Heidi Splete

Pregnant women do not need to be routinely screened for vitamin D deficiency, according to a new policy from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Obstetric Practice, published online June 20 in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

There is no consensus on the optimal vitamin D level for pregnant women, Dr. George A. Macones, chair of the committee, said in a statement. Instead, the college recommends vitamin D testing only in pregnant women who are at increased risk for vitamin D deficiency.

© Kaspri/Fotolia.com

High-risk groups include women who are vegetarians, those who have limited sun exposure because they live in northern locations or wear protective clothing, and women who are ethnic minorities, especially those with darker skin, according to ACOG committee opinion No. 495 (Obstet. Gynecol. 2011;118:) For these at-risk women, 1,000-2,000 IU of vitamin D supplementation daily is safe, but the safety of higher levels of supplementation has not been well studied, the committee wrote.

Women who are not at increased risk for vitamin D deficiency will get adequate vitamin D during pregnancy if they take a prenatal vitamin, the committee noted. The Institute of Medicine determined in 2010 that 600 IU of vitamin D daily was adequate for pregnant and lactating women, and most prenatal vitamins contain at least 400 IU per pill.

"I think first patients need to understand that most prenatal vitamins have vitamin D in them. If a patient is concerned beyond this, drinking fortified milk or fruit juices will help," Dr. Macones said in an interview.

Current evidence is insufficient to recommend screening all pregnant women for vitamin D deficiency, the committee wrote. "Recommendations concerning routine vitamin D. supplementation during pregnancy beyond that contained in a prenatal vitamin should await the completion of ongoing randomized clinical trials," they noted.

Dr. Macones emphasized that additional research is needed to improve understanding of the role of vitamin D during pregnancy. "I think this is really the key: We need to understand whether or not screening and supplementing with vitamin D in pregnancy improves the health of mother or baby. As of yet, we don’t know the answer to this, and that is why routine screening cannot be recommended," he said.

"I think there is lots of information and misinformation about vitamin D in the lay press, and patients are certainly asking about this," added Dr. Macones, the Mitchell and Elaine Yanow Professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University in St. Louis. "The goal of the opinion was really to tell ob.gyns. that you shouldn’t universally screen pregnant women for vitamin D deficiency."

Dr. Macones said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

Pregnant women do not need to be routinely screened for vitamin D deficiency, according to a new policy from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Obstetric Practice, published online June 20 in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

There is no consensus on the optimal vitamin D level for pregnant women, Dr. George A. Macones, chair of the committee, said in a statement. Instead, the college recommends vitamin D testing only in pregnant women who are at increased risk for vitamin D deficiency.

© Kaspri/Fotolia.com

High-risk groups include women who are vegetarians, those who have limited sun exposure because they live in northern locations or wear protective clothing, and women who are ethnic minorities, especially those with darker skin, according to ACOG committee opinion No. 495 (Obstet. Gynecol. 2011;118:) For these at-risk women, 1,000-2,000 IU of vitamin D supplementation daily is safe, but the safety of higher levels of supplementation has not been well studied, the committee wrote.

Women who are not at increased risk for vitamin D deficiency will get adequate vitamin D during pregnancy if they take a prenatal vitamin, the committee noted. The Institute of Medicine determined in 2010 that 600 IU of vitamin D daily was adequate for pregnant and lactating women, and most prenatal vitamins contain at least 400 IU per pill.

"I think first patients need to understand that most prenatal vitamins have vitamin D in them. If a patient is concerned beyond this, drinking fortified milk or fruit juices will help," Dr. Macones said in an interview.

Current evidence is insufficient to recommend screening all pregnant women for vitamin D deficiency, the committee wrote. "Recommendations concerning routine vitamin D. supplementation during pregnancy beyond that contained in a prenatal vitamin should await the completion of ongoing randomized clinical trials," they noted.

Dr. Macones emphasized that additional research is needed to improve understanding of the role of vitamin D during pregnancy. "I think this is really the key: We need to understand whether or not screening and supplementing with vitamin D in pregnancy improves the health of mother or baby. As of yet, we don’t know the answer to this, and that is why routine screening cannot be recommended," he said.

"I think there is lots of information and misinformation about vitamin D in the lay press, and patients are certainly asking about this," added Dr. Macones, the Mitchell and Elaine Yanow Professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University in St. Louis. "The goal of the opinion was really to tell ob.gyns. that you shouldn’t universally screen pregnant women for vitamin D deficiency."

Dr. Macones said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

Pregnant women do not need to be routinely screened for vitamin D deficiency, according to a new policy from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Obstetric Practice, published online June 20 in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

There is no consensus on the optimal vitamin D level for pregnant women, Dr. George A. Macones, chair of the committee, said in a statement. Instead, the college recommends vitamin D testing only in pregnant women who are at increased risk for vitamin D deficiency.

