User login
HPV Vaccine Shown to Be Highly Effective in Girls Years Later
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women worldwide.
- Programs to provide Cervarix, a bivalent vaccine, began in the United Kingdom in 2007.
- After the initiation of the programs, administering the vaccine became part of routine care for girls starting at age 12 years.
- Researchers collected data in 2020 from 447,845 women born between 1988 and 1996 from the Scottish cervical cancer screening system to assess the efficacy of Cervarix in lowering rates of cervical cancer.
- They correlated the rate of cervical cancer per 100,000 person-years with data on women regarding vaccination status, age when vaccinated, and deprivation in areas like income, housing, and health.
TAKEAWAY:
- No cases of cervical cancer were found among women who were immunized at ages 12 or 13 years, no matter how many doses they received.
- Women who were immunized between ages 14 and 18 years and received three doses had fewer instances of cervical cancer compared with unvaccinated women regardless of deprivation status (3.2 cases per 100,00 women vs 8.4 cases per 100,000).
IN PRACTICE:
“Continued participation in screening and monitoring of outcomes is required, however, to assess the effects of changes in vaccines used and dosage schedules since the start of vaccination in Scotland in 2008 and the longevity of protection the vaccines offer.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Timothy J. Palmer, PhD, Scottish Clinical Lead for Cervical Screening at Public Health Scotland.
LIMITATIONS:
Only 14,645 women had received just one or two doses, which may have affected the statistical analysis.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by Public Health Scotland. A coauthor reports attending an advisory board meeting for HOLOGIC and Vaccitech. Her institution received research funding or gratis support funding from Cepheid, Euroimmun, GeneFirst, SelfScreen, Hiantis, Seegene, Roche, Hologic, and Vaccitech in the past 3 years.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women worldwide.
- Programs to provide Cervarix, a bivalent vaccine, began in the United Kingdom in 2007.
- After the initiation of the programs, administering the vaccine became part of routine care for girls starting at age 12 years.
- Researchers collected data in 2020 from 447,845 women born between 1988 and 1996 from the Scottish cervical cancer screening system to assess the efficacy of Cervarix in lowering rates of cervical cancer.
- They correlated the rate of cervical cancer per 100,000 person-years with data on women regarding vaccination status, age when vaccinated, and deprivation in areas like income, housing, and health.
TAKEAWAY:
- No cases of cervical cancer were found among women who were immunized at ages 12 or 13 years, no matter how many doses they received.
- Women who were immunized between ages 14 and 18 years and received three doses had fewer instances of cervical cancer compared with unvaccinated women regardless of deprivation status (3.2 cases per 100,00 women vs 8.4 cases per 100,000).
IN PRACTICE:
“Continued participation in screening and monitoring of outcomes is required, however, to assess the effects of changes in vaccines used and dosage schedules since the start of vaccination in Scotland in 2008 and the longevity of protection the vaccines offer.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Timothy J. Palmer, PhD, Scottish Clinical Lead for Cervical Screening at Public Health Scotland.
LIMITATIONS:
Only 14,645 women had received just one or two doses, which may have affected the statistical analysis.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by Public Health Scotland. A coauthor reports attending an advisory board meeting for HOLOGIC and Vaccitech. Her institution received research funding or gratis support funding from Cepheid, Euroimmun, GeneFirst, SelfScreen, Hiantis, Seegene, Roche, Hologic, and Vaccitech in the past 3 years.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women worldwide.
- Programs to provide Cervarix, a bivalent vaccine, began in the United Kingdom in 2007.
- After the initiation of the programs, administering the vaccine became part of routine care for girls starting at age 12 years.
- Researchers collected data in 2020 from 447,845 women born between 1988 and 1996 from the Scottish cervical cancer screening system to assess the efficacy of Cervarix in lowering rates of cervical cancer.
- They correlated the rate of cervical cancer per 100,000 person-years with data on women regarding vaccination status, age when vaccinated, and deprivation in areas like income, housing, and health.
TAKEAWAY:
- No cases of cervical cancer were found among women who were immunized at ages 12 or 13 years, no matter how many doses they received.
- Women who were immunized between ages 14 and 18 years and received three doses had fewer instances of cervical cancer compared with unvaccinated women regardless of deprivation status (3.2 cases per 100,00 women vs 8.4 cases per 100,000).
IN PRACTICE:
“Continued participation in screening and monitoring of outcomes is required, however, to assess the effects of changes in vaccines used and dosage schedules since the start of vaccination in Scotland in 2008 and the longevity of protection the vaccines offer.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Timothy J. Palmer, PhD, Scottish Clinical Lead for Cervical Screening at Public Health Scotland.
LIMITATIONS:
Only 14,645 women had received just one or two doses, which may have affected the statistical analysis.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by Public Health Scotland. A coauthor reports attending an advisory board meeting for HOLOGIC and Vaccitech. Her institution received research funding or gratis support funding from Cepheid, Euroimmun, GeneFirst, SelfScreen, Hiantis, Seegene, Roche, Hologic, and Vaccitech in the past 3 years.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
HPV Vax Tied to Lower Odds of Cervical Lesion Progression
TOPLINE:
Among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2), vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) before age 20 is associated with lower odds of progression.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from 7904 women in Denmark who were undergoing active surveillance for CIN2 between 2007 and 2020.
- CIN2 lesions on their own. Removing them can increase the risk for during subsequent pregnancies, the researchers noted.
- Nearly half of the women had received at least one dose of an HPV vaccine at least 1 year before the diagnosis of cervical dysplasia.
TAKEAWAY:
- During 28 months of follow-up, the risk for progression was 22.9% for women vaccinated before age 15, 31.5% for women vaccinated between ages 15 and 20, and 37.6% for women who were not vaccinated.
- Women vaccinated before age 15 had a 35% lower risk for progression than unvaccinated women, after adjusting for cytology, income, and education (adjusted relative risk, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75).
- Cervical cancer developed in 0.37% of the unvaccinated women and 0.13% of the vaccinated women.
- All cases of cervical cancer in the vaccinated group occurred in women who received the vaccine after age 20.
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings suggest that HPV vaccination status may be used to identify women at higher risk for progression, thereby enabling risk stratification at the time of CIN2 diagnosis,” the researchers wrote.
SOURCE:
Louise Krog, BscMed, with Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, was the corresponding author of the study. The research was published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study authors had limited information about potential confounders such as smoking, immunosuppressive conditions, and the age at which patients became sexually active.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Danish Cancer Society, the Carpenter Axel Kastrup-Nielsen’s Memorial Fund, and the Dagmar Marshall’s Fund. Co-authors disclosed ties to AstraZeneca, Roche, and Hologic.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2), vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) before age 20 is associated with lower odds of progression.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from 7904 women in Denmark who were undergoing active surveillance for CIN2 between 2007 and 2020.
- CIN2 lesions on their own. Removing them can increase the risk for during subsequent pregnancies, the researchers noted.
- Nearly half of the women had received at least one dose of an HPV vaccine at least 1 year before the diagnosis of cervical dysplasia.
TAKEAWAY:
- During 28 months of follow-up, the risk for progression was 22.9% for women vaccinated before age 15, 31.5% for women vaccinated between ages 15 and 20, and 37.6% for women who were not vaccinated.
- Women vaccinated before age 15 had a 35% lower risk for progression than unvaccinated women, after adjusting for cytology, income, and education (adjusted relative risk, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75).
- Cervical cancer developed in 0.37% of the unvaccinated women and 0.13% of the vaccinated women.
- All cases of cervical cancer in the vaccinated group occurred in women who received the vaccine after age 20.
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings suggest that HPV vaccination status may be used to identify women at higher risk for progression, thereby enabling risk stratification at the time of CIN2 diagnosis,” the researchers wrote.
SOURCE:
Louise Krog, BscMed, with Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, was the corresponding author of the study. The research was published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study authors had limited information about potential confounders such as smoking, immunosuppressive conditions, and the age at which patients became sexually active.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Danish Cancer Society, the Carpenter Axel Kastrup-Nielsen’s Memorial Fund, and the Dagmar Marshall’s Fund. Co-authors disclosed ties to AstraZeneca, Roche, and Hologic.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2), vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) before age 20 is associated with lower odds of progression.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from 7904 women in Denmark who were undergoing active surveillance for CIN2 between 2007 and 2020.
- CIN2 lesions on their own. Removing them can increase the risk for during subsequent pregnancies, the researchers noted.
- Nearly half of the women had received at least one dose of an HPV vaccine at least 1 year before the diagnosis of cervical dysplasia.
TAKEAWAY:
- During 28 months of follow-up, the risk for progression was 22.9% for women vaccinated before age 15, 31.5% for women vaccinated between ages 15 and 20, and 37.6% for women who were not vaccinated.
- Women vaccinated before age 15 had a 35% lower risk for progression than unvaccinated women, after adjusting for cytology, income, and education (adjusted relative risk, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75).
- Cervical cancer developed in 0.37% of the unvaccinated women and 0.13% of the vaccinated women.
- All cases of cervical cancer in the vaccinated group occurred in women who received the vaccine after age 20.
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings suggest that HPV vaccination status may be used to identify women at higher risk for progression, thereby enabling risk stratification at the time of CIN2 diagnosis,” the researchers wrote.
