment may suggest steps to lower the stress level. A mental health referral might introduce a sense of hope. A reminder of their meaningful connection to a parent, a team, a religion, or an activity may also remind the adolescent of a positive view of their future.
 

Introducing the Topic

When you bring parents into the room, let them know that there is something important and difficult that you need to discuss with them together. Ask if they have noted any changes in their child’s behavior, school performance, or demeanor. Have they had any worries about their teenager? If they have, affirm that they are picking up on something real, and ask more about it. If they have not, offer that their child has been doing a valiant job of soldiering through their days while managing some strong and difficult thoughts and feelings. Walk them through some of what you have learned from your patient, always inviting your patient to affirm or add to what you are detailing. Most parents are keenly aware of the prevalence of suicidal thoughts during adolescence. Bring it into the open, and offer that the next steps are going to be to add more adults to their child’s orbit to help diagnose and treat any underlying psychiatric illness. Reassure them that you are confident that psychiatric illnesses are treatable, even curable. Reassure them that one of the best safety measures is good communication and connectedness with parents.

Help Parents to Be Good Listeners

Some parents may respond with heightened anxiety and need for reassurance from their child. Others may try to talk their child out of their suicidal thoughts. But your year is going so well! You got a great grade in calculus! Gently model validation: Acknowledge to the parents that it is understandable to feel worried or to look for a rational argument against suicide. Offer that feelings don’t usually respond to logic, but do improve with support and time. It may be better for everyone to treat this topic more like the weather so it is easier to talk about and manage. No one gets defensive or distressed if it’s raining, they just put on the right gear. Has the parent ever felt depressed? Did they ever have suicidal ideation growing up? Can they agree to check in at regular times? Could the child speak up if they are feeling badly? Can all agree that parents should check in if their child seems more down? Help them to acknowledge how hard it is to bear strong feelings, but that it is always better together.

Identify Coping Strategies

In front of parents, ask your patient if anything helps when they are feeling at their worst. If they can’t identify anything, offer some possibilities: a walk outside together? making art or music? being out in nature? snuggling with a beloved pet? a set of jumping jacks to get their heart rate up? a favorite playlist? Talking to a particular friend or relative? Make a list. Prioritize activities that are healthy and connect them to others when they are feeling their worst.

Focus on the Basics

Make a concrete and practical plan for steps they can all take to improve well-being. Start with strategies to ensure restful sleep at night, regular exercise, and healthy nutrition. Depression and anxiety often interfere with these functions, so families can work together to support them even while waiting for assessment by a psychiatrist. Help them identify modest rules or routines (consistent bedtime, no screens in the bedroom, a daily walk after dinner) that parents can set that will make a difference.

Set Up Speed Bumps

Talk together about setting up some speed bumps to support their child’s safety. Find out if there are firearms in the home. Be crystal clear that they should be locked, preferably with ammunition, in a separate secure place. Their child should have no knowledge of how to access them, or they should be stored out of the home for the time being.

Parents should lock any medications that could be dangerous in overdose (including in homes if the adolescent will be visiting). Educate them about Tylenol and any prescription medications in their home that should be locked. This part of a conversation is always stressful. Acknowledge that, and remind everyone that, these are important strategies. It should be always be easier to ask their parent for help if they are feeling terrible than it is to access something dangerous.
 

Acknowledge the Strain

Finally, it is important to acknowledge how hard it is for your patient to bear these feelings, and that speaking up about them may feel like the last thing they want to do. Applaud them for their strength while reminding them that they need to share if they feel worse. Likewise, model for parents that feeling stressed and worried in this circumstance is normal. They should think about how to take good care of themselves. The same well-being strategies you reviewed for their child can work for them too! They may want to focus on sleep or exercise, enhance their nourishing social connections, protect time for beloved hobbies. Everyone should hear that they should never worry alone. If someone feels more worried, bring it to their parent, therapist, psychiatrist, spouse, or to you. They should trust their instincts if they think it is time to go to the emergency department. With supportive open communication, they will strengthen the protective connections which in turn will see the family through the course of the treatable illnesses that cause suicidal thoughts.

Lastly, this is difficult work for any physician. As psychiatrists, we worry about higher-risk teenagers when we decide that hospitalization carries a bigger risk than benefit. Pediatricians see many more teenagers with suicidal ideation and even though the statistical risk is very low, no one knows how to predict any individual teenager’s behavior. Therefore, pediatricians face the direct stress of the clinical work and the deeper stress of knowing there is always some uncertainty in medicine.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at pdnews@mdedge.com.

TOPLINE:

Routine clinical examination detects only 2.2% of second breast cancers during 10-year follow-up in women undergoing posttreatment surveillance after ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

METHODOLOGY:

• National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend DCIS surveillance with a physical exam every 6-12 months for 5 years and then annually with a mammogram every 12 months. Research, however, suggested clinical breast exams only detect 15% of second breast cancers.
• A retrospective cohort study of 1550 female members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California diagnosed with unilateral DCIS between January 1, 2008, and January 1, 2011, who were followed until 2021.
• Patients who developed a second breast cancer within 10 years of follow-up were identified from the electronic health records. The detection methods were categorized into three groups: Patient-detected, physician-detected, and imaging-detected.

TAKEAWAY:

• During follow-up, 11.5% of women developed a second breast cancer with a median time to diagnosis of 57 months. Among patients with second breast cancers, 43.0% were ipsilateral, 54.8% were contralateral, and 2.2% presented with distant metastases.
• Overall, patients had a median of five mammograms between years 1 and 6 of surveillance and a median of seven clinic visits with most providers completing a clinical examination during the visit.
• Second breast cancers were detected through imaging in 74.3% of cases compared with 20.1% detected by patients and only 2.2% detected by physicians during physical exams. The remaining 3.4% were detected incidentally from plastic surgery procedures unrelated to oncologic surveillance.
• Mammogram detected 99.2% of cases (132 of 133 cases) identified by imaging.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings highlight the importance of mammogram screening and patient education regarding self-detection and can inform future NCCN recommendations for DCIS survivorship care,” the authors concluded, adding that “decreasing the need for in-person breast examinations could allow for other effective methods of survivorship monitoring.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Bethany T. Waites of Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco, California, was published online on December 28 in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design may have introduced selection bias or confounding. The study’s follow-up period until 2021, including the initial 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, may have affected surveillance patterns.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Graduate Medical Education program. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Routine clinical examination detects only 2.2% of second breast cancers during 10-year follow-up in women undergoing posttreatment surveillance after ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

METHODOLOGY:

• National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend DCIS surveillance with a physical exam every 6-12 months for 5 years and then annually with a mammogram every 12 months. Research, however, suggested clinical breast exams only detect 15% of second breast cancers.
• A retrospective cohort study of 1550 female members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California diagnosed with unilateral DCIS between January 1, 2008, and January 1, 2011, who were followed until 2021.
• Patients who developed a second breast cancer within 10 years of follow-up were identified from the electronic health records. The detection methods were categorized into three groups: Patient-detected, physician-detected, and imaging-detected.