© Kaspri/Fotolia.com

High-risk groups include women who are vegetarians, those who have limited sun exposure because they live in northern locations or wear protective clothing, and women who are ethnic minorities, especially those with darker skin, according to ACOG committee opinion No. 495 (Obstet. Gynecol. 2011;118:) For these at-risk women, 1,000-2,000 IU of vitamin D supplementation daily is safe, but the safety of higher levels of supplementation has not been well studied, the committee wrote.

Women who are not at increased risk for vitamin D deficiency will get adequate vitamin D during pregnancy if they take a prenatal vitamin, the committee noted. The Institute of Medicine determined in 2010 that 600 IU of vitamin D daily was adequate for pregnant and lactating women, and most prenatal vitamins contain at least 400 IU per pill.

"I think first patients need to understand that most prenatal vitamins have vitamin D in them. If a patient is concerned beyond this, drinking fortified milk or fruit juices will help," Dr. Macones said in an interview.

Current evidence is insufficient to recommend screening all pregnant women for vitamin D deficiency, the committee wrote. "Recommendations concerning routine vitamin D. supplementation during pregnancy beyond that contained in a prenatal vitamin should await the completion of ongoing randomized clinical trials," they noted.

Dr. Macones emphasized that additional research is needed to improve understanding of the role of vitamin D during pregnancy. "I think this is really the key: We need to understand whether or not screening and supplementing with vitamin D in pregnancy improves the health of mother or baby. As of yet, we don’t know the answer to this, and that is why routine screening cannot be recommended," he said.

"I think there is lots of information and misinformation about vitamin D in the lay press, and patients are certainly asking about this," added Dr. Macones, the Mitchell and Elaine Yanow Professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University in St. Louis. "The goal of the opinion was really to tell ob.gyns. that you shouldn’t universally screen pregnant women for vitamin D deficiency."

Dr. Macones said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

LONDON – Among patients with giant cell arteritis, those in the lowest socioeconomic quarter of the population were more than three times as likely to have ischemic complications, based on data from 271 patients in England. The results were presented today.

Previous studies have shown a link between low socioeconomic status and carotid atherosclerosis. Studies of giant cell arteritis (GCA) have not controlled for socioeconomic status as a possible confounder, said Dr. Sarah Louise Mackie of the University of Leeds (England).

In an observational study of patients from eight recruitment centers in England, Dr. Mackie and her colleagues identified 271 confirmed cases of GCA.

Overall, 222 of 271 patients had ischemic complications. "The most striking finding was an association of ischemic complications with increasing Index of Deprivation 2007 (IMD2007) scores," with an odds ratio of 4.2 for the most-deprived quartile compared with the least-deprived quartile, Dr. Mackie noted. After controlling for a 30-day median duration of symptoms, the odds ratio for ischemic complications was 3.2 for the most-deprived quartile compared with the least-deprived quartile.

Ischemic complications were defined as lost or blurred vision; visual aura; diplopia; claudication of the jaw, tongue, or limb; scalp necrosis; or cerebral or myocardial ischemia.

Smoking was not associated with an increased risk of ischemic complications. Falling into the most socioeconomically deprived quartile was associated with a higher lifetime tobacco exposure and a lower prevalence of previously diagnosed polymyalgia rheumatica. However, neither of these factors appeared to affect the impact of socioeconomic deprivation on complications.

The adjusted odds ratio for the influence of hypertension was 1.6, and the adjusted odds ratio for the influence of atherosclerosis was 1.5. Neither of these conditions appeared to mediate the effect of socioeconomic deprivation on ischemic complications.

"This is a novel finding that requires replication," Dr. Mackie noted. Meanwhile, any public awareness campaign for GCA "should attempt to engage individuals in more deprived areas to encourage early presentation and prompt treatment," she said.

Dr. Mackie said she had no financial conflicts to disclose.

LONDON – Among patients with giant cell arteritis, those in the lowest socioeconomic quarter of the population were more than three times as likely to have ischemic complications, based on data from 271 patients in England. The results were presented today.

Previous studies have shown a link between low socioeconomic status and carotid atherosclerosis. Studies of giant cell arteritis (GCA) have not controlled for socioeconomic status as a possible confounder, said Dr. Sarah Louise Mackie of the University of Leeds (England).

In an observational study of patients from eight recruitment centers in England, Dr. Mackie and her colleagues identified 271 confirmed cases of GCA.

Overall, 222 of 271 patients had ischemic complications. "The most striking finding was an association of ischemic complications with increasing Index of Deprivation 2007 (IMD2007) scores," with an odds ratio of 4.2 for the most-deprived quartile compared with the least-deprived quartile, Dr. Mackie noted. After controlling for a 30-day median duration of symptoms, the odds ratio for ischemic complications was 3.2 for the most-deprived quartile compared with the least-deprived quartile.