SOURCE:
Louise Krog, BscMed, with Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, was the corresponding author of the study. The research was published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study authors had limited information about potential confounders such as smoking, immunosuppressive conditions, and the age at which patients became sexually active.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Danish Cancer Society, the Carpenter Axel Kastrup-Nielsen’s Memorial Fund, and the Dagmar Marshall’s Fund. Co-authors disclosed ties to AstraZeneca, Roche, and Hologic.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Cluster of Eye Syphilis Cases Prompts CDC Concern
, according to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
With the incidence of syphilis infection in women increasing in the United States, experts are asking clinicians to be on the lookout for unusual ocular presentations.
“This is the first time such a cluster has been reported in the US,” the International Society for Infectious Diseases posted on ProMED.
Five women in Southwest Michigan who had a common male sex partner developed syphilis infections in their eyes. No new cases have been found related to these five cases after the women and the man received medical care.
If left untreated, the bacterium, Treponema pallidum, can infect the eyes, the ears, and the central nervous system.
The women, identified as non-Hispanic White, were aged 40-60 years and were not infected with HIV. They were diagnosed with early-stage syphilis and all were hospitalized and treated with intravenous penicillin. Routes of sexual exposure among the women included anal (40%), oral (40%), and vaginal (100%), the report states.
The common male sex partner they all met online was found to have early latent syphilis but never developed ocular syphilis.
It is not the eyes that are being exposed. Rather, it is an ocular presentation brought about by a systemic infection carried through the bloodstream after sexual exposure, explains William Nettleton, MD, MPH, medical director of the Kalamazoo and Calhoun public health departments in Michigan and lead author of the report.
“If we screen, identify, and treat syphilis promptly, we can prevent systemic manifestations,” he says.
Clinicians should be aware that the ocular manifestations can come at different stages of syphilis. “For patients you think may have ocular syphilis,” Dr. Nettleton says, “an immediate ophthalmologic evaluation is indicated.”
Symptoms Differed
The five women presented with a variety of symptoms.
Multiple attempts to contact the male partner by telephone and text were made by Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, but he did not respond. Local public health physicians reviewed the man’s electronic health record and discovered that he had sought care at a hospital emergency department in January 2022 for ulcerative penile and anal lesions.
He reported having multiple female sex partners during the previous 12 months but declined to disclose their identities; he reported no male or transgender sexual contact, according to the CDC report. Eventually he agreed to an evaluation, was found to have early latent syphilis, and was treated with penicillin.
Cases of syphilis have been soaring in the United States in recent years, reaching a 70-year high.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
With the incidence of syphilis infection in women increasing in the United States, experts are asking clinicians to be on the lookout for unusual ocular presentations.
“This is the first time such a cluster has been reported in the US,” the International Society for Infectious Diseases posted on ProMED.
Five women in Southwest Michigan who had a common male sex partner developed syphilis infections in their eyes. No new cases have been found related to these five cases after the women and the man received medical care.
If left untreated, the bacterium, Treponema pallidum, can infect the eyes, the ears, and the central nervous system.
The women, identified as non-Hispanic White, were aged 40-60 years and were not infected with HIV. They were diagnosed with early-stage syphilis and all were hospitalized and treated with intravenous penicillin. Routes of sexual exposure among the women included anal (40%), oral (40%), and vaginal (100%), the report states.
The common male sex partner they all met online was found to have early latent syphilis but never developed ocular syphilis.
It is not the eyes that are being exposed. Rather, it is an ocular presentation brought about by a systemic infection carried through the bloodstream after sexual exposure, explains William Nettleton, MD, MPH, medical director of the Kalamazoo and Calhoun public health departments in Michigan and lead author of the report.
“If we screen, identify, and treat syphilis promptly, we can prevent systemic manifestations,” he says.
Clinicians should be aware that the ocular manifestations can come at different stages of syphilis. “For patients you think may have ocular syphilis,” Dr. Nettleton says, “an immediate ophthalmologic evaluation is indicated.”
Symptoms Differed
The five women presented with a variety of symptoms.
Multiple attempts to contact the male partner by telephone and text were made by Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, but he did not respond. Local public health physicians reviewed the man’s electronic health record and discovered that he had sought care at a hospital emergency department in January 2022 for ulcerative penile and anal lesions.
He reported having multiple female sex partners during the previous 12 months but declined to disclose their identities; he reported no male or transgender sexual contact, according to the CDC report. Eventually he agreed to an evaluation, was found to have early latent syphilis, and was treated with penicillin.
Cases of syphilis have been soaring in the United States in recent years, reaching a 70-year high.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
With the incidence of syphilis infection in women increasing in the United States, experts are asking clinicians to be on the lookout for unusual ocular presentations.
“This is the first time such a cluster has been reported in the US,” the International Society for Infectious Diseases posted on ProMED.
Five women in Southwest Michigan who had a common male sex partner developed syphilis infections in their eyes. No new cases have been found related to these five cases after the women and the man received medical care.
If left untreated, the bacterium, Treponema pallidum, can infect the eyes, the ears, and the central nervous system.
The women, identified as non-Hispanic White, were aged 40-60 years and were not infected with HIV. They were diagnosed with early-stage syphilis and all were hospitalized and treated with intravenous penicillin. Routes of sexual exposure among the women included anal (40%), oral (40%), and vaginal (100%), the report states.
The common male sex partner they all met online was found to have early latent syphilis but never developed ocular syphilis.
It is not the eyes that are being exposed. Rather, it is an ocular presentation brought about by a systemic infection carried through the bloodstream after sexual exposure, explains William Nettleton, MD, MPH, medical director of the Kalamazoo and Calhoun public health departments in Michigan and lead author of the report.
“If we screen, identify, and treat syphilis promptly, we can prevent systemic manifestations,” he says.
Clinicians should be aware that the ocular manifestations can come at different stages of syphilis. “For patients you think may have ocular syphilis,” Dr. Nettleton says, “an immediate ophthalmologic evaluation is indicated.”
Symptoms Differed
The five women presented with a variety of symptoms.
Multiple attempts to contact the male partner by telephone and text were made by Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, but he did not respond. Local public health physicians reviewed the man’s electronic health record and discovered that he had sought care at a hospital emergency department in January 2022 for ulcerative penile and anal lesions.
He reported having multiple female sex partners during the previous 12 months but declined to disclose their identities; he reported no male or transgender sexual contact, according to the CDC report. Eventually he agreed to an evaluation, was found to have early latent syphilis, and was treated with penicillin.
Cases of syphilis have been soaring in the United States in recent years, reaching a 70-year high.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM MMWR
New at-home test approved for chlamydia and gonorrhea
Called Simple 2, it’s the first test approved by the Food and Drug Administration that uses a sample collected at home to test for an STD, other than tests for HIV. The test can be purchased over-the-counter in stores or ordered online and delivered in discreet packaging. A vaginal swab or urine sample is collected and then sent for laboratory testing using a prepaid shipping label.
The FDA issued the final needed approval on Nov. 15, and the product is already for sale on the website of the manufacturer, LetsGetChecked. The listed price is $99 with free shipping for a single test kit, and the site offers a discounted subscription to receive a kit every 3 months for $69.30 per kit.
Gonorrhea cases have surged 28% since 2017, reaching 700,000 cases during 2021, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show. Chlamydia has also been on the rise, up 4% from 2020 to 2021, with 1.6 million annual infections.
Previously, tests for the two STDs required that samples be taken at a health care location such as a doctor’s office. The Simple 2 test results can be retrieved online, and a health care provider will reach out to people whose tests are positive or invalid. Results are typically received in 2-5 days, according to a press release from LetsGetChecked, which also offers treatment services.
“This authorization marks an important public health milestone, giving patients more information about their health from the privacy of their own home,” said Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, in a statement. “We are eager to continue supporting greater consumer access to diagnostic tests, which helps further our goal of bringing more health care into the home.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Called Simple 2, it’s the first test approved by the Food and Drug Administration that uses a sample collected at home to test for an STD, other than tests for HIV. The test can be purchased over-the-counter in stores or ordered online and delivered in discreet packaging. A vaginal swab or urine sample is collected and then sent for laboratory testing using a prepaid shipping label.
The FDA issued the final needed approval on Nov. 15, and the product is already for sale on the website of the manufacturer, LetsGetChecked. The listed price is $99 with free shipping for a single test kit, and the site offers a discounted subscription to receive a kit every 3 months for $69.30 per kit.
Gonorrhea cases have surged 28% since 2017, reaching 700,000 cases during 2021, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show. Chlamydia has also been on the rise, up 4% from 2020 to 2021, with 1.6 million annual infections.
Previously, tests for the two STDs required that samples be taken at a health care location such as a doctor’s office. The Simple 2 test results can be retrieved online, and a health care provider will reach out to people whose tests are positive or invalid. Results are typically received in 2-5 days, according to a press release from LetsGetChecked, which also offers treatment services.
“This authorization marks an important public health milestone, giving patients more information about their health from the privacy of their own home,” said Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, in a statement. “We are eager to continue supporting greater consumer access to diagnostic tests, which helps further our goal of bringing more health care into the home.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Called Simple 2, it’s the first test approved by the Food and Drug Administration that uses a sample collected at home to test for an STD, other than tests for HIV. The test can be purchased over-the-counter in stores or ordered online and delivered in discreet packaging. A vaginal swab or urine sample is collected and then sent for laboratory testing using a prepaid shipping label.
The FDA issued the final needed approval on Nov. 15, and the product is already for sale on the website of the manufacturer, LetsGetChecked. The listed price is $99 with free shipping for a single test kit, and the site offers a discounted subscription to receive a kit every 3 months for $69.30 per kit.