TAKEAWAY:

• During follow-up, 11.5% of women developed a second breast cancer with a median time to diagnosis of 57 months. Among patients with second breast cancers, 43.0% were ipsilateral, 54.8% were contralateral, and 2.2% presented with distant metastases.
• Overall, patients had a median of five mammograms between years 1 and 6 of surveillance and a median of seven clinic visits with most providers completing a clinical examination during the visit.
• Second breast cancers were detected through imaging in 74.3% of cases compared with 20.1% detected by patients and only 2.2% detected by physicians during physical exams. The remaining 3.4% were detected incidentally from plastic surgery procedures unrelated to oncologic surveillance.
• Mammogram detected 99.2% of cases (132 of 133 cases) identified by imaging.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings highlight the importance of mammogram screening and patient education regarding self-detection and can inform future NCCN recommendations for DCIS survivorship care,” the authors concluded, adding that “decreasing the need for in-person breast examinations could allow for other effective methods of survivorship monitoring.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Bethany T. Waites of Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco, California, was published online on December 28 in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design may have introduced selection bias or confounding. The study’s follow-up period until 2021, including the initial 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, may have affected surveillance patterns.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Graduate Medical Education program. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Routine clinical examination detects only 2.2% of second breast cancers during 10-year follow-up in women undergoing posttreatment surveillance after ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

METHODOLOGY:

• National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend DCIS surveillance with a physical exam every 6-12 months for 5 years and then annually with a mammogram every 12 months. Research, however, suggested clinical breast exams only detect 15% of second breast cancers.
• A retrospective cohort study of 1550 female members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California diagnosed with unilateral DCIS between January 1, 2008, and January 1, 2011, who were followed until 2021.
• Patients who developed a second breast cancer within 10 years of follow-up were identified from the electronic health records. The detection methods were categorized into three groups: Patient-detected, physician-detected, and imaging-detected.

TAKEAWAY:

• During follow-up, 11.5% of women developed a second breast cancer with a median time to diagnosis of 57 months. Among patients with second breast cancers, 43.0% were ipsilateral, 54.8% were contralateral, and 2.2% presented with distant metastases.
• Overall, patients had a median of five mammograms between years 1 and 6 of surveillance and a median of seven clinic visits with most providers completing a clinical examination during the visit.
• Second breast cancers were detected through imaging in 74.3% of cases compared with 20.1% detected by patients and only 2.2% detected by physicians during physical exams. The remaining 3.4% were detected incidentally from plastic surgery procedures unrelated to oncologic surveillance.
• Mammogram detected 99.2% of cases (132 of 133 cases) identified by imaging.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings highlight the importance of mammogram screening and patient education regarding self-detection and can inform future NCCN recommendations for DCIS survivorship care,” the authors concluded, adding that “decreasing the need for in-person breast examinations could allow for other effective methods of survivorship monitoring.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Bethany T. Waites of Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco, California, was published online on December 28 in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design may have introduced selection bias or confounding. The study’s follow-up period until 2021, including the initial 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, may have affected surveillance patterns.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Graduate Medical Education program. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

After lung cancer screening (LCS), imaging, and invasive procedures were performed 31.9% and 2.8% of the time, respectively. Complications during invasive procedures occurred in 30.6% of cases. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 9266 patients aged 55-80 years who completed at least one LCS with low-dose CT (LDCT) between 2014 and 2018.
• This study used data from the PROSPR Lung Consortium.
• Results were compared with findings from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), a large study of smokers published in 2011.

TAKEAWAY:

• In total, 2956 patients (31.9%) underwent follow-up imaging, including CT, LDCT, MRI, or PET; 180 (0.02%) had invasive procedures, including needle biopsy, bronchoscopy, mediastinoscopy or mediastinotomy, or thoracoscopy.
• Within 30 days after an invasive diagnostic procedure, 55 of 180 patients (30.6%) experienced complications; 20.6% were major, 8.3% were intermediate, and 1.7% were minor.
• Complication rates after invasive procedures were higher in PROSPR than the NLST (30.6% vs 17.7%).
• Compared with all patients, those with an abnormal LCS were slightly older, more likely to currently smoke, reported more packs of cigarettes smoked daily, and had more comorbid conditions.
• In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended annual LCS for certain people who smoke, on the basis of findings from the NLST.

IN PRACTICE:

“We observed higher rates of both invasive procedures and complications than those observed in NLST, highlighting the need for practice-based strategies to assess variations in the quality of care and to prioritize LCS among those patients most likely to receive a net benefit from screening in relation to potential complications and other harms,” the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE:

Katharine A. Rendle, PhD, MSW, MPH, with Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, is the study’s corresponding author. The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was retrospective, and data were analyzed using procedural coding. In addition, the NLST based abnormal findings on different criteria from those used in clinical practice (Lung-RADS), making direct comparison of patients difficult. Patients in PROSPR were older, more likely to be currently smoking, and had higher rates of comorbid conditions compared with patients in the NLST. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

TOPLINE:

After lung cancer screening (LCS), imaging, and invasive procedures were performed 31.9% and 2.8% of the time, respectively. Complications during invasive procedures occurred in 30.6% of cases. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 9266 patients aged 55-80 years who completed at least one LCS with low-dose CT (LDCT) between 2014 and 2018.
• This study used data from the PROSPR Lung Consortium.
• Results were compared with findings from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), a large study of smokers published in 2011.