Ischemic complications were defined as lost or blurred vision; visual aura; diplopia; claudication of the jaw, tongue, or limb; scalp necrosis; or cerebral or myocardial ischemia.

Smoking was not associated with an increased risk of ischemic complications. Falling into the most socioeconomically deprived quartile was associated with a higher lifetime tobacco exposure and a lower prevalence of previously diagnosed polymyalgia rheumatica. However, neither of these factors appeared to affect the impact of socioeconomic deprivation on complications.

The adjusted odds ratio for the influence of hypertension was 1.6, and the adjusted odds ratio for the influence of atherosclerosis was 1.5. Neither of these conditions appeared to mediate the effect of socioeconomic deprivation on ischemic complications.

"This is a novel finding that requires replication," Dr. Mackie noted. Meanwhile, any public awareness campaign for GCA "should attempt to engage individuals in more deprived areas to encourage early presentation and prompt treatment," she said.

Dr. Mackie said she had no financial conflicts to disclose.

LONDON – Among patients with giant cell arteritis, those in the lowest socioeconomic quarter of the population were more than three times as likely to have ischemic complications, based on data from 271 patients in England. The results were presented today.

Previous studies have shown a link between low socioeconomic status and carotid atherosclerosis. Studies of giant cell arteritis (GCA) have not controlled for socioeconomic status as a possible confounder, said Dr. Sarah Louise Mackie of the University of Leeds (England).

In an observational study of patients from eight recruitment centers in England, Dr. Mackie and her colleagues identified 271 confirmed cases of GCA.

Overall, 222 of 271 patients had ischemic complications. "The most striking finding was an association of ischemic complications with increasing Index of Deprivation 2007 (IMD2007) scores," with an odds ratio of 4.2 for the most-deprived quartile compared with the least-deprived quartile, Dr. Mackie noted. After controlling for a 30-day median duration of symptoms, the odds ratio for ischemic complications was 3.2 for the most-deprived quartile compared with the least-deprived quartile.

Ischemic complications were defined as lost or blurred vision; visual aura; diplopia; claudication of the jaw, tongue, or limb; scalp necrosis; or cerebral or myocardial ischemia.

Smoking was not associated with an increased risk of ischemic complications. Falling into the most socioeconomically deprived quartile was associated with a higher lifetime tobacco exposure and a lower prevalence of previously diagnosed polymyalgia rheumatica. However, neither of these factors appeared to affect the impact of socioeconomic deprivation on complications.

The adjusted odds ratio for the influence of hypertension was 1.6, and the adjusted odds ratio for the influence of atherosclerosis was 1.5. Neither of these conditions appeared to mediate the effect of socioeconomic deprivation on ischemic complications.

"This is a novel finding that requires replication," Dr. Mackie noted. Meanwhile, any public awareness campaign for GCA "should attempt to engage individuals in more deprived areas to encourage early presentation and prompt treatment," she said.

Dr. Mackie said she had no financial conflicts to disclose.

WHITE OAK, MD – The new sunscreen labeling regulations from the Food and Drug Administration should make it easier for dermatologists to spread the skin protection message and for consumers to select effective products, according to Dr. Ronald L. Moy.

"The FDA has now defined broad spectrum protection so consumers will better understand how to select a sunscreen that protects against skin cancer," said Dr. Moy, president of the American Academy of Dermatology. "We are encouraged that there are now simple, consistent labeling requirements."

He spoke at a press conference that was held to announce the new regulations and emphasized that skin cancer is a serious disease, and the number of cases in the United States are rising. "There are a few easy things you can do to protect your skin from ultraviolet radiation. And today the FDA’s new sunscreen labeling requirements make it even easier for us," he said. Current estimates are that one in five Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetimes.

Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, presented the new labeling information at the press conference on June 14. After many years of deliberation and evaluation, the FDA defined the testing that a sunscreen product must undergo before it can make a claim of "broad-spectrum protection" on its label, meaning protection from both UVA and UVB radiation.

"These changes are part of an ongoing effort at the FDA to make sure that sunscreens meet standards for safety and efficacy," Dr. Woodcock said. "It wasn’t until recently that the FDA was able to establish an accurate and reliable broad-spectrum test," Dr. Woodcock said.

Based on the FDA test, the labels of broad-spectrum sunscreens with an SPF of at least 15 can state that, when used properly and with other protective measures, the products can help reduce the risk of skin cancer and the signs of premature aging.

"Only those products that pass the FDA test will be able to be labeled broad spectrum," Dr. Woodcock said. Some sunscreens with SPF in the 2 to 14 range that pass the FDA’s broad-spectrum test can be labeled as such, she said, but they will not be able to make claims related to skin cancer protection or anti-aging protection, according to the FDA rules.