Gonorrhea cases have surged 28% since 2017, reaching 700,000 cases during 2021, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show. Chlamydia has also been on the rise, up 4% from 2020 to 2021, with 1.6 million annual infections.
Previously, tests for the two STDs required that samples be taken at a health care location such as a doctor’s office. The Simple 2 test results can be retrieved online, and a health care provider will reach out to people whose tests are positive or invalid. Results are typically received in 2-5 days, according to a press release from LetsGetChecked, which also offers treatment services.
“This authorization marks an important public health milestone, giving patients more information about their health from the privacy of their own home,” said Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, in a statement. “We are eager to continue supporting greater consumer access to diagnostic tests, which helps further our goal of bringing more health care into the home.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Tech encourages HIV prevention among women
Access to technology, particularly cellphones, is tied to a higher awareness of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in women, according to survey results presented at the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care 2023 Annual Meeting.
Those with limited access to technology, older women, and women who had been incarcerated were also less likely to be aware of their medication options.
Researchers collected responses from 206 women in New York and Philadelphia by computer survey. The women were HIV negative and eligible to receive medication but were not currently taking any.
Most participants were Black (61%) or Hispanic (24%), and the average age of participants was 39 years. Nearly 60% of the group reported they were not aware of PrEP.
Younger women, Hispanic women, women who had not been incarcerated, and women with access to technology were most likely to be aware that they could take medication to prevent HIV.
“Women who utilized their cell phones for activities such as texting, emailing, watching videos, playing games, downloading apps, and accessing social media were more likely to be aware of PrEP,” point out the researchers led by Su Kyung Kim, PhD, WHNP-BC, an assistant professor at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia.
These findings could help direct efforts to increase awareness among women where uptake has remained low, the researchers report. “Mobile technologies, in particular, offer a nimble, customizable, and accessible way to reach this target population and increase awareness of PrEP.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Access to technology, particularly cellphones, is tied to a higher awareness of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in women, according to survey results presented at the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care 2023 Annual Meeting.
Those with limited access to technology, older women, and women who had been incarcerated were also less likely to be aware of their medication options.
Researchers collected responses from 206 women in New York and Philadelphia by computer survey. The women were HIV negative and eligible to receive medication but were not currently taking any.
Most participants were Black (61%) or Hispanic (24%), and the average age of participants was 39 years. Nearly 60% of the group reported they were not aware of PrEP.
Younger women, Hispanic women, women who had not been incarcerated, and women with access to technology were most likely to be aware that they could take medication to prevent HIV.
“Women who utilized their cell phones for activities such as texting, emailing, watching videos, playing games, downloading apps, and accessing social media were more likely to be aware of PrEP,” point out the researchers led by Su Kyung Kim, PhD, WHNP-BC, an assistant professor at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia.
These findings could help direct efforts to increase awareness among women where uptake has remained low, the researchers report. “Mobile technologies, in particular, offer a nimble, customizable, and accessible way to reach this target population and increase awareness of PrEP.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Access to technology, particularly cellphones, is tied to a higher awareness of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in women, according to survey results presented at the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care 2023 Annual Meeting.
Those with limited access to technology, older women, and women who had been incarcerated were also less likely to be aware of their medication options.
Researchers collected responses from 206 women in New York and Philadelphia by computer survey. The women were HIV negative and eligible to receive medication but were not currently taking any.
Most participants were Black (61%) or Hispanic (24%), and the average age of participants was 39 years. Nearly 60% of the group reported they were not aware of PrEP.
Younger women, Hispanic women, women who had not been incarcerated, and women with access to technology were most likely to be aware that they could take medication to prevent HIV.
“Women who utilized their cell phones for activities such as texting, emailing, watching videos, playing games, downloading apps, and accessing social media were more likely to be aware of PrEP,” point out the researchers led by Su Kyung Kim, PhD, WHNP-BC, an assistant professor at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia.
These findings could help direct efforts to increase awareness among women where uptake has remained low, the researchers report. “Mobile technologies, in particular, offer a nimble, customizable, and accessible way to reach this target population and increase awareness of PrEP.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Young women rate top sources for STI self-testing
, based on surveys from 92 individuals.
Direct-to-consumer (DTC) sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening methods involve the use of self-collected samples outside of a clinical setting, and may help reach women who avoid screening or lack access to clinical care, wrote Stacey B. Griner, PhD, of the University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, and colleagues.
However, data on the methods used to promote DTC to the young female population are limited, and the goal of the current study was to identify preferred sources and communication channels for DTC STI information in this population, they said.
In a study published in Sexually Transmitted Diseases, the researchers reviewed data from 92 women aged 18-24 years at a single university who participated in an online survey. Of these, 24 also participated in in-depth interviews. The mean age of the participants was 20.0 years, and all reported being sexually active in the past year. Approximately two-thirds (68.5%) were White, 24% were Hispanic, 13% were Black or African American; 63.0% overall were heterosexual.
Participants received a description of DTC methods and were asked whether they were interested in receiving more information, and if so, what were their preferred sources for receiving the information. Potential sources included health care providers, friends, family members, partners, the Internet, college resources, classes, and other, and participants were asked to rank these choices in order of preference.
More than half of the participants identified health care providers as their preferred source of information (56.5%), followed by trusted websites (25%), and university-based resources or friends (6.5% for both).
Overall, participants who underwent STI screening in the past 12 months ranked college resources higher than those who had not undergone screening.
Race played a significant role in ranking partners and family members as resources. Compared with Black participants, White participants and those who were biracial/multiracial/another race ranked partners as a significantly more preferred source, but the differences between White and biracial/multiracial/another race were not significant. White participants and Black participants were similar in ranking family as a preferred information source, but White participants, compared with biracial/multiracial/other participants, ranked family as a significantly more preferred source.
Differences in rankings were similar across sexual orientations.
In-depth interviews were conducted on the college campus prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. The mean age of the interview participants was 19.5 years, and most were non-Hispanic White. Sexual orientation was varied, with 50% identifying as heterosexual and 50% identifying as a sexual minority.
In the interviews, health care providers were seen as influential for considering DTC methods, with gynecologists, other specialists, and more experienced physicians deemed the most trustworthy. Interviewees noted social media sites as a way to provide information and raise awareness of DTC methods, such as through the advertisements feature on Instagram. They also identified university orientation as a way to reach students and provide information about DTC options in the context of other health-related orientation topics such as sexual consent and alcohol use.
Many interviewees also mentioned friends as a resource for discussing sex, sexuality, and STI screening, and said they would be accepting of information, knowledge, and emotional support when learning about DTC from friends.
The findings were limited by several factors, including the cross-sectional design, use of data from a single campus setting, and the overrepresentation of White women, and more studies are needed to identify differences by region and campus type that might guide interventions, the researchers noted. The study also was limited by “the lack of specificity of what participants considered to be credible Internet information sources,” they said.
However, the results suggest that using health care providers, trusted websites, and established college resources as dissemination channels may help increase the awareness and use of DTC methods for STI screening in young women, they concluded.
The study was supported in part by the Doug Kirby Adolescent Sexual Health Research Grant from the Rural Center for AIDS/STD Prevention at Indiana University and by the University of South Florida College of Public Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
, based on surveys from 92 individuals.
Direct-to-consumer (DTC) sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening methods involve the use of self-collected samples outside of a clinical setting, and may help reach women who avoid screening or lack access to clinical care, wrote Stacey B. Griner, PhD, of the University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, and colleagues.
However, data on the methods used to promote DTC to the young female population are limited, and the goal of the current study was to identify preferred sources and communication channels for DTC STI information in this population, they said.
In a study published in Sexually Transmitted Diseases, the researchers reviewed data from 92 women aged 18-24 years at a single university who participated in an online survey. Of these, 24 also participated in in-depth interviews. The mean age of the participants was 20.0 years, and all reported being sexually active in the past year. Approximately two-thirds (68.5%) were White, 24% were Hispanic, 13% were Black or African American; 63.0% overall were heterosexual.
Participants received a description of DTC methods and were asked whether they were interested in receiving more information, and if so, what were their preferred sources for receiving the information. Potential sources included health care providers, friends, family members, partners, the Internet, college resources, classes, and other, and participants were asked to rank these choices in order of preference.
More than half of the participants identified health care providers as their preferred source of information (56.5%), followed by trusted websites (25%), and university-based resources or friends (6.5% for both).
Overall, participants who underwent STI screening in the past 12 months ranked college resources higher than those who had not undergone screening.
Race played a significant role in ranking partners and family members as resources. Compared with Black participants, White participants and those who were biracial/multiracial/another race ranked partners as a significantly more preferred source, but the differences between White and biracial/multiracial/another race were not significant. White participants and Black participants were similar in ranking family as a preferred information source, but White participants, compared with biracial/multiracial/other participants, ranked family as a significantly more preferred source.
Differences in rankings were similar across sexual orientations.
In-depth interviews were conducted on the college campus prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. The mean age of the interview participants was 19.5 years, and most were non-Hispanic White. Sexual orientation was varied, with 50% identifying as heterosexual and 50% identifying as a sexual minority.
In the interviews, health care providers were seen as influential for considering DTC methods, with gynecologists, other specialists, and more experienced physicians deemed the most trustworthy. Interviewees noted social media sites as a way to provide information and raise awareness of DTC methods, such as through the advertisements feature on Instagram. They also identified university orientation as a way to reach students and provide information about DTC options in the context of other health-related orientation topics such as sexual consent and alcohol use.