TAKEAWAY:

• In total, 2956 patients (31.9%) underwent follow-up imaging, including CT, LDCT, MRI, or PET; 180 (0.02%) had invasive procedures, including needle biopsy, bronchoscopy, mediastinoscopy or mediastinotomy, or thoracoscopy.
• Within 30 days after an invasive diagnostic procedure, 55 of 180 patients (30.6%) experienced complications; 20.6% were major, 8.3% were intermediate, and 1.7% were minor.
• Complication rates after invasive procedures were higher in PROSPR than the NLST (30.6% vs 17.7%).
• Compared with all patients, those with an abnormal LCS were slightly older, more likely to currently smoke, reported more packs of cigarettes smoked daily, and had more comorbid conditions.
• In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended annual LCS for certain people who smoke, on the basis of findings from the NLST.

IN PRACTICE:

“We observed higher rates of both invasive procedures and complications than those observed in NLST, highlighting the need for practice-based strategies to assess variations in the quality of care and to prioritize LCS among those patients most likely to receive a net benefit from screening in relation to potential complications and other harms,” the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE:

Katharine A. Rendle, PhD, MSW, MPH, with Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, is the study’s corresponding author. The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was retrospective, and data were analyzed using procedural coding. In addition, the NLST based abnormal findings on different criteria from those used in clinical practice (Lung-RADS), making direct comparison of patients difficult. Patients in PROSPR were older, more likely to be currently smoking, and had higher rates of comorbid conditions compared with patients in the NLST. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

TOPLINE:

After lung cancer screening (LCS), imaging, and invasive procedures were performed 31.9% and 2.8% of the time, respectively. Complications during invasive procedures occurred in 30.6% of cases. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 9266 patients aged 55-80 years who completed at least one LCS with low-dose CT (LDCT) between 2014 and 2018.
• This study used data from the PROSPR Lung Consortium.
• Results were compared with findings from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), a large study of smokers published in 2011.

TAKEAWAY:

• In total, 2956 patients (31.9%) underwent follow-up imaging, including CT, LDCT, MRI, or PET; 180 (0.02%) had invasive procedures, including needle biopsy, bronchoscopy, mediastinoscopy or mediastinotomy, or thoracoscopy.
• Within 30 days after an invasive diagnostic procedure, 55 of 180 patients (30.6%) experienced complications; 20.6% were major, 8.3% were intermediate, and 1.7% were minor.
• Complication rates after invasive procedures were higher in PROSPR than the NLST (30.6% vs 17.7%).
• Compared with all patients, those with an abnormal LCS were slightly older, more likely to currently smoke, reported more packs of cigarettes smoked daily, and had more comorbid conditions.
• In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended annual LCS for certain people who smoke, on the basis of findings from the NLST.

IN PRACTICE:

“We observed higher rates of both invasive procedures and complications than those observed in NLST, highlighting the need for practice-based strategies to assess variations in the quality of care and to prioritize LCS among those patients most likely to receive a net benefit from screening in relation to potential complications and other harms,” the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE:

Katharine A. Rendle, PhD, MSW, MPH, with Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, is the study’s corresponding author. The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was retrospective, and data were analyzed using procedural coding. In addition, the NLST based abnormal findings on different criteria from those used in clinical practice (Lung-RADS), making direct comparison of patients difficult. Patients in PROSPR were older, more likely to be currently smoking, and had higher rates of comorbid conditions compared with patients in the NLST. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

Delivered at 34 weeks’ gestation, Baby “Alex” had an enlarged liver and spleen on his initial newborn exam, poor tone, and a diffuse, peeling rash. Baby “Aaliyah” was born at term and appeared healthy. By 1 month of age, she was gaining weight poorly and developed copious nasal drainage and a salmon-colored rash on the soles of her feet.

The connection? Both babies were ultimately diagnosed with congenital syphilis. Infections in both babies could have been prevented if their mothers had been tested for syphilis and treated during pregnancy. Alex’s mom had no prenatal care. Aaliyah’s mom had tested negative for syphilis during her first trimester but had not been re-tested, despite sharing with her health care provider that she had a new sexual partner.

Alex and Aaliyah are representative of what Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Chief Medical Officer Debra Houry, MD, MPH, calls a “family tragedy.” Cases of congenital syphilis are rising rapidly in the United States, reaching a 30-year high in 2021.¹ Cases increased by 755% between 2012 and 2021, from 335 in 2012 to 2,865 in 2021. In 2022, cases rose again: 3,761 cases of congenital syphilis were reported, including 231 stillbirths and 51 infant deaths. Infants with congenital syphilis are at risk for lifelong complications, including deafness, blindness, and intellectual disability.

Most of these cases were preventable. Congenital syphilis is rare when pregnant people complete adequate treatment at least 30 days before delivery. In 2022, lack of testing or timely testing contributed to 36.8% of congenital syphilis cases. Nearly 40% of birth parents of infected babies received inadequate treatment during pregnancy, and 11.2% received no treatment or treatment was not documented.

Cases of congenital syphilis have increased in all demographic groups and all US Census Bureau regions, but racial and geographic disparities exist, suggesting ongoing barriers to care related to social determinants of health. In 2021, the highest rates of congenital syphilis were among babies born to individuals who were non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (384 cases per 100,000 live births), non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (192 cases per 100,000 live births), and non-Hispanic Black or African American (169 cases per 100,000 live births). Six states had rates of congenital syphilis that exceeded 160 cases per 100,000 population, including Arizona, New Mexico, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Oklahoma. That is more than twice the national rate of 77.9 cases/100,000.
 

Reducing the Risk

To reduce rates of congenital syphilis in all people, barriers to testing must be eliminated. The CDC recommends that all pregnant people be tested early in pregnancy, with repeat testing at 28 weeks and at delivery for those at increased risk for infection based on individual risk factors or residence in a high-prevalence community. Rapid syphilis testing and treatment during pregnancy is recommended in settings such as emergency departments, syringe service programs, prisons/jails, and maternal and child health programs to minimize missed opportunities for care.