As for concerns about nanoparticles in sunscreens, "the FDA does not currently have reason to warn consumers about their safety," Dr. Woodcock said. "We have performed testing and found that nanoparticles do not penetrate the skin. If we determine that any of the active ingredients do not meet the safety standards, the FDA will notify the public."

Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Moy had no financial conflicts to disclose.

WHITE OAK, MD – The new sunscreen labeling regulations from the Food and Drug Administration should make it easier for dermatologists to spread the skin protection message and for consumers to select effective products, according to Dr. Ronald L. Moy.

"The FDA has now defined broad spectrum protection so consumers will better understand how to select a sunscreen that protects against skin cancer," said Dr. Moy, president of the American Academy of Dermatology. "We are encouraged that there are now simple, consistent labeling requirements."

He spoke at a press conference that was held to announce the new regulations and emphasized that skin cancer is a serious disease, and the number of cases in the United States are rising. "There are a few easy things you can do to protect your skin from ultraviolet radiation. And today the FDA’s new sunscreen labeling requirements make it even easier for us," he said. Current estimates are that one in five Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetimes.

Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, presented the new labeling information at the press conference on June 14. After many years of deliberation and evaluation, the FDA defined the testing that a sunscreen product must undergo before it can make a claim of "broad-spectrum protection" on its label, meaning protection from both UVA and UVB radiation.

"These changes are part of an ongoing effort at the FDA to make sure that sunscreens meet standards for safety and efficacy," Dr. Woodcock said. "It wasn’t until recently that the FDA was able to establish an accurate and reliable broad-spectrum test," Dr. Woodcock said.

Based on the FDA test, the labels of broad-spectrum sunscreens with an SPF of at least 15 can state that, when used properly and with other protective measures, the products can help reduce the risk of skin cancer and the signs of premature aging.

"Only those products that pass the FDA test will be able to be labeled broad spectrum," Dr. Woodcock said. Some sunscreens with SPF in the 2 to 14 range that pass the FDA’s broad-spectrum test can be labeled as such, she said, but they will not be able to make claims related to skin cancer protection or anti-aging protection, according to the FDA rules.

As for concerns about nanoparticles in sunscreens, "the FDA does not currently have reason to warn consumers about their safety," Dr. Woodcock said. "We have performed testing and found that nanoparticles do not penetrate the skin. If we determine that any of the active ingredients do not meet the safety standards, the FDA will notify the public."

Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Moy had no financial conflicts to disclose.

WHITE OAK, MD – The new sunscreen labeling regulations from the Food and Drug Administration should make it easier for dermatologists to spread the skin protection message and for consumers to select effective products, according to Dr. Ronald L. Moy.

"The FDA has now defined broad spectrum protection so consumers will better understand how to select a sunscreen that protects against skin cancer," said Dr. Moy, president of the American Academy of Dermatology. "We are encouraged that there are now simple, consistent labeling requirements."

He spoke at a press conference that was held to announce the new regulations and emphasized that skin cancer is a serious disease, and the number of cases in the United States are rising. "There are a few easy things you can do to protect your skin from ultraviolet radiation. And today the FDA’s new sunscreen labeling requirements make it even easier for us," he said. Current estimates are that one in five Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetimes.

Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, presented the new labeling information at the press conference on June 14. After many years of deliberation and evaluation, the FDA defined the testing that a sunscreen product must undergo before it can make a claim of "broad-spectrum protection" on its label, meaning protection from both UVA and UVB radiation.

"These changes are part of an ongoing effort at the FDA to make sure that sunscreens meet standards for safety and efficacy," Dr. Woodcock said. "It wasn’t until recently that the FDA was able to establish an accurate and reliable broad-spectrum test," Dr. Woodcock said.

Based on the FDA test, the labels of broad-spectrum sunscreens with an SPF of at least 15 can state that, when used properly and with other protective measures, the products can help reduce the risk of skin cancer and the signs of premature aging.

"Only those products that pass the FDA test will be able to be labeled broad spectrum," Dr. Woodcock said. Some sunscreens with SPF in the 2 to 14 range that pass the FDA’s broad-spectrum test can be labeled as such, she said, but they will not be able to make claims related to skin cancer protection or anti-aging protection, according to the FDA rules.

As for concerns about nanoparticles in sunscreens, "the FDA does not currently have reason to warn consumers about their safety," Dr. Woodcock said. "We have performed testing and found that nanoparticles do not penetrate the skin. If we determine that any of the active ingredients do not meet the safety standards, the FDA will notify the public."

Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Moy had no financial conflicts to disclose.

WHITE OAK, MD – The new sunscreen labeling regulations from the Food and Drug Administration should make it easier for physicians to spread the skin protection message and for consumers to select effective products, according to Dr. Ronald L. Moy.

"The FDA has now defined broad spectrum protection so consumers will better understand how to select a sunscreen that protects against skin cancer," said Dr. Moy, president of the American Academy of Dermatology. "We are encouraged that there are now simple, consistent labeling requirements."