Many interviewees also mentioned friends as a resource for discussing sex, sexuality, and STI screening, and said they would be accepting of information, knowledge, and emotional support when learning about DTC from friends.
The findings were limited by several factors, including the cross-sectional design, use of data from a single campus setting, and the overrepresentation of White women, and more studies are needed to identify differences by region and campus type that might guide interventions, the researchers noted. The study also was limited by “the lack of specificity of what participants considered to be credible Internet information sources,” they said.
However, the results suggest that using health care providers, trusted websites, and established college resources as dissemination channels may help increase the awareness and use of DTC methods for STI screening in young women, they concluded.
The study was supported in part by the Doug Kirby Adolescent Sexual Health Research Grant from the Rural Center for AIDS/STD Prevention at Indiana University and by the University of South Florida College of Public Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
, based on surveys from 92 individuals.
Direct-to-consumer (DTC) sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening methods involve the use of self-collected samples outside of a clinical setting, and may help reach women who avoid screening or lack access to clinical care, wrote Stacey B. Griner, PhD, of the University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, and colleagues.
However, data on the methods used to promote DTC to the young female population are limited, and the goal of the current study was to identify preferred sources and communication channels for DTC STI information in this population, they said.
In a study published in Sexually Transmitted Diseases, the researchers reviewed data from 92 women aged 18-24 years at a single university who participated in an online survey. Of these, 24 also participated in in-depth interviews. The mean age of the participants was 20.0 years, and all reported being sexually active in the past year. Approximately two-thirds (68.5%) were White, 24% were Hispanic, 13% were Black or African American; 63.0% overall were heterosexual.
Participants received a description of DTC methods and were asked whether they were interested in receiving more information, and if so, what were their preferred sources for receiving the information. Potential sources included health care providers, friends, family members, partners, the Internet, college resources, classes, and other, and participants were asked to rank these choices in order of preference.
More than half of the participants identified health care providers as their preferred source of information (56.5%), followed by trusted websites (25%), and university-based resources or friends (6.5% for both).
Overall, participants who underwent STI screening in the past 12 months ranked college resources higher than those who had not undergone screening.
Race played a significant role in ranking partners and family members as resources. Compared with Black participants, White participants and those who were biracial/multiracial/another race ranked partners as a significantly more preferred source, but the differences between White and biracial/multiracial/another race were not significant. White participants and Black participants were similar in ranking family as a preferred information source, but White participants, compared with biracial/multiracial/other participants, ranked family as a significantly more preferred source.
Differences in rankings were similar across sexual orientations.
In-depth interviews were conducted on the college campus prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. The mean age of the interview participants was 19.5 years, and most were non-Hispanic White. Sexual orientation was varied, with 50% identifying as heterosexual and 50% identifying as a sexual minority.
In the interviews, health care providers were seen as influential for considering DTC methods, with gynecologists, other specialists, and more experienced physicians deemed the most trustworthy. Interviewees noted social media sites as a way to provide information and raise awareness of DTC methods, such as through the advertisements feature on Instagram. They also identified university orientation as a way to reach students and provide information about DTC options in the context of other health-related orientation topics such as sexual consent and alcohol use.
Many interviewees also mentioned friends as a resource for discussing sex, sexuality, and STI screening, and said they would be accepting of information, knowledge, and emotional support when learning about DTC from friends.
The findings were limited by several factors, including the cross-sectional design, use of data from a single campus setting, and the overrepresentation of White women, and more studies are needed to identify differences by region and campus type that might guide interventions, the researchers noted. The study also was limited by “the lack of specificity of what participants considered to be credible Internet information sources,” they said.
However, the results suggest that using health care providers, trusted websites, and established college resources as dissemination channels may help increase the awareness and use of DTC methods for STI screening in young women, they concluded.
The study was supported in part by the Doug Kirby Adolescent Sexual Health Research Grant from the Rural Center for AIDS/STD Prevention at Indiana University and by the University of South Florida College of Public Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES
Primary care clinicians should spearhead HIV prevention
HIV continues to be a significant public health concern in the United States, with an estimated 1.2 million people currently living with the virus and more than 30,000 new diagnoses in 2020 alone.
Primary care clinicians can help decrease rates of HIV infection by prescribing pre-exposure prophylaxis to people who are sexually active.
But many do not.
“In medical school, we don’t spend much time discussing sexuality, sexual behavior, sexually transmitted infections, and such, so providers may feel uncomfortable asking what kind of sex their patient is having and with whom, whether they use a condom, and other basics,” said Matthew M. Hamill, MBChB, PhD, MPH, a specialist in sexually transmitted diseases at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.
PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis) is an antiviral medication that cuts the risk of contracting HIV through sex by around 99% when taken as prescribed, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“Many people who would benefit from PrEP are not receiving this highly effective medication,” said John B. Wong, MD, a primary care internist and professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston. The gap is particularly acute among Black, Hispanic, and Latino people, who are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with HIV but are much less likely than Whites to receive PrEP, he said.
Dr. Wong, a member of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, helped write the group’s new PrEP recommendations. Published in August, the guidelines call for clinicians to prescribe the drugs to adolescents and adults who do not have HIV but are at an increased risk for infection.
“Primary care physicians are ideally positioned to prescribe PrEP for their patients because they have longitudinal relationships: They get to know their patients, and hopefully their patients feel comfortable talking with them about their sexual health,” said Brandon Pollak, MD, a primary care physician and HIV specialist at the Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus.
Dr. Pollak, who was not involved with the USPSTF recommendations, cares for patients who are heterosexual and living with HIV.
Clinicians should consider PrEP for all patients who have sex with someone who has HIV, do not use condoms, or have had a sexually transmitted infection within the previous 6 months. Men who have sex with men, transgender women who have sex with men, people who inject illicit drugs or engage in transactional sex, and Black, Hispanic, and Latino individuals also are at increased risk for the infection.
“The vast majority of patients on PrEP in any form sail through with no problems; they have regular lab work and can follow up in person or by telemedicine,” Dr. Hamill said. “They tend to be young, fit people without complicated medical histories, and the medications are very well-tolerated, particularly if people expect some short-term side effects.”
What you need to know when prescribing PrEP
Prescribing PrEP is similar in complexity to prescribing hypertension or diabetes medications, Dr. Hamill said.
Because taking the medications while already infected with the virus can lead to the emergence of drug-resistant HIV, patients must have a negative HIV test before starting PrEP. In addition, the USPSTF recommends testing for other sexually transmitted infections and for pregnancy, if appropriate. The task force also recommends conducting kidney function and hepatitis B tests, and a lipid profile before starting specific types of PrEP.
HIV screening is also recommended at 3-month intervals.
“Providers may order labs done at 3- to 4-month intervals but only see patients in clinic once or twice per year, depending on patient needs and risk behaviors,” said Jill S. Blumenthal, MD, associate professor of medicine at UC San Diego Health.
Clinicians should consider medication adherence and whether a patient is likely to take a pill once a day or could benefit from receiving an injection every 2 months. Patients may experience side effects such as diarrhea or headache with oral PrEP or soreness at the injection site. In rare cases, some of the drugs may cause kidney toxicity or bone mineral loss, according to Dr. Hamill.
Three similarly effective forms of PrEP approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration enable clinicians to tailor the medications to the specific needs and preferences of each patient. Truvada (emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) and Descovy (emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide) are both daily tablets, although the latter is not advised for people assigned female sex at birth who have receptive vaginal sex. Apretude (cabotegravir), an injectable agent, is not recommended for people who inject illegal drugs.
Patients with renal or bone disease are not good candidates for Truvada.
“Truvada can decrease bone density, so for someone with osteoporosis, you might choose Descovy or Apretude,” Dr. Pollak said. “For someone with chronic kidney disease, consider Descovy or Apretude. “If a patient has hepatitis B, Truvada or Descovy are appropriate, because hepatitis B is treatable.”
Patients taking an injectable PrEP may need more attention, because the concentration of the medication in the body decreases slowly and may linger for many months at low levels that don’t prevent HIV, according to Dr. Hamill. Someone who acquires HIV during that “tail” period might develop resistance to PrEP.
New research also showed that Descovy users were at elevated risk of developing hypertension and statin initiation, especially among those over age 40 years.
Primary care physicians may want to consult with renal specialists about medication safety in patients with severe kidney disease or with rheumatologists or endocrinologists about metabolic bone disease concerns, Dr. Hamill said.
Meanwhile, if a person begins a monogamous relationship and their risk for HIV drops, “it’s fine to stop taking PrEP tablets,” Dr. Pollak said. “I would still recommend routine HIV screening every 6 or 12 months or however often, depending on other risk factors.”
Caring for these patients entails ensuring labs are completed, monitoring adherence, ordering refills, and scheduling regular follow-up visits.
“For the vast majority of patients, the primary care physician is perfectly equipped for their care through the entire PrEP journey, from discussion and initiation to provision of PrEP,” and most cases do not require specialist care, Dr. Hamill said.
However, “if PrEP fails, which is exceedingly rare, primary care physicians should refer patients immediately, preferably with a warm handoff, for linkage to HIV care,” Dr. Blumenthal said.