While pediatric clinicians rarely care for pregnant patients, they also have an essential role to play in reducing the adverse health outcomes associated with congenital syphilis. No infant should be discharged from the newborn nursery without confirming that the birth parent was tested for syphilis at least once and was treated appropriately if positive. Appropriate treatment during pregnancy is a single dose of benzathine penicillin G for primary, secondary, or early latent syphilis. Late-latent syphilis or syphilis of unknown duration is treated with three doses of benzathine penicillin G spaced 7-9 days apart. If the doses are given further than 9 days apart, treatment is considered inadequate, and the series of doses must be restarted. Benzathine penicillin G remains in short supply in the United States, but is the only drug recommended to treat syphilis during pregnancy.

Collaboration between obstetrical and newborn care providers is essential. Those who care for newborns need easy access to birthing parents’ syphilis treatment results. As more health care facilities implement routine syphilis testing at delivery, rapid syphilis testing must be available to avoid prolonging newborn hospital stays.

Pediatricians need to maintain an index of suspicion for congenital syphilis, regardless of maternal history, because symptomatic congenital syphilis can mimic a variety of infectious and noninfectious conditions. Most infected infants look normal at birth. While the majority of cases of congenital syphilis are identified in the newborn period, a 2021 paper published in Pediatrics described 84 infants born between 2014 and 2018 who were diagnosed beyond a month of age.² These represented 2.2% of all infants born with congenital syphilis. Common symptoms included rash, snuffles, and hepatomegaly. Sixty-nine percent of infants who had long bone radiographs obtained had findings consistent with congenital syphilis. Typical imaging findings include periostitis and demineralization of the metaphysis and diaphysis of long bones, although fractures can also occur. Case reports describe infants who presented with fractures and were initially evaluated for nonaccidental trauma.³

Another critical approach is to treat syphilis in people of childbearing age before pregnancy occurs. The CDC recommends syphilis testing for sexually active females 18-44 years of age and living in communities with high rates of syphilis. County-specific specific rates of syphilis rates are available at https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/atlas/syphilis/. Point-of-care tests are now available for syphilis and may facilitate timely treatment. 

Additional resources describing syphilis testing and treatment are available from the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

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

References

1. McDonald R et al. Vital Signs: Missed Opportunities for Preventing Congenital Syphilis — United States, 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Nov 17;72(46):1269-74. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7246e1. 

2. Kimball A et al. Congenital Syphilis Diagnosed Beyond the Neonatal Period in the United States: 2014-2018. Pediatrics. 2021 Sep;148(3):e2020049080. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-049080. 

3. Jacobs K et al. Congenital Syphilis Misdiagnosed as Suspected Nonaccidental Trauma. Pediatrics. 2019 Oct;144(4):e20191564. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1564. 

Delivered at 34 weeks’ gestation, Baby “Alex” had an enlarged liver and spleen on his initial newborn exam, poor tone, and a diffuse, peeling rash. Baby “Aaliyah” was born at term and appeared healthy. By 1 month of age, she was gaining weight poorly and developed copious nasal drainage and a salmon-colored rash on the soles of her feet.

The connection? Both babies were ultimately diagnosed with congenital syphilis. Infections in both babies could have been prevented if their mothers had been tested for syphilis and treated during pregnancy. Alex’s mom had no prenatal care. Aaliyah’s mom had tested negative for syphilis during her first trimester but had not been re-tested, despite sharing with her health care provider that she had a new sexual partner.

Alex and Aaliyah are representative of what Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Chief Medical Officer Debra Houry, MD, MPH, calls a “family tragedy.” Cases of congenital syphilis are rising rapidly in the United States, reaching a 30-year high in 2021.¹ Cases increased by 755% between 2012 and 2021, from 335 in 2012 to 2,865 in 2021. In 2022, cases rose again: 3,761 cases of congenital syphilis were reported, including 231 stillbirths and 51 infant deaths. Infants with congenital syphilis are at risk for lifelong complications, including deafness, blindness, and intellectual disability.

Most of these cases were preventable. Congenital syphilis is rare when pregnant people complete adequate treatment at least 30 days before delivery. In 2022, lack of testing or timely testing contributed to 36.8% of congenital syphilis cases. Nearly 40% of birth parents of infected babies received inadequate treatment during pregnancy, and 11.2% received no treatment or treatment was not documented.

Cases of congenital syphilis have increased in all demographic groups and all US Census Bureau regions, but racial and geographic disparities exist, suggesting ongoing barriers to care related to social determinants of health. In 2021, the highest rates of congenital syphilis were among babies born to individuals who were non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (384 cases per 100,000 live births), non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (192 cases per 100,000 live births), and non-Hispanic Black or African American (169 cases per 100,000 live births). Six states had rates of congenital syphilis that exceeded 160 cases per 100,000 population, including Arizona, New Mexico, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Oklahoma. That is more than twice the national rate of 77.9 cases/100,000.
 

Reducing the Risk

To reduce rates of congenital syphilis in all people, barriers to testing must be eliminated. The CDC recommends that all pregnant people be tested early in pregnancy, with repeat testing at 28 weeks and at delivery for those at increased risk for infection based on individual risk factors or residence in a high-prevalence community. Rapid syphilis testing and treatment during pregnancy is recommended in settings such as emergency departments, syringe service programs, prisons/jails, and maternal and child health programs to minimize missed opportunities for care.

While pediatric clinicians rarely care for pregnant patients, they also have an essential role to play in reducing the adverse health outcomes associated with congenital syphilis. No infant should be discharged from the newborn nursery without confirming that the birth parent was tested for syphilis at least once and was treated appropriately if positive. Appropriate treatment during pregnancy is a single dose of benzathine penicillin G for primary, secondary, or early latent syphilis. Late-latent syphilis or syphilis of unknown duration is treated with three doses of benzathine penicillin G spaced 7-9 days apart. If the doses are given further than 9 days apart, treatment is considered inadequate, and the series of doses must be restarted. Benzathine penicillin G remains in short supply in the United States, but is the only drug recommended to treat syphilis during pregnancy.

Collaboration between obstetrical and newborn care providers is essential. Those who care for newborns need easy access to birthing parents’ syphilis treatment results. As more health care facilities implement routine syphilis testing at delivery, rapid syphilis testing must be available to avoid prolonging newborn hospital stays.