He spoke at a press conference that was held to announce the new regulations and emphasized that skin cancer is a serious disease, and the number of cases in the United States are rising. "There are a few easy things you can do to protect your skin from ultraviolet radiation. And today the FDA’s new sunscreen labeling requirements make it even easier for us," he said. Current estimates are that one in five Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetimes.

Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, presented the new labeling information at the press conference on June 14. After many years of deliberation and evaluation, the FDA defined the testing that a sunscreen product must undergo before it can make a claim of "broad-spectrum protection" on its label, meaning protection from both UVA and UVB radiation.

"These changes are part of an ongoing effort at the FDA to make sure that sunscreens meet standards for safety and efficacy," Dr. Woodcock said. "It wasn’t until recently that the FDA was able to establish an accurate and reliable broad-spectrum test," Dr. Woodcock said.

Based on the FDA test, the labels of broad-spectrum sunscreens with an SPF of at least 15 can state that, when used properly and with other protective measures, the products can help reduce the risk of skin cancer and the signs of premature aging.

"Only those products that pass the FDA test will be able to be labeled broad spectrum," Dr. Woodcock said. Some sunscreens with SPF in the 2 to 14 range that pass the FDA’s broad-spectrum test can be labeled as such, she said, but they will not be able to make claims related to skin cancer protection or anti-aging protection, according to the FDA rules.

As for concerns about nanoparticles in sunscreens, "the FDA does not currently have reason to warn consumers about their safety," Dr. Woodcock said. "We have performed testing and found that nanoparticles do not penetrate the skin. If we determine that any of the active ingredients do not meet the safety standards, the FDA will notify the public."

Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Moy had no financial conflicts to disclose.

WHITE OAK, MD – The new sunscreen labeling regulations from the Food and Drug Administration should make it easier for physicians to spread the skin protection message and for consumers to select effective products, according to Dr. Ronald L. Moy.

"The FDA has now defined broad spectrum protection so consumers will better understand how to select a sunscreen that protects against skin cancer," said Dr. Moy, president of the American Academy of Dermatology. "We are encouraged that there are now simple, consistent labeling requirements."

He spoke at a press conference that was held to announce the new regulations and emphasized that skin cancer is a serious disease, and the number of cases in the United States are rising. "There are a few easy things you can do to protect your skin from ultraviolet radiation. And today the FDA’s new sunscreen labeling requirements make it even easier for us," he said. Current estimates are that one in five Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetimes.

Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, presented the new labeling information at the press conference on June 14. After many years of deliberation and evaluation, the FDA defined the testing that a sunscreen product must undergo before it can make a claim of "broad-spectrum protection" on its label, meaning protection from both UVA and UVB radiation.

"These changes are part of an ongoing effort at the FDA to make sure that sunscreens meet standards for safety and efficacy," Dr. Woodcock said. "It wasn’t until recently that the FDA was able to establish an accurate and reliable broad-spectrum test," Dr. Woodcock said.

Based on the FDA test, the labels of broad-spectrum sunscreens with an SPF of at least 15 can state that, when used properly and with other protective measures, the products can help reduce the risk of skin cancer and the signs of premature aging.

"Only those products that pass the FDA test will be able to be labeled broad spectrum," Dr. Woodcock said. Some sunscreens with SPF in the 2 to 14 range that pass the FDA’s broad-spectrum test can be labeled as such, she said, but they will not be able to make claims related to skin cancer protection or anti-aging protection, according to the FDA rules.

As for concerns about nanoparticles in sunscreens, "the FDA does not currently have reason to warn consumers about their safety," Dr. Woodcock said. "We have performed testing and found that nanoparticles do not penetrate the skin. If we determine that any of the active ingredients do not meet the safety standards, the FDA will notify the public."

Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Moy had no financial conflicts to disclose.

WHITE OAK, MD – The new sunscreen labeling regulations from the Food and Drug Administration should make it easier for physicians to spread the skin protection message and for consumers to select effective products, according to Dr. Ronald L. Moy.

"The FDA has now defined broad spectrum protection so consumers will better understand how to select a sunscreen that protects against skin cancer," said Dr. Moy, president of the American Academy of Dermatology. "We are encouraged that there are now simple, consistent labeling requirements."

He spoke at a press conference that was held to announce the new regulations and emphasized that skin cancer is a serious disease, and the number of cases in the United States are rising. "There are a few easy things you can do to protect your skin from ultraviolet radiation. And today the FDA’s new sunscreen labeling requirements make it even easier for us," he said. Current estimates are that one in five Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetimes.

Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, presented the new labeling information at the press conference on June 14. After many years of deliberation and evaluation, the FDA defined the testing that a sunscreen product must undergo before it can make a claim of "broad-spectrum protection" on its label, meaning protection from both UVA and UVB radiation.