Talking about PrEP opens the door to conversations with patients about sexual health and broader health issues, Dr. Hamill said. Although these may not come naturally to primary care clinicians, training is available. The National Network of STD Clinical Prevention Training Centers, funded by the CDC, trains providers on how to overcome their anxiety and have open, inclusive conversations about sexuality and sexual behaviors with transgender and gender-diverse, nonbinary people.
“People worry about saying the wrong thing, about causing offense,” Dr. Hamill said. “But once you get comfortable discussing sexuality, you may open conversations around other health issues.”
Barriers for patients
The task force identified several barriers to PrEP access for patients because of lack of trusting relationships with health care, the effects of structural racism on health disparities, and persistent biases within the health care system.
Racial and ethnic disparities in HIV incidence persist, with 42% of new diagnoses occurring among Black people, 27% among Hispanic or Latino people, and 26% among White people in 2020.
Rates of PrEP usage for a year or longer are also low. Sometimes the patient no longer needs PrEP, but barriers often involve the costs of taking time off from work and arranging transportation to clinic visits.
Although nearly all insurance plans and state Medicaid programs cover PrEP, if a patient does not have coverage, the drugs and required tests and office visits can be expensive.
“One of the biggest barriers for all providers is navigating our complicated health system and drug assistance programs,” said Mehri S. McKellar, MD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.
But lower-cost FDA-approved generic emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate is now available, and clinicians can direct patients to programs that help provide the medications at low or no cost.
“Providing PrEP care is straightforward, beneficial, and satisfying,” Dr. Hamill said. “You help people protect themselves from a life-changing diagnosis, and the health system doesn’t need to pay the cost of treating HIV. Everyone wins.”
Dr. Hamill, Dr. McKellar, Dr. Pollak, and Dr. Wong have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Blumenthal has reported a financial relationship with Gilead Sciences.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
HIV continues to be a significant public health concern in the United States, with an estimated 1.2 million people currently living with the virus and more than 30,000 new diagnoses in 2020 alone.
Primary care clinicians can help decrease rates of HIV infection by prescribing pre-exposure prophylaxis to people who are sexually active.
But many do not.
“In medical school, we don’t spend much time discussing sexuality, sexual behavior, sexually transmitted infections, and such, so providers may feel uncomfortable asking what kind of sex their patient is having and with whom, whether they use a condom, and other basics,” said Matthew M. Hamill, MBChB, PhD, MPH, a specialist in sexually transmitted diseases at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.
PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis) is an antiviral medication that cuts the risk of contracting HIV through sex by around 99% when taken as prescribed, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“Many people who would benefit from PrEP are not receiving this highly effective medication,” said John B. Wong, MD, a primary care internist and professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston. The gap is particularly acute among Black, Hispanic, and Latino people, who are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with HIV but are much less likely than Whites to receive PrEP, he said.
Dr. Wong, a member of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, helped write the group’s new PrEP recommendations. Published in August, the guidelines call for clinicians to prescribe the drugs to adolescents and adults who do not have HIV but are at an increased risk for infection.
“Primary care physicians are ideally positioned to prescribe PrEP for their patients because they have longitudinal relationships: They get to know their patients, and hopefully their patients feel comfortable talking with them about their sexual health,” said Brandon Pollak, MD, a primary care physician and HIV specialist at the Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus.
Dr. Pollak, who was not involved with the USPSTF recommendations, cares for patients who are heterosexual and living with HIV.
Clinicians should consider PrEP for all patients who have sex with someone who has HIV, do not use condoms, or have had a sexually transmitted infection within the previous 6 months. Men who have sex with men, transgender women who have sex with men, people who inject illicit drugs or engage in transactional sex, and Black, Hispanic, and Latino individuals also are at increased risk for the infection.
“The vast majority of patients on PrEP in any form sail through with no problems; they have regular lab work and can follow up in person or by telemedicine,” Dr. Hamill said. “They tend to be young, fit people without complicated medical histories, and the medications are very well-tolerated, particularly if people expect some short-term side effects.”
What you need to know when prescribing PrEP
Prescribing PrEP is similar in complexity to prescribing hypertension or diabetes medications, Dr. Hamill said.
Because taking the medications while already infected with the virus can lead to the emergence of drug-resistant HIV, patients must have a negative HIV test before starting PrEP. In addition, the USPSTF recommends testing for other sexually transmitted infections and for pregnancy, if appropriate. The task force also recommends conducting kidney function and hepatitis B tests, and a lipid profile before starting specific types of PrEP.
HIV screening is also recommended at 3-month intervals.
“Providers may order labs done at 3- to 4-month intervals but only see patients in clinic once or twice per year, depending on patient needs and risk behaviors,” said Jill S. Blumenthal, MD, associate professor of medicine at UC San Diego Health.
Clinicians should consider medication adherence and whether a patient is likely to take a pill once a day or could benefit from receiving an injection every 2 months. Patients may experience side effects such as diarrhea or headache with oral PrEP or soreness at the injection site. In rare cases, some of the drugs may cause kidney toxicity or bone mineral loss, according to Dr. Hamill.
Three similarly effective forms of PrEP approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration enable clinicians to tailor the medications to the specific needs and preferences of each patient. Truvada (emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) and Descovy (emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide) are both daily tablets, although the latter is not advised for people assigned female sex at birth who have receptive vaginal sex. Apretude (cabotegravir), an injectable agent, is not recommended for people who inject illegal drugs.
Patients with renal or bone disease are not good candidates for Truvada.
“Truvada can decrease bone density, so for someone with osteoporosis, you might choose Descovy or Apretude,” Dr. Pollak said. “For someone with chronic kidney disease, consider Descovy or Apretude. “If a patient has hepatitis B, Truvada or Descovy are appropriate, because hepatitis B is treatable.”
Patients taking an injectable PrEP may need more attention, because the concentration of the medication in the body decreases slowly and may linger for many months at low levels that don’t prevent HIV, according to Dr. Hamill. Someone who acquires HIV during that “tail” period might develop resistance to PrEP.
New research also showed that Descovy users were at elevated risk of developing hypertension and statin initiation, especially among those over age 40 years.
Primary care physicians may want to consult with renal specialists about medication safety in patients with severe kidney disease or with rheumatologists or endocrinologists about metabolic bone disease concerns, Dr. Hamill said.
Meanwhile, if a person begins a monogamous relationship and their risk for HIV drops, “it’s fine to stop taking PrEP tablets,” Dr. Pollak said. “I would still recommend routine HIV screening every 6 or 12 months or however often, depending on other risk factors.”
Caring for these patients entails ensuring labs are completed, monitoring adherence, ordering refills, and scheduling regular follow-up visits.
“For the vast majority of patients, the primary care physician is perfectly equipped for their care through the entire PrEP journey, from discussion and initiation to provision of PrEP,” and most cases do not require specialist care, Dr. Hamill said.
However, “if PrEP fails, which is exceedingly rare, primary care physicians should refer patients immediately, preferably with a warm handoff, for linkage to HIV care,” Dr. Blumenthal said.
Talking about PrEP opens the door to conversations with patients about sexual health and broader health issues, Dr. Hamill said. Although these may not come naturally to primary care clinicians, training is available. The National Network of STD Clinical Prevention Training Centers, funded by the CDC, trains providers on how to overcome their anxiety and have open, inclusive conversations about sexuality and sexual behaviors with transgender and gender-diverse, nonbinary people.
“People worry about saying the wrong thing, about causing offense,” Dr. Hamill said. “But once you get comfortable discussing sexuality, you may open conversations around other health issues.”
Barriers for patients
The task force identified several barriers to PrEP access for patients because of lack of trusting relationships with health care, the effects of structural racism on health disparities, and persistent biases within the health care system.
Racial and ethnic disparities in HIV incidence persist, with 42% of new diagnoses occurring among Black people, 27% among Hispanic or Latino people, and 26% among White people in 2020.
Rates of PrEP usage for a year or longer are also low. Sometimes the patient no longer needs PrEP, but barriers often involve the costs of taking time off from work and arranging transportation to clinic visits.
Although nearly all insurance plans and state Medicaid programs cover PrEP, if a patient does not have coverage, the drugs and required tests and office visits can be expensive.
“One of the biggest barriers for all providers is navigating our complicated health system and drug assistance programs,” said Mehri S. McKellar, MD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.
But lower-cost FDA-approved generic emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate is now available, and clinicians can direct patients to programs that help provide the medications at low or no cost.
“Providing PrEP care is straightforward, beneficial, and satisfying,” Dr. Hamill said. “You help people protect themselves from a life-changing diagnosis, and the health system doesn’t need to pay the cost of treating HIV. Everyone wins.”
Dr. Hamill, Dr. McKellar, Dr. Pollak, and Dr. Wong have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Blumenthal has reported a financial relationship with Gilead Sciences.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
HIV continues to be a significant public health concern in the United States, with an estimated 1.2 million people currently living with the virus and more than 30,000 new diagnoses in 2020 alone.
Primary care clinicians can help decrease rates of HIV infection by prescribing pre-exposure prophylaxis to people who are sexually active.
But many do not.
“In medical school, we don’t spend much time discussing sexuality, sexual behavior, sexually transmitted infections, and such, so providers may feel uncomfortable asking what kind of sex their patient is having and with whom, whether they use a condom, and other basics,” said Matthew M. Hamill, MBChB, PhD, MPH, a specialist in sexually transmitted diseases at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.
PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis) is an antiviral medication that cuts the risk of contracting HIV through sex by around 99% when taken as prescribed, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“Many people who would benefit from PrEP are not receiving this highly effective medication,” said John B. Wong, MD, a primary care internist and professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston. The gap is particularly acute among Black, Hispanic, and Latino people, who are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with HIV but are much less likely than Whites to receive PrEP, he said.
Dr. Wong, a member of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, helped write the group’s new PrEP recommendations. Published in August, the guidelines call for clinicians to prescribe the drugs to adolescents and adults who do not have HIV but are at an increased risk for infection.
“Primary care physicians are ideally positioned to prescribe PrEP for their patients because they have longitudinal relationships: They get to know their patients, and hopefully their patients feel comfortable talking with them about their sexual health,” said Brandon Pollak, MD, a primary care physician and HIV specialist at the Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus.
Dr. Pollak, who was not involved with the USPSTF recommendations, cares for patients who are heterosexual and living with HIV.
Clinicians should consider PrEP for all patients who have sex with someone who has HIV, do not use condoms, or have had a sexually transmitted infection within the previous 6 months. Men who have sex with men, transgender women who have sex with men, people who inject illicit drugs or engage in transactional sex, and Black, Hispanic, and Latino individuals also are at increased risk for the infection.
“The vast majority of patients on PrEP in any form sail through with no problems; they have regular lab work and can follow up in person or by telemedicine,” Dr. Hamill said. “They tend to be young, fit people without complicated medical histories, and the medications are very well-tolerated, particularly if people expect some short-term side effects.”
What you need to know when prescribing PrEP
Prescribing PrEP is similar in complexity to prescribing hypertension or diabetes medications, Dr. Hamill said.
Because taking the medications while already infected with the virus can lead to the emergence of drug-resistant HIV, patients must have a negative HIV test before starting PrEP. In addition, the USPSTF recommends testing for other sexually transmitted infections and for pregnancy, if appropriate. The task force also recommends conducting kidney function and hepatitis B tests, and a lipid profile before starting specific types of PrEP.
HIV screening is also recommended at 3-month intervals.
“Providers may order labs done at 3- to 4-month intervals but only see patients in clinic once or twice per year, depending on patient needs and risk behaviors,” said Jill S. Blumenthal, MD, associate professor of medicine at UC San Diego Health.
Clinicians should consider medication adherence and whether a patient is likely to take a pill once a day or could benefit from receiving an injection every 2 months. Patients may experience side effects such as diarrhea or headache with oral PrEP or soreness at the injection site. In rare cases, some of the drugs may cause kidney toxicity or bone mineral loss, according to Dr. Hamill.
Three similarly effective forms of PrEP approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration enable clinicians to tailor the medications to the specific needs and preferences of each patient. Truvada (emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) and Descovy (emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide) are both daily tablets, although the latter is not advised for people assigned female sex at birth who have receptive vaginal sex. Apretude (cabotegravir), an injectable agent, is not recommended for people who inject illegal drugs.
Patients with renal or bone disease are not good candidates for Truvada.
“Truvada can decrease bone density, so for someone with osteoporosis, you might choose Descovy or Apretude,” Dr. Pollak said. “For someone with chronic kidney disease, consider Descovy or Apretude. “If a patient has hepatitis B, Truvada or Descovy are appropriate, because hepatitis B is treatable.”
Patients taking an injectable PrEP may need more attention, because the concentration of the medication in the body decreases slowly and may linger for many months at low levels that don’t prevent HIV, according to Dr. Hamill. Someone who acquires HIV during that “tail” period might develop resistance to PrEP.
New research also showed that Descovy users were at elevated risk of developing hypertension and statin initiation, especially among those over age 40 years.
Primary care physicians may want to consult with renal specialists about medication safety in patients with severe kidney disease or with rheumatologists or endocrinologists about metabolic bone disease concerns, Dr. Hamill said.
Meanwhile, if a person begins a monogamous relationship and their risk for HIV drops, “it’s fine to stop taking PrEP tablets,” Dr. Pollak said. “I would still recommend routine HIV screening every 6 or 12 months or however often, depending on other risk factors.”
Caring for these patients entails ensuring labs are completed, monitoring adherence, ordering refills, and scheduling regular follow-up visits.
“For the vast majority of patients, the primary care physician is perfectly equipped for their care through the entire PrEP journey, from discussion and initiation to provision of PrEP,” and most cases do not require specialist care, Dr. Hamill said.
However, “if PrEP fails, which is exceedingly rare, primary care physicians should refer patients immediately, preferably with a warm handoff, for linkage to HIV care,” Dr. Blumenthal said.
Talking about PrEP opens the door to conversations with patients about sexual health and broader health issues, Dr. Hamill said. Although these may not come naturally to primary care clinicians, training is available. The National Network of STD Clinical Prevention Training Centers, funded by the CDC, trains providers on how to overcome their anxiety and have open, inclusive conversations about sexuality and sexual behaviors with transgender and gender-diverse, nonbinary people.
“People worry about saying the wrong thing, about causing offense,” Dr. Hamill said. “But once you get comfortable discussing sexuality, you may open conversations around other health issues.”
Barriers for patients
The task force identified several barriers to PrEP access for patients because of lack of trusting relationships with health care, the effects of structural racism on health disparities, and persistent biases within the health care system.
Racial and ethnic disparities in HIV incidence persist, with 42% of new diagnoses occurring among Black people, 27% among Hispanic or Latino people, and 26% among White people in 2020.
Rates of PrEP usage for a year or longer are also low. Sometimes the patient no longer needs PrEP, but barriers often involve the costs of taking time off from work and arranging transportation to clinic visits.
Although nearly all insurance plans and state Medicaid programs cover PrEP, if a patient does not have coverage, the drugs and required tests and office visits can be expensive.
“One of the biggest barriers for all providers is navigating our complicated health system and drug assistance programs,” said Mehri S. McKellar, MD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.
But lower-cost FDA-approved generic emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate is now available, and clinicians can direct patients to programs that help provide the medications at low or no cost.
“Providing PrEP care is straightforward, beneficial, and satisfying,” Dr. Hamill said. “You help people protect themselves from a life-changing diagnosis, and the health system doesn’t need to pay the cost of treating HIV. Everyone wins.”
Dr. Hamill, Dr. McKellar, Dr. Pollak, and Dr. Wong have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Blumenthal has reported a financial relationship with Gilead Sciences.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Missed opportunities’ for accurate diagnosing of women with vaginitis
Although the standard of care of diagnosing vaginitis is clinical evaluation, many practices do not perform accurate and comprehensive clinical examinations for a variety for reasons, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends molecular testing, wrote Casey N. Pinto, PhD, of Penn State University, Hershey, and colleagues. The CDC also recommends testing women with vaginitis for Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neissaria gonorrhoeae (NG) given the high rate of coinfections between vaginitis and these sexually transmitted infections, but data on cotesting in clinical practice are limited, they said.
In a study published in Sexually Transmitted Diseases, the researchers reviewed data from a commercial administrative claims database for 1,359,289 women aged 18-50 years who were diagnosed with vaginitis between 2012 and 2017.
The women were categorized into groups based on type of vaginitis diagnosis: nucleic amplification test (NAAT), DNA probe test, traditional lab test, and those diagnosed clinically at an index visit but with no CPT code for further testing.
Overall, nearly half of the women (49.2%) had no CPT code for further vaginitis testing beyond clinical diagnosis. Of those with CPT codes for testing, 50.9% underwent traditional point-of-care testing, wet mount, or culture, 23.5% had a DNA probe, and 20.6% had NAAT testing.
Approximately one-third (34%) of women were cotested for CT/NG. Testing rates varied widely across the type of vaginitis test, from 70.8% of women who received NAAT to 22.8% of women with no CPT code. In multivariate analysis including age, region, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), those tested with NAAT were eight times more likely to be cotested for CT/NG than those with no CPT code (odds ratio, 8.77; P < .0001).
Women who received a traditional test or DNA probe test for vaginitis also were more likely to have CT/NG testing than women with no CPT code, but only 1.8-2.5 times as likely.
“Our data suggest that most clinicians are not engaging the standard of care for testing and diagnosing vaginitis, or not engaging in comprehensive care by cotesting for vaginitis and CT/NG when patients may be at risk, resulting in missed opportunities for accurate diagnosis and potential associated coinfections,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The higher rates for CT/NG testing among women receiving either NAAT or DNA probe vaginitis testing could be attributed to bundled testing, they noted, and the lower rate of CT/NG testing for patients with no CPT code could stem from limited access to microscopy or clinician preference for clinical diagnosis only, they said.
The findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of data on testing and diagnoses prior to the study period and not billed to insurance, and by the inability to account for variables including race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, the researchers noted.
However, the results highlight the need for more comprehensive care in vaginitis testing to take advantage of opportunities to identify CT or NG in women diagnosed with vaginitis, they concluded.
The study was supported by Becton, Dickinson and Company. Lead author Dr. Pinto disclosed consulting for Becton, Dickinson and Company, and receiving an honorarium from Roche.
Although the standard of care of diagnosing vaginitis is clinical evaluation, many practices do not perform accurate and comprehensive clinical examinations for a variety for reasons, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends molecular testing, wrote Casey N. Pinto, PhD, of Penn State University, Hershey, and colleagues. The CDC also recommends testing women with vaginitis for Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neissaria gonorrhoeae (NG) given the high rate of coinfections between vaginitis and these sexually transmitted infections, but data on cotesting in clinical practice are limited, they said.