Pediatricians need to maintain an index of suspicion for congenital syphilis, regardless of maternal history, because symptomatic congenital syphilis can mimic a variety of infectious and noninfectious conditions. Most infected infants look normal at birth. While the majority of cases of congenital syphilis are identified in the newborn period, a 2021 paper published in Pediatrics described 84 infants born between 2014 and 2018 who were diagnosed beyond a month of age.² These represented 2.2% of all infants born with congenital syphilis. Common symptoms included rash, snuffles, and hepatomegaly. Sixty-nine percent of infants who had long bone radiographs obtained had findings consistent with congenital syphilis. Typical imaging findings include periostitis and demineralization of the metaphysis and diaphysis of long bones, although fractures can also occur. Case reports describe infants who presented with fractures and were initially evaluated for nonaccidental trauma.³

Another critical approach is to treat syphilis in people of childbearing age before pregnancy occurs. The CDC recommends syphilis testing for sexually active females 18-44 years of age and living in communities with high rates of syphilis. County-specific specific rates of syphilis rates are available at https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/atlas/syphilis/. Point-of-care tests are now available for syphilis and may facilitate timely treatment. 

Additional resources describing syphilis testing and treatment are available from the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

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

References

1. McDonald R et al. Vital Signs: Missed Opportunities for Preventing Congenital Syphilis — United States, 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Nov 17;72(46):1269-74. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7246e1. 

2. Kimball A et al. Congenital Syphilis Diagnosed Beyond the Neonatal Period in the United States: 2014-2018. Pediatrics. 2021 Sep;148(3):e2020049080. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-049080. 

3. Jacobs K et al. Congenital Syphilis Misdiagnosed as Suspected Nonaccidental Trauma. Pediatrics. 2019 Oct;144(4):e20191564. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1564. 

Delivered at 34 weeks’ gestation, Baby “Alex” had an enlarged liver and spleen on his initial newborn exam, poor tone, and a diffuse, peeling rash. Baby “Aaliyah” was born at term and appeared healthy. By 1 month of age, she was gaining weight poorly and developed copious nasal drainage and a salmon-colored rash on the soles of her feet.

The connection? Both babies were ultimately diagnosed with congenital syphilis. Infections in both babies could have been prevented if their mothers had been tested for syphilis and treated during pregnancy. Alex’s mom had no prenatal care. Aaliyah’s mom had tested negative for syphilis during her first trimester but had not been re-tested, despite sharing with her health care provider that she had a new sexual partner.

Alex and Aaliyah are representative of what Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Chief Medical Officer Debra Houry, MD, MPH, calls a “family tragedy.” Cases of congenital syphilis are rising rapidly in the United States, reaching a 30-year high in 2021.¹ Cases increased by 755% between 2012 and 2021, from 335 in 2012 to 2,865 in 2021. In 2022, cases rose again: 3,761 cases of congenital syphilis were reported, including 231 stillbirths and 51 infant deaths. Infants with congenital syphilis are at risk for lifelong complications, including deafness, blindness, and intellectual disability.

Most of these cases were preventable. Congenital syphilis is rare when pregnant people complete adequate treatment at least 30 days before delivery. In 2022, lack of testing or timely testing contributed to 36.8% of congenital syphilis cases. Nearly 40% of birth parents of infected babies received inadequate treatment during pregnancy, and 11.2% received no treatment or treatment was not documented.

Cases of congenital syphilis have increased in all demographic groups and all US Census Bureau regions, but racial and geographic disparities exist, suggesting ongoing barriers to care related to social determinants of health. In 2021, the highest rates of congenital syphilis were among babies born to individuals who were non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (384 cases per 100,000 live births), non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (192 cases per 100,000 live births), and non-Hispanic Black or African American (169 cases per 100,000 live births). Six states had rates of congenital syphilis that exceeded 160 cases per 100,000 population, including Arizona, New Mexico, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Oklahoma. That is more than twice the national rate of 77.9 cases/100,000.
 

Reducing the Risk

To reduce rates of congenital syphilis in all people, barriers to testing must be eliminated. The CDC recommends that all pregnant people be tested early in pregnancy, with repeat testing at 28 weeks and at delivery for those at increased risk for infection based on individual risk factors or residence in a high-prevalence community. Rapid syphilis testing and treatment during pregnancy is recommended in settings such as emergency departments, syringe service programs, prisons/jails, and maternal and child health programs to minimize missed opportunities for care.

While pediatric clinicians rarely care for pregnant patients, they also have an essential role to play in reducing the adverse health outcomes associated with congenital syphilis. No infant should be discharged from the newborn nursery without confirming that the birth parent was tested for syphilis at least once and was treated appropriately if positive. Appropriate treatment during pregnancy is a single dose of benzathine penicillin G for primary, secondary, or early latent syphilis. Late-latent syphilis or syphilis of unknown duration is treated with three doses of benzathine penicillin G spaced 7-9 days apart. If the doses are given further than 9 days apart, treatment is considered inadequate, and the series of doses must be restarted. Benzathine penicillin G remains in short supply in the United States, but is the only drug recommended to treat syphilis during pregnancy.

Collaboration between obstetrical and newborn care providers is essential. Those who care for newborns need easy access to birthing parents’ syphilis treatment results. As more health care facilities implement routine syphilis testing at delivery, rapid syphilis testing must be available to avoid prolonging newborn hospital stays.

Pediatricians need to maintain an index of suspicion for congenital syphilis, regardless of maternal history, because symptomatic congenital syphilis can mimic a variety of infectious and noninfectious conditions. Most infected infants look normal at birth. While the majority of cases of congenital syphilis are identified in the newborn period, a 2021 paper published in Pediatrics described 84 infants born between 2014 and 2018 who were diagnosed beyond a month of age.² These represented 2.2% of all infants born with congenital syphilis. Common symptoms included rash, snuffles, and hepatomegaly. Sixty-nine percent of infants who had long bone radiographs obtained had findings consistent with congenital syphilis. Typical imaging findings include periostitis and demineralization of the metaphysis and diaphysis of long bones, although fractures can also occur. Case reports describe infants who presented with fractures and were initially evaluated for nonaccidental trauma.³

Another critical approach is to treat syphilis in people of childbearing age before pregnancy occurs. The CDC recommends syphilis testing for sexually active females 18-44 years of age and living in communities with high rates of syphilis. County-specific specific rates of syphilis rates are available at https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/atlas/syphilis/. Point-of-care tests are now available for syphilis and may facilitate timely treatment. 