"These changes are part of an ongoing effort at the FDA to make sure that sunscreens meet standards for safety and efficacy," Dr. Woodcock said. "It wasn’t until recently that the FDA was able to establish an accurate and reliable broad-spectrum test," Dr. Woodcock said.

Based on the FDA test, the labels of broad-spectrum sunscreens with an SPF of at least 15 can state that, when used properly and with other protective measures, the products can help reduce the risk of skin cancer and the signs of premature aging.

"Only those products that pass the FDA test will be able to be labeled broad spectrum," Dr. Woodcock said. Some sunscreens with SPF in the 2 to 14 range that pass the FDA’s broad-spectrum test can be labeled as such, she said, but they will not be able to make claims related to skin cancer protection or anti-aging protection, according to the FDA rules.

As for concerns about nanoparticles in sunscreens, "the FDA does not currently have reason to warn consumers about their safety," Dr. Woodcock said. "We have performed testing and found that nanoparticles do not penetrate the skin. If we determine that any of the active ingredients do not meet the safety standards, the FDA will notify the public."

Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Moy had no financial conflicts to disclose.

WHITE OAK, MD – The new sunscreen labeling regulations from the Food and Drug Administration should make it easier for dermatologists to spread the skin protection message and for consumers to select effective products, according to Dr. Ronald L. Moy.

"The FDA has now defined broad spectrum protection so consumers will better understand how to select a sunscreen that protects against skin cancer," said Dr. Moy, president of the American Academy of Dermatology. "We are encouraged that there are now simple, consistent labeling requirements."

He spoke at a press conference that was held to announce the new regulations and emphasized that skin cancer is a serious disease, and the number of cases in the United States are rising. "There are a few easy things you can do to protect your skin from ultraviolet radiation. And today the FDA’s new sunscreen labeling requirements make it even easier for us," he said. Current estimates are that one in five Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetimes.

Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, presented the new labeling information at the press conference on June 14. After many years of deliberation and evaluation, the FDA defined the testing that a sunscreen product must undergo before it can make a claim of "broad-spectrum protection" on its label, meaning protection from both UVA and UVB radiation.

"These changes are part of an ongoing effort at the FDA to make sure that sunscreens meet standards for safety and efficacy," Dr. Woodcock said. "It wasn’t until recently that the FDA was able to establish an accurate and reliable broad-spectrum test," Dr. Woodcock said.

Based on the FDA test, the labels of broad-spectrum sunscreens with an SPF of at least 15 can state that, when used properly and with other protective measures, the products can help reduce the risk of skin cancer and the signs of premature aging.

"Only those products that pass the FDA test will be able to be labeled broad spectrum," Dr. Woodcock said. Some sunscreens with SPF in the 2 to 14 range that pass the FDA’s broad-spectrum test can be labeled as such, she said, but they will not be able to make claims related to skin cancer protection or anti-aging protection, according to the FDA rules.

As for concerns about nanoparticles in sunscreens, "the FDA does not currently have reason to warn consumers about their safety," Dr. Woodcock said. "We have performed testing and found that nanoparticles do not penetrate the skin. If we determine that any of the active ingredients do not meet the safety standards, the FDA will notify the public."

Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Moy had no financial conflicts to disclose.

WHITE OAK, MD – The new sunscreen labeling regulations from the Food and Drug Administration should make it easier for dermatologists to spread the skin protection message and for consumers to select effective products, according to Dr. Ronald L. Moy.

"The FDA has now defined broad spectrum protection so consumers will better understand how to select a sunscreen that protects against skin cancer," said Dr. Moy, president of the American Academy of Dermatology. "We are encouraged that there are now simple, consistent labeling requirements."

He spoke at a press conference that was held to announce the new regulations and emphasized that skin cancer is a serious disease, and the number of cases in the United States are rising. "There are a few easy things you can do to protect your skin from ultraviolet radiation. And today the FDA’s new sunscreen labeling requirements make it even easier for us," he said. Current estimates are that one in five Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetimes.

Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, presented the new labeling information at the press conference on June 14. After many years of deliberation and evaluation, the FDA defined the testing that a sunscreen product must undergo before it can make a claim of "broad-spectrum protection" on its label, meaning protection from both UVA and UVB radiation.

"These changes are part of an ongoing effort at the FDA to make sure that sunscreens meet standards for safety and efficacy," Dr. Woodcock said. "It wasn’t until recently that the FDA was able to establish an accurate and reliable broad-spectrum test," Dr. Woodcock said.

Based on the FDA test, the labels of broad-spectrum sunscreens with an SPF of at least 15 can state that, when used properly and with other protective measures, the products can help reduce the risk of skin cancer and the signs of premature aging.

"Only those products that pass the FDA test will be able to be labeled broad spectrum," Dr. Woodcock said. Some sunscreens with SPF in the 2 to 14 range that pass the FDA’s broad-spectrum test can be labeled as such, she said, but they will not be able to make claims related to skin cancer protection or anti-aging protection, according to the FDA rules.