In a study published in Sexually Transmitted Diseases, the researchers reviewed data from a commercial administrative claims database for 1,359,289 women aged 18-50 years who were diagnosed with vaginitis between 2012 and 2017.
The women were categorized into groups based on type of vaginitis diagnosis: nucleic amplification test (NAAT), DNA probe test, traditional lab test, and those diagnosed clinically at an index visit but with no CPT code for further testing.
Overall, nearly half of the women (49.2%) had no CPT code for further vaginitis testing beyond clinical diagnosis. Of those with CPT codes for testing, 50.9% underwent traditional point-of-care testing, wet mount, or culture, 23.5% had a DNA probe, and 20.6% had NAAT testing.
Approximately one-third (34%) of women were cotested for CT/NG. Testing rates varied widely across the type of vaginitis test, from 70.8% of women who received NAAT to 22.8% of women with no CPT code. In multivariate analysis including age, region, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), those tested with NAAT were eight times more likely to be cotested for CT/NG than those with no CPT code (odds ratio, 8.77; P < .0001).
Women who received a traditional test or DNA probe test for vaginitis also were more likely to have CT/NG testing than women with no CPT code, but only 1.8-2.5 times as likely.
“Our data suggest that most clinicians are not engaging the standard of care for testing and diagnosing vaginitis, or not engaging in comprehensive care by cotesting for vaginitis and CT/NG when patients may be at risk, resulting in missed opportunities for accurate diagnosis and potential associated coinfections,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The higher rates for CT/NG testing among women receiving either NAAT or DNA probe vaginitis testing could be attributed to bundled testing, they noted, and the lower rate of CT/NG testing for patients with no CPT code could stem from limited access to microscopy or clinician preference for clinical diagnosis only, they said.
The findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of data on testing and diagnoses prior to the study period and not billed to insurance, and by the inability to account for variables including race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, the researchers noted.
However, the results highlight the need for more comprehensive care in vaginitis testing to take advantage of opportunities to identify CT or NG in women diagnosed with vaginitis, they concluded.
The study was supported by Becton, Dickinson and Company. Lead author Dr. Pinto disclosed consulting for Becton, Dickinson and Company, and receiving an honorarium from Roche.
Although the standard of care of diagnosing vaginitis is clinical evaluation, many practices do not perform accurate and comprehensive clinical examinations for a variety for reasons, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently recommends molecular testing, wrote Casey N. Pinto, PhD, of Penn State University, Hershey, and colleagues. The CDC also recommends testing women with vaginitis for Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neissaria gonorrhoeae (NG) given the high rate of coinfections between vaginitis and these sexually transmitted infections, but data on cotesting in clinical practice are limited, they said.
In a study published in Sexually Transmitted Diseases, the researchers reviewed data from a commercial administrative claims database for 1,359,289 women aged 18-50 years who were diagnosed with vaginitis between 2012 and 2017.
The women were categorized into groups based on type of vaginitis diagnosis: nucleic amplification test (NAAT), DNA probe test, traditional lab test, and those diagnosed clinically at an index visit but with no CPT code for further testing.
Overall, nearly half of the women (49.2%) had no CPT code for further vaginitis testing beyond clinical diagnosis. Of those with CPT codes for testing, 50.9% underwent traditional point-of-care testing, wet mount, or culture, 23.5% had a DNA probe, and 20.6% had NAAT testing.
Approximately one-third (34%) of women were cotested for CT/NG. Testing rates varied widely across the type of vaginitis test, from 70.8% of women who received NAAT to 22.8% of women with no CPT code. In multivariate analysis including age, region, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), those tested with NAAT were eight times more likely to be cotested for CT/NG than those with no CPT code (odds ratio, 8.77; P < .0001).
Women who received a traditional test or DNA probe test for vaginitis also were more likely to have CT/NG testing than women with no CPT code, but only 1.8-2.5 times as likely.
“Our data suggest that most clinicians are not engaging the standard of care for testing and diagnosing vaginitis, or not engaging in comprehensive care by cotesting for vaginitis and CT/NG when patients may be at risk, resulting in missed opportunities for accurate diagnosis and potential associated coinfections,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The higher rates for CT/NG testing among women receiving either NAAT or DNA probe vaginitis testing could be attributed to bundled testing, they noted, and the lower rate of CT/NG testing for patients with no CPT code could stem from limited access to microscopy or clinician preference for clinical diagnosis only, they said.
The findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of data on testing and diagnoses prior to the study period and not billed to insurance, and by the inability to account for variables including race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, the researchers noted.
However, the results highlight the need for more comprehensive care in vaginitis testing to take advantage of opportunities to identify CT or NG in women diagnosed with vaginitis, they concluded.
The study was supported by Becton, Dickinson and Company. Lead author Dr. Pinto disclosed consulting for Becton, Dickinson and Company, and receiving an honorarium from Roche.
FROM SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES
Making one key connection may increase HPV vax uptake
The understanding that human papillomavirus (HPV) causes oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) has been linked with increased likelihood of adults having been vaccinated for HPV, new research indicates.
In a study published online in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, most of the 288 adults surveyed with validated questions were not aware that HPV causes OPSCC and had not been told of the relationship by their health care provider.
Researchers found that when participants knew about the relationship between HPV infection and OPSCC they were more than three times as likely to be vaccinated (odds ratio, 3.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-7.6) as those without the knowledge.
The survey was paired with a novel point-of-care adult vaccination program within an otolaryngology clinic.
“Targeted education aimed at unvaccinated adults establishing the relationship between HPV infection and OPSCC, paired with point-of-care vaccination, may be an innovative strategy for increasing HPV vaccination rates in adults,” write the authors, led by Jacob C. Bloom, MD, with the department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at Boston Medical Center.
Current HPV vaccination recommendations include three parts:
- Routine vaccination at age 11 or 12 years
- Catch-up vaccination at ages 13-26 years if not adequately vaccinated
- Shared clinical decision-making in adults aged 27-45 years if the vaccine series has not been completed.
Despite proven efficacy and safety of the HPV vaccine, vaccination rates are low for adults. Although 75% of adolescents aged 13-17 years have initiated the HPV vaccine, recent studies show only 16% of U.S. men aged 18-21 years have received at least 1 dose of the HPV vaccine, the authors write.
Christiana Zhang, MD, with the division of internal medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who was not part of the study, said she was not surprised by the lack of knowledge about the HPV-OPSCC link.
Patients are often counseled on the relationship between HPV and genital warts or anogenital cancers like cervical cancer, she says, but there is less patient education surrounding the relationship between HPV and oropharyngeal cancers.
She says she does counsel patients on the link with OPSCC, but not all providers do and provider knowledge in general surrounding HPV is low.
“Research has shown that knowledge and confidence among health care providers surrounding HPV vaccination is generally low, and this corresponds with a low vaccination recommendation rate,” she says.
She adds, “Patient education on HPV infection and its relationship with OPSCC, paired with point-of-care vaccination for qualifying patients, is a great approach.”
But the education needs to go beyond patients, she says.
“Given the important role that health care providers play in vaccine uptake, I think further efforts are needed to educate providers on HPV vaccination as well,” she says.
The study included patients aged 18-45 years who sought routine outpatient care at the otolaryngology clinic at Boston Medical Center from Sept. 1, 2020, to May 19, 2021.
Limitations of this study include studying a population from a single otolaryngology clinic in an urban, academic medical center. The population was more racially and ethnically diverse than the U.S. population with 60.3% identifying as racial and ethnic minorities. Gender and educational levels were also not reflective of U.S. demographics as half (50.8%) of the participants had a college degree or higher and 58.3% were women.
Dr. Bloom reports grants from the American Head and Neck Cancer Society during the conduct of the study. Coauthor Dr. Faden reports personal fees from Merck, Neotic, Focus, BMS, Chrystalis Biomedical Advisors, and Guidepoint; receiving nonfinancial support from BostonGene and Predicine; and receiving grants from Calico outside the submitted work. Dr. Zhang reports no relevant financial relationships.
The understanding that human papillomavirus (HPV) causes oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) has been linked with increased likelihood of adults having been vaccinated for HPV, new research indicates.
In a study published online in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, most of the 288 adults surveyed with validated questions were not aware that HPV causes OPSCC and had not been told of the relationship by their health care provider.
Researchers found that when participants knew about the relationship between HPV infection and OPSCC they were more than three times as likely to be vaccinated (odds ratio, 3.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-7.6) as those without the knowledge.
The survey was paired with a novel point-of-care adult vaccination program within an otolaryngology clinic.
“Targeted education aimed at unvaccinated adults establishing the relationship between HPV infection and OPSCC, paired with point-of-care vaccination, may be an innovative strategy for increasing HPV vaccination rates in adults,” write the authors, led by Jacob C. Bloom, MD, with the department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at Boston Medical Center.
Current HPV vaccination recommendations include three parts:
- Routine vaccination at age 11 or 12 years
- Catch-up vaccination at ages 13-26 years if not adequately vaccinated
- Shared clinical decision-making in adults aged 27-45 years if the vaccine series has not been completed.
Despite proven efficacy and safety of the HPV vaccine, vaccination rates are low for adults. Although 75% of adolescents aged 13-17 years have initiated the HPV vaccine, recent studies show only 16% of U.S. men aged 18-21 years have received at least 1 dose of the HPV vaccine, the authors write.
Christiana Zhang, MD, with the division of internal medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who was not part of the study, said she was not surprised by the lack of knowledge about the HPV-OPSCC link.