Additional resources describing syphilis testing and treatment are available from the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

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

References

1. McDonald R et al. Vital Signs: Missed Opportunities for Preventing Congenital Syphilis — United States, 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Nov 17;72(46):1269-74. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7246e1. 

2. Kimball A et al. Congenital Syphilis Diagnosed Beyond the Neonatal Period in the United States: 2014-2018. Pediatrics. 2021 Sep;148(3):e2020049080. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-049080. 

3. Jacobs K et al. Congenital Syphilis Misdiagnosed as Suspected Nonaccidental Trauma. Pediatrics. 2019 Oct;144(4):e20191564. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1564. 

Key clinical point: A significant association was observed between atopic dermatitis (AD) and poorer cognitive function in men, and familial characteristics exerted a confounding effect on this association.

Major finding: After effectively controlling for familial environmental confounding factors and addressing genetic influences, AD in men was significantly associated with poorer cognitive function (regression coefficient −0.04; 95% CI −0.07 to −0.003).

Study details: This sibling-comparison study included 1,687,038 men who underwent a military conscription examination at 17-22 years of age, of which 25,995 were diagnosed with AD.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by grants from the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare (Forte) and the UK Economic and Social Research Council. L von Kobyletzki declared being a consultant for and receiving research funding from various organizations. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Smith KA et al. Atopic dermatitis and cognitive function: A sibling comparison study among males in Sweden. Br J Dermatol. 2024 (Jan 3). doi: 10.1093/bjd/ljae004

Key clinical point: A significant association was observed between atopic dermatitis (AD) and poorer cognitive function in men, and familial characteristics exerted a confounding effect on this association.

Major finding: After effectively controlling for familial environmental confounding factors and addressing genetic influences, AD in men was significantly associated with poorer cognitive function (regression coefficient −0.04; 95% CI −0.07 to −0.003).

Study details: This sibling-comparison study included 1,687,038 men who underwent a military conscription examination at 17-22 years of age, of which 25,995 were diagnosed with AD.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by grants from the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare (Forte) and the UK Economic and Social Research Council. L von Kobyletzki declared being a consultant for and receiving research funding from various organizations. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Smith KA et al. Atopic dermatitis and cognitive function: A sibling comparison study among males in Sweden. Br J Dermatol. 2024 (Jan 3). doi: 10.1093/bjd/ljae004

Key clinical point: A significant association was observed between atopic dermatitis (AD) and poorer cognitive function in men, and familial characteristics exerted a confounding effect on this association.

Major finding: After effectively controlling for familial environmental confounding factors and addressing genetic influences, AD in men was significantly associated with poorer cognitive function (regression coefficient −0.04; 95% CI −0.07 to −0.003).

Study details: This sibling-comparison study included 1,687,038 men who underwent a military conscription examination at 17-22 years of age, of which 25,995 were diagnosed with AD.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by grants from the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare (Forte) and the UK Economic and Social Research Council. L von Kobyletzki declared being a consultant for and receiving research funding from various organizations. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Smith KA et al. Atopic dermatitis and cognitive function: A sibling comparison study among males in Sweden. Br J Dermatol. 2024 (Jan 3). doi: 10.1093/bjd/ljae004

Key clinical point: Patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), especially moderate-to-severe AD, had an increased prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Major finding: A significant association was observed between IBD and AD (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.89; P = .0169); however, when stratified by AD severity, only moderate-to-severe AD was found to be associated with IBD (aOR 4.45; P = .0102).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective observational study including 364 patients with AD and 725 matched control individuals without AD.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by an independent investigator grant from AbbVie. Two authors declared serving as investigators for or receiving honoraria or fees as consultants or advisory board members from various organizations, including AbbVie. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Rom H et al. The association between atopic dermatitis and inflammatory bowel disease in adults: A cross-sectional study in a specialized atopic dermatitis clinic. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2023 (Dec 21). doi: 10.1111/jdv.19769

Key clinical point: Patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), especially moderate-to-severe AD, had an increased prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Major finding: A significant association was observed between IBD and AD (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.89; P = .0169); however, when stratified by AD severity, only moderate-to-severe AD was found to be associated with IBD (aOR 4.45; P = .0102).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective observational study including 364 patients with AD and 725 matched control individuals without AD.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by an independent investigator grant from AbbVie. Two authors declared serving as investigators for or receiving honoraria or fees as consultants or advisory board members from various organizations, including AbbVie. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Rom H et al. The association between atopic dermatitis and inflammatory bowel disease in adults: A cross-sectional study in a specialized atopic dermatitis clinic. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2023 (Dec 21). doi: 10.1111/jdv.19769

Key clinical point: Patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), especially moderate-to-severe AD, had an increased prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Major finding: A significant association was observed between IBD and AD (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.89; P = .0169); however, when stratified by AD severity, only moderate-to-severe AD was found to be associated with IBD (aOR 4.45; P = .0102).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective observational study including 364 patients with AD and 725 matched control individuals without AD.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by an independent investigator grant from AbbVie. Two authors declared serving as investigators for or receiving honoraria or fees as consultants or advisory board members from various organizations, including AbbVie. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Rom H et al. The association between atopic dermatitis and inflammatory bowel disease in adults: A cross-sectional study in a specialized atopic dermatitis clinic. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2023 (Dec 21). doi: 10.1111/jdv.19769

Key clinical point: The majority of tralokinumab-treated patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) attained physician- and patient-reported outcomes over 32 weeks of observation, highlighting the multidimensional efficacy of tralokinumab in real-world settings.

Major finding: The proportion of patients achieving a ≥75% improvement in the baseline Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score increased significantly from 42% at week 4 to 76% at week 32 (P = .0075). A similar trend was observed for patient-reported outcomes. At week 16, at least one real-world therapeutic endpoint was achieved by 88% of patients treated with tralokinumab.