As for concerns about nanoparticles in sunscreens, "the FDA does not currently have reason to warn consumers about their safety," Dr. Woodcock said. "We have performed testing and found that nanoparticles do not penetrate the skin. If we determine that any of the active ingredients do not meet the safety standards, the FDA will notify the public."

Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Moy had no financial conflicts to disclose.

WHITE OAK, MD – The new sunscreen labeling regulations from the Food and Drug Administration should make it easier for dermatologists to spread the skin protection message and for consumers to select effective products, according to Dr. Ronald L. Moy.

"The FDA has now defined broad spectrum protection so consumers will better understand how to select a sunscreen that protects against skin cancer," said Dr. Moy, president of the American Academy of Dermatology. "We are encouraged that there are now simple, consistent labeling requirements."

He spoke at a press conference that was held to announce the new regulations and emphasized that skin cancer is a serious disease, and the number of cases in the United States are rising. "There are a few easy things you can do to protect your skin from ultraviolet radiation. And today the FDA’s new sunscreen labeling requirements make it even easier for us," he said. Current estimates are that one in five Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetimes.

Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, presented the new labeling information at the press conference on June 14. After many years of deliberation and evaluation, the FDA defined the testing that a sunscreen product must undergo before it can make a claim of "broad-spectrum protection" on its label, meaning protection from both UVA and UVB radiation.

"These changes are part of an ongoing effort at the FDA to make sure that sunscreens meet standards for safety and efficacy," Dr. Woodcock said. "It wasn’t until recently that the FDA was able to establish an accurate and reliable broad-spectrum test," Dr. Woodcock said.

Based on the FDA test, the labels of broad-spectrum sunscreens with an SPF of at least 15 can state that, when used properly and with other protective measures, the products can help reduce the risk of skin cancer and the signs of premature aging.

"Only those products that pass the FDA test will be able to be labeled broad spectrum," Dr. Woodcock said. Some sunscreens with SPF in the 2 to 14 range that pass the FDA’s broad-spectrum test can be labeled as such, she said, but they will not be able to make claims related to skin cancer protection or anti-aging protection, according to the FDA rules.

As for concerns about nanoparticles in sunscreens, "the FDA does not currently have reason to warn consumers about their safety," Dr. Woodcock said. "We have performed testing and found that nanoparticles do not penetrate the skin. If we determine that any of the active ingredients do not meet the safety standards, the FDA will notify the public."

Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Moy had no financial conflicts to disclose.

WHITE OAK, MD – The new sunscreen labeling regulations from the Food and Drug Administration should make it easier for dermatologists to spread the skin protection message and for consumers to select effective products, according to Dr. Ronald L. Moy.

"The FDA has now defined broad spectrum protection so consumers will better understand how to select a sunscreen that protects against skin cancer," said Dr. Moy, president of the American Academy of Dermatology. "We are encouraged that there are now simple, consistent labeling requirements."

He spoke at a press conference that was held to announce the new regulations and emphasized that skin cancer is a serious disease, and the number of cases in the United States are rising. "There are a few easy things you can do to protect your skin from ultraviolet radiation. And today the FDA’s new sunscreen labeling requirements make it even easier for us," he said. Current estimates are that one in five Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetimes.

Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, presented the new labeling information at the press conference on June 14. After many years of deliberation and evaluation, the FDA defined the testing that a sunscreen product must undergo before it can make a claim of "broad-spectrum protection" on its label, meaning protection from both UVA and UVB radiation.

"These changes are part of an ongoing effort at the FDA to make sure that sunscreens meet standards for safety and efficacy," Dr. Woodcock said. "It wasn't until recently that the FDA was able to establish an accurate and reliable broad-spectrum test," Dr. Woodcock said.

Based on the FDA test, the labels of broad-spectrum sunscreens with an SPF of at least 15 can state that, when used properly and with other protective measures, the products can help reduce the risk of skin cancer and the signs of premature aging.

"Only those products that pass the FDA test will be able to be labeled broad spectrum," Dr. Woodcock said. Some sunscreens with SPF in the 2 to 14 range that pass the FDA’s broad-spectrum test can be labeled as such, she said, but they will not be able to make claims related to skin cancer protection or anti-aging protection, according to the FDA rules.

As for concerns about nanoparticles in sunscreens, "the FDA does not currently have reason to warn consumers about their safety," Dr. Woodcock said. "We have performed testing and found that nanoparticles do not penetrate the skin. If we determine that any of the active ingredients do not meet the safety standards, the FDA will notify the public."

Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Moy had no financial conflicts to disclose.

WHITE OAK, MD – The new sunscreen labeling regulations from the Food and Drug Administration should make it easier for dermatologists to spread the skin protection message and for consumers to select effective products, according to Dr. Ronald L. Moy.