Patients are often counseled on the relationship between HPV and genital warts or anogenital cancers like cervical cancer, she says, but there is less patient education surrounding the relationship between HPV and oropharyngeal cancers.
She says she does counsel patients on the link with OPSCC, but not all providers do and provider knowledge in general surrounding HPV is low.
“Research has shown that knowledge and confidence among health care providers surrounding HPV vaccination is generally low, and this corresponds with a low vaccination recommendation rate,” she says.
She adds, “Patient education on HPV infection and its relationship with OPSCC, paired with point-of-care vaccination for qualifying patients, is a great approach.”
But the education needs to go beyond patients, she says.
“Given the important role that health care providers play in vaccine uptake, I think further efforts are needed to educate providers on HPV vaccination as well,” she says.
The study included patients aged 18-45 years who sought routine outpatient care at the otolaryngology clinic at Boston Medical Center from Sept. 1, 2020, to May 19, 2021.
Limitations of this study include studying a population from a single otolaryngology clinic in an urban, academic medical center. The population was more racially and ethnically diverse than the U.S. population with 60.3% identifying as racial and ethnic minorities. Gender and educational levels were also not reflective of U.S. demographics as half (50.8%) of the participants had a college degree or higher and 58.3% were women.
Dr. Bloom reports grants from the American Head and Neck Cancer Society during the conduct of the study. Coauthor Dr. Faden reports personal fees from Merck, Neotic, Focus, BMS, Chrystalis Biomedical Advisors, and Guidepoint; receiving nonfinancial support from BostonGene and Predicine; and receiving grants from Calico outside the submitted work. Dr. Zhang reports no relevant financial relationships.
The understanding that human papillomavirus (HPV) causes oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) has been linked with increased likelihood of adults having been vaccinated for HPV, new research indicates.
In a study published online in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, most of the 288 adults surveyed with validated questions were not aware that HPV causes OPSCC and had not been told of the relationship by their health care provider.
Researchers found that when participants knew about the relationship between HPV infection and OPSCC they were more than three times as likely to be vaccinated (odds ratio, 3.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-7.6) as those without the knowledge.
The survey was paired with a novel point-of-care adult vaccination program within an otolaryngology clinic.
“Targeted education aimed at unvaccinated adults establishing the relationship between HPV infection and OPSCC, paired with point-of-care vaccination, may be an innovative strategy for increasing HPV vaccination rates in adults,” write the authors, led by Jacob C. Bloom, MD, with the department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at Boston Medical Center.
Current HPV vaccination recommendations include three parts:
- Routine vaccination at age 11 or 12 years
- Catch-up vaccination at ages 13-26 years if not adequately vaccinated
- Shared clinical decision-making in adults aged 27-45 years if the vaccine series has not been completed.
Despite proven efficacy and safety of the HPV vaccine, vaccination rates are low for adults. Although 75% of adolescents aged 13-17 years have initiated the HPV vaccine, recent studies show only 16% of U.S. men aged 18-21 years have received at least 1 dose of the HPV vaccine, the authors write.
Christiana Zhang, MD, with the division of internal medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who was not part of the study, said she was not surprised by the lack of knowledge about the HPV-OPSCC link.
Patients are often counseled on the relationship between HPV and genital warts or anogenital cancers like cervical cancer, she says, but there is less patient education surrounding the relationship between HPV and oropharyngeal cancers.
She says she does counsel patients on the link with OPSCC, but not all providers do and provider knowledge in general surrounding HPV is low.
“Research has shown that knowledge and confidence among health care providers surrounding HPV vaccination is generally low, and this corresponds with a low vaccination recommendation rate,” she says.
She adds, “Patient education on HPV infection and its relationship with OPSCC, paired with point-of-care vaccination for qualifying patients, is a great approach.”
But the education needs to go beyond patients, she says.
“Given the important role that health care providers play in vaccine uptake, I think further efforts are needed to educate providers on HPV vaccination as well,” she says.
The study included patients aged 18-45 years who sought routine outpatient care at the otolaryngology clinic at Boston Medical Center from Sept. 1, 2020, to May 19, 2021.
Limitations of this study include studying a population from a single otolaryngology clinic in an urban, academic medical center. The population was more racially and ethnically diverse than the U.S. population with 60.3% identifying as racial and ethnic minorities. Gender and educational levels were also not reflective of U.S. demographics as half (50.8%) of the participants had a college degree or higher and 58.3% were women.
Dr. Bloom reports grants from the American Head and Neck Cancer Society during the conduct of the study. Coauthor Dr. Faden reports personal fees from Merck, Neotic, Focus, BMS, Chrystalis Biomedical Advisors, and Guidepoint; receiving nonfinancial support from BostonGene and Predicine; and receiving grants from Calico outside the submitted work. Dr. Zhang reports no relevant financial relationships.
FROM JAMA OTOLARYNGOLOGY–HEAD AND NECK SURGERY
U.S. syphilis cases reach 70-year high
Cases of the sexually transmitted disease syphilis soared in 2021 to the highest total in more than 70 years, a new report says.
Earlier in 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued preliminary projections that syphilis rates had made a startling jump from 2020 to 2021. But now that health officials have finalized all of the 2021 data, the increase is worse than what was announced back in March.
In just a 1-year period, from 2020 to 2021, cases increased by 32%, to 176,713, according to newly finalized data from the CDC. That is the highest total number of syphilis cases the U.S. has seen since 1950.
The total number of STD cases in the U.S. in 2021 was 2.5 million, including 1.6 million cases of chlamydia, which was up 4% over the year prior.
A CDC official labeled the situation an epidemic.
“The reasons for the ongoing increases are multifaceted – and so are the solutions,” said Leandro Mena, MD, MPH, director of the CDC’s STD prevention division, in a statement. “It will take many of us working together to effectively use new and existing tools to increase access to quality sexual health care services for more people and to encourage ongoing innovation and prioritization of STI prevention and treatment in this country.”
Syphilis causes sores and rashes and, left untreated over a long period of time, can cause severe problems in organs, the brain, and the nervous system. Untreated congenital syphilis can lead to stillbirth. The treatment for syphilis is antibiotics.
The CDC called a 32% increase from 2020 to 2021 of congenital syphilis cases “alarming,” reporting that it resulted in 220 stillbirths and infant deaths in 2021.
The rise in STDs during the pandemic has been attributed to decreased attention and resources devoted to sexual health. Opioid use is also considered a contributing factor.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Cases of the sexually transmitted disease syphilis soared in 2021 to the highest total in more than 70 years, a new report says.
Earlier in 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued preliminary projections that syphilis rates had made a startling jump from 2020 to 2021. But now that health officials have finalized all of the 2021 data, the increase is worse than what was announced back in March.
In just a 1-year period, from 2020 to 2021, cases increased by 32%, to 176,713, according to newly finalized data from the CDC. That is the highest total number of syphilis cases the U.S. has seen since 1950.
The total number of STD cases in the U.S. in 2021 was 2.5 million, including 1.6 million cases of chlamydia, which was up 4% over the year prior.
A CDC official labeled the situation an epidemic.
“The reasons for the ongoing increases are multifaceted – and so are the solutions,” said Leandro Mena, MD, MPH, director of the CDC’s STD prevention division, in a statement. “It will take many of us working together to effectively use new and existing tools to increase access to quality sexual health care services for more people and to encourage ongoing innovation and prioritization of STI prevention and treatment in this country.”
Syphilis causes sores and rashes and, left untreated over a long period of time, can cause severe problems in organs, the brain, and the nervous system. Untreated congenital syphilis can lead to stillbirth. The treatment for syphilis is antibiotics.
The CDC called a 32% increase from 2020 to 2021 of congenital syphilis cases “alarming,” reporting that it resulted in 220 stillbirths and infant deaths in 2021.
The rise in STDs during the pandemic has been attributed to decreased attention and resources devoted to sexual health. Opioid use is also considered a contributing factor.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Cases of the sexually transmitted disease syphilis soared in 2021 to the highest total in more than 70 years, a new report says.
Earlier in 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued preliminary projections that syphilis rates had made a startling jump from 2020 to 2021. But now that health officials have finalized all of the 2021 data, the increase is worse than what was announced back in March.
In just a 1-year period, from 2020 to 2021, cases increased by 32%, to 176,713, according to newly finalized data from the CDC. That is the highest total number of syphilis cases the U.S. has seen since 1950.
The total number of STD cases in the U.S. in 2021 was 2.5 million, including 1.6 million cases of chlamydia, which was up 4% over the year prior.
A CDC official labeled the situation an epidemic.
“The reasons for the ongoing increases are multifaceted – and so are the solutions,” said Leandro Mena, MD, MPH, director of the CDC’s STD prevention division, in a statement. “It will take many of us working together to effectively use new and existing tools to increase access to quality sexual health care services for more people and to encourage ongoing innovation and prioritization of STI prevention and treatment in this country.”
Syphilis causes sores and rashes and, left untreated over a long period of time, can cause severe problems in organs, the brain, and the nervous system. Untreated congenital syphilis can lead to stillbirth. The treatment for syphilis is antibiotics.
The CDC called a 32% increase from 2020 to 2021 of congenital syphilis cases “alarming,” reporting that it resulted in 220 stillbirths and infant deaths in 2021.
The rise in STDs during the pandemic has been attributed to decreased attention and resources devoted to sexual health. Opioid use is also considered a contributing factor.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.