Study details: Findings are from a multicenter real-world retrospective cohort study including 194 patients with moderate-to-severe AD who were treated with tralokinumab for ≥16 weeks.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Several authors declared serving as speakers, consultants, or scientific advisors; receiving personal fees, speaker’s honoraria, or travel support, or having other ties with various pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Chiricozzi A et al for the MEDaCoTRA Study Group. Current treatment goals are achieved by the majority of patients with atopic dermatitis treated with tralokinumab: Results from a multicentric, multinational, retrospective, cohort study. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2023;23(12):1307-1315 (Dec 18). doi: 10.1080/14712598.2023.2292627

Key clinical point: The majority of tralokinumab-treated patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) attained physician- and patient-reported outcomes over 32 weeks of observation, highlighting the multidimensional efficacy of tralokinumab in real-world settings.

Major finding: The proportion of patients achieving a ≥75% improvement in the baseline Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score increased significantly from 42% at week 4 to 76% at week 32 (P = .0075). A similar trend was observed for patient-reported outcomes. At week 16, at least one real-world therapeutic endpoint was achieved by 88% of patients treated with tralokinumab.

Study details: Findings are from a multicenter real-world retrospective cohort study including 194 patients with moderate-to-severe AD who were treated with tralokinumab for ≥16 weeks.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Several authors declared serving as speakers, consultants, or scientific advisors; receiving personal fees, speaker’s honoraria, or travel support, or having other ties with various pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Chiricozzi A et al for the MEDaCoTRA Study Group. Current treatment goals are achieved by the majority of patients with atopic dermatitis treated with tralokinumab: Results from a multicentric, multinational, retrospective, cohort study. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2023;23(12):1307-1315 (Dec 18). doi: 10.1080/14712598.2023.2292627

Key clinical point: The majority of tralokinumab-treated patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) attained physician- and patient-reported outcomes over 32 weeks of observation, highlighting the multidimensional efficacy of tralokinumab in real-world settings.

Major finding: The proportion of patients achieving a ≥75% improvement in the baseline Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score increased significantly from 42% at week 4 to 76% at week 32 (P = .0075). A similar trend was observed for patient-reported outcomes. At week 16, at least one real-world therapeutic endpoint was achieved by 88% of patients treated with tralokinumab.

Study details: Findings are from a multicenter real-world retrospective cohort study including 194 patients with moderate-to-severe AD who were treated with tralokinumab for ≥16 weeks.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Several authors declared serving as speakers, consultants, or scientific advisors; receiving personal fees, speaker’s honoraria, or travel support, or having other ties with various pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Chiricozzi A et al for the MEDaCoTRA Study Group. Current treatment goals are achieved by the majority of patients with atopic dermatitis treated with tralokinumab: Results from a multicentric, multinational, retrospective, cohort study. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2023;23(12):1307-1315 (Dec 18). doi: 10.1080/14712598.2023.2292627

Key clinical point: Abrocitinib treatment over 12 weeks significantly decreased the cutaneous expression of selected genes involved in inflammation, epidermal hyperplasia, and T-helper (Th) 2 and Th22 immune responses in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: Compared with placebo, 12-week abrocitinib treatment led to a dose-dependent reduction in the cutaneous expression of genes involved in inflammation (MMP-12), epidermal hyperplasia (KRT16), Th2 (CCL17 and CCL18), and Th22 (S100A8, S100A9, and S100A12) responses (all P < .05).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 2a JADE MOA trial including patients with moderate-to-severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg (n = 16) or 200 mg (n = 14) abrocitinib monotherapy or placebo (n = 16) daily for 12 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Several authors declared being on the advisory board of; serving as consultants, advisors, or speakers for; or receiving honoraria or grants from Pfizer or others. Seven authors declared being current or former employees and shareholders of Pfizer.

Source: Guttman-Yassky E et al. Effect of abrocitinib on skin biomarkers in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Allergy. 2023 (Dec 18). doi: 10.1111/all.15969

Key clinical point: Abrocitinib treatment over 12 weeks significantly decreased the cutaneous expression of selected genes involved in inflammation, epidermal hyperplasia, and T-helper (Th) 2 and Th22 immune responses in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: Compared with placebo, 12-week abrocitinib treatment led to a dose-dependent reduction in the cutaneous expression of genes involved in inflammation (MMP-12), epidermal hyperplasia (KRT16), Th2 (CCL17 and CCL18), and Th22 (S100A8, S100A9, and S100A12) responses (all P < .05).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 2a JADE MOA trial including patients with moderate-to-severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg (n = 16) or 200 mg (n = 14) abrocitinib monotherapy or placebo (n = 16) daily for 12 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Several authors declared being on the advisory board of; serving as consultants, advisors, or speakers for; or receiving honoraria or grants from Pfizer or others. Seven authors declared being current or former employees and shareholders of Pfizer.

Source: Guttman-Yassky E et al. Effect of abrocitinib on skin biomarkers in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Allergy. 2023 (Dec 18). doi: 10.1111/all.15969

Key clinical point: Abrocitinib treatment over 12 weeks significantly decreased the cutaneous expression of selected genes involved in inflammation, epidermal hyperplasia, and T-helper (Th) 2 and Th22 immune responses in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: Compared with placebo, 12-week abrocitinib treatment led to a dose-dependent reduction in the cutaneous expression of genes involved in inflammation (MMP-12), epidermal hyperplasia (KRT16), Th2 (CCL17 and CCL18), and Th22 (S100A8, S100A9, and S100A12) responses (all P < .05).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 2a JADE MOA trial including patients with moderate-to-severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg (n = 16) or 200 mg (n = 14) abrocitinib monotherapy or placebo (n = 16) daily for 12 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Several authors declared being on the advisory board of; serving as consultants, advisors, or speakers for; or receiving honoraria or grants from Pfizer or others. Seven authors declared being current or former employees and shareholders of Pfizer.