"The FDA has now defined broad spectrum protection so consumers will better understand how to select a sunscreen that protects against skin cancer," said Dr. Moy, president of the American Academy of Dermatology. "We are encouraged that there are now simple, consistent labeling requirements."

He spoke at a press conference that was held to announce the new regulations and emphasized that skin cancer is a serious disease, and the number of cases in the United States are rising. "There are a few easy things you can do to protect your skin from ultraviolet radiation. And today the FDA’s new sunscreen labeling requirements make it even easier for us," he said. Current estimates are that one in five Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetimes.

Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, presented the new labeling information at the press conference on June 14. After many years of deliberation and evaluation, the FDA defined the testing that a sunscreen product must undergo before it can make a claim of "broad-spectrum protection" on its label, meaning protection from both UVA and UVB radiation.

"These changes are part of an ongoing effort at the FDA to make sure that sunscreens meet standards for safety and efficacy," Dr. Woodcock said. "It wasn't until recently that the FDA was able to establish an accurate and reliable broad-spectrum test," Dr. Woodcock said.

Based on the FDA test, the labels of broad-spectrum sunscreens with an SPF of at least 15 can state that, when used properly and with other protective measures, the products can help reduce the risk of skin cancer and the signs of premature aging.

"Only those products that pass the FDA test will be able to be labeled broad spectrum," Dr. Woodcock said. Some sunscreens with SPF in the 2 to 14 range that pass the FDA’s broad-spectrum test can be labeled as such, she said, but they will not be able to make claims related to skin cancer protection or anti-aging protection, according to the FDA rules.

As for concerns about nanoparticles in sunscreens, "the FDA does not currently have reason to warn consumers about their safety," Dr. Woodcock said. "We have performed testing and found that nanoparticles do not penetrate the skin. If we determine that any of the active ingredients do not meet the safety standards, the FDA will notify the public."

Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Moy had no financial conflicts to disclose.

WHITE OAK, MD – The new sunscreen labeling regulations from the Food and Drug Administration should make it easier for dermatologists to spread the skin protection message and for consumers to select effective products, according to Dr. Ronald L. Moy.

"The FDA has now defined broad spectrum protection so consumers will better understand how to select a sunscreen that protects against skin cancer," said Dr. Moy, president of the American Academy of Dermatology. "We are encouraged that there are now simple, consistent labeling requirements."

He spoke at a press conference that was held to announce the new regulations and emphasized that skin cancer is a serious disease, and the number of cases in the United States are rising. "There are a few easy things you can do to protect your skin from ultraviolet radiation. And today the FDA’s new sunscreen labeling requirements make it even easier for us," he said. Current estimates are that one in five Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetimes.

Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, presented the new labeling information at the press conference on June 14. After many years of deliberation and evaluation, the FDA defined the testing that a sunscreen product must undergo before it can make a claim of "broad-spectrum protection" on its label, meaning protection from both UVA and UVB radiation.

"These changes are part of an ongoing effort at the FDA to make sure that sunscreens meet standards for safety and efficacy," Dr. Woodcock said. "It wasn't until recently that the FDA was able to establish an accurate and reliable broad-spectrum test," Dr. Woodcock said.

Based on the FDA test, the labels of broad-spectrum sunscreens with an SPF of at least 15 can state that, when used properly and with other protective measures, the products can help reduce the risk of skin cancer and the signs of premature aging.

"Only those products that pass the FDA test will be able to be labeled broad spectrum," Dr. Woodcock said. Some sunscreens with SPF in the 2 to 14 range that pass the FDA’s broad-spectrum test can be labeled as such, she said, but they will not be able to make claims related to skin cancer protection or anti-aging protection, according to the FDA rules.

As for concerns about nanoparticles in sunscreens, "the FDA does not currently have reason to warn consumers about their safety," Dr. Woodcock said. "We have performed testing and found that nanoparticles do not penetrate the skin. If we determine that any of the active ingredients do not meet the safety standards, the FDA will notify the public."

Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Moy had no financial conflicts to disclose.

More than half – 59% – of new cases of HIV in the United States in 2009 occurred in men who have sex with men, based on data from 7,271 of them, as published on June 2 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

"Given the high prevalence of new HIV infection among MSM [men who have sex with men] who had been tested during the past year, sexually active MSM might benefit from more frequent HIV testing," such as every 3-6 months, the researchers wrote (MMWR 2011;60:694-9).

Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reviewed data from MSM in 21 cities that were collected as part of the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System (NHBS). The MSM were aged 18 years and older (mean, 34 years); 44% were white, 25% were Hispanic, and 23% were black.

Overall, 680 (9%) of the MSM were infected with HIV. Although 29% of these had been tested during the past 6 months, 16% had never been tested. A total of 61% had tested negative for HIV during the past year. Of the