Source: Guttman-Yassky E et al. Effect of abrocitinib on skin biomarkers in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Allergy. 2023 (Dec 18). doi: 10.1111/all.15969

Key clinical point: Abrocitinib as monotherapy or in combination with topical therapy improves skin pain in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: Abrocitinib vs placebo led to a significantly greater dose-dependent least squares mean change in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for AD (PSAAD) skin pain score from baseline to as early as week 1 that were sustained through week 12 or 16 (nominal P < .05). A greater proportion of patients achieved a stringent threshold of skin pain improvement (PSAAD skin pain score < 2) with abrocitinib vs placebo (nominal P < .05).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of five phase 2/3 trials included 1822 patients with moderate-to-severe AD (age ≥ 12 years) treated with 100 mg or 200 mg abrocitinib as monotherapy or in combination with topical therapy or placebo for 12 or 16 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Pfizer Inc., USA. Six authors declared being employees and stockholders of Pfizer. The other authors declared receiving research or travel grants or having other ties with various sources, including Pfizer.

Source: Thyssen JP et al. Abrocitinib provides rapid and sustained improvement in skin pain and is associated with improved quality of life outcomes in adult and adolescent patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Dermatology. 2023 (Dec 11). doi: 10.1159/000535285

Key clinical point: Abrocitinib as monotherapy or in combination with topical therapy improves skin pain in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: Abrocitinib vs placebo led to a significantly greater dose-dependent least squares mean change in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for AD (PSAAD) skin pain score from baseline to as early as week 1 that were sustained through week 12 or 16 (nominal P < .05). A greater proportion of patients achieved a stringent threshold of skin pain improvement (PSAAD skin pain score < 2) with abrocitinib vs placebo (nominal P < .05).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of five phase 2/3 trials included 1822 patients with moderate-to-severe AD (age ≥ 12 years) treated with 100 mg or 200 mg abrocitinib as monotherapy or in combination with topical therapy or placebo for 12 or 16 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Pfizer Inc., USA. Six authors declared being employees and stockholders of Pfizer. The other authors declared receiving research or travel grants or having other ties with various sources, including Pfizer.

Source: Thyssen JP et al. Abrocitinib provides rapid and sustained improvement in skin pain and is associated with improved quality of life outcomes in adult and adolescent patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Dermatology. 2023 (Dec 11). doi: 10.1159/000535285

Key clinical point: Abrocitinib as monotherapy or in combination with topical therapy improves skin pain in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: Abrocitinib vs placebo led to a significantly greater dose-dependent least squares mean change in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for AD (PSAAD) skin pain score from baseline to as early as week 1 that were sustained through week 12 or 16 (nominal P < .05). A greater proportion of patients achieved a stringent threshold of skin pain improvement (PSAAD skin pain score < 2) with abrocitinib vs placebo (nominal P < .05).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of five phase 2/3 trials included 1822 patients with moderate-to-severe AD (age ≥ 12 years) treated with 100 mg or 200 mg abrocitinib as monotherapy or in combination with topical therapy or placebo for 12 or 16 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Pfizer Inc., USA. Six authors declared being employees and stockholders of Pfizer. The other authors declared receiving research or travel grants or having other ties with various sources, including Pfizer.

Source: Thyssen JP et al. Abrocitinib provides rapid and sustained improvement in skin pain and is associated with improved quality of life outcomes in adult and adolescent patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Dermatology. 2023 (Dec 11). doi: 10.1159/000535285

Key clinical point: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is an important comorbidity in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) and leads to the maintenance and aggravation of their dermatosis, with a high frequency of ACD observed to textile dyes, isothiazolinones, and fragrances.

Major finding: Contact sensitization was significantly associated with facial involvement (P = .04) and a longer duration of AD (P = .005). The most frequent allergen was textile dye mix (24.70%) followed by nickel (20.21%), cobalt (12.70%), and methylchlorisothiazolinone+methylisothiazolinone (8.50%). The avoidance of relevant allergens led to a significant reduction in the Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) scores at 6 months (P < .001).

Study details: This longitudinal prospective study included 93 patients with AD (age > 2 years) who were patch-tested with the 2019 European baseline series and the corticosteroid series, 60.2% of whom had positive patch test results.

Disclosures: This study did not disclose any funding source. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Trimeche K et al. Contact allergy in atopic dermatitis: A prospective study on prevalence, incriminated allergens and clinical insights. Contact Dermatitis. 2023 (Dec 27). doi: 10.1111/cod.14494

Key clinical point: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is an important comorbidity in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) and leads to the maintenance and aggravation of their dermatosis, with a high frequency of ACD observed to textile dyes, isothiazolinones, and fragrances.

Major finding: Contact sensitization was significantly associated with facial involvement (P = .04) and a longer duration of AD (P = .005). The most frequent allergen was textile dye mix (24.70%) followed by nickel (20.21%), cobalt (12.70%), and methylchlorisothiazolinone+methylisothiazolinone (8.50%). The avoidance of relevant allergens led to a significant reduction in the Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) scores at 6 months (P < .001).

Study details: This longitudinal prospective study included 93 patients with AD (age > 2 years) who were patch-tested with the 2019 European baseline series and the corticosteroid series, 60.2% of whom had positive patch test results.

Disclosures: This study did not disclose any funding source. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Trimeche K et al. Contact allergy in atopic dermatitis: A prospective study on prevalence, incriminated allergens and clinical insights. Contact Dermatitis. 2023 (Dec 27). doi: 10.1111/cod.14494

Key clinical point: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is an important comorbidity in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) and leads to the maintenance and aggravation of their dermatosis, with a high frequency of ACD observed to textile dyes, isothiazolinones, and fragrances.

Major finding: Contact sensitization was significantly associated with facial involvement (P = .04) and a longer duration of AD (P = .005). The most frequent allergen was textile dye mix (24.70%) followed by nickel (20.21%), cobalt (12.70%), and methylchlorisothiazolinone+methylisothiazolinone (8.50%). The avoidance of relevant allergens led to a significant reduction in the Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) scores at 6 months (P < .001).

Study details: This longitudinal prospective study included 93 patients with AD (age > 2 years) who were patch-tested with the 2019 European baseline series and the corticosteroid series, 60.2% of whom had positive patch test results.

Disclosures: This study did not disclose any funding source. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Trimeche K et al. Contact allergy in atopic dermatitis: A prospective study on prevalence, incriminated allergens and clinical insights. Contact Dermatitis. 2023 (Dec 27). doi: 10.1111/cod.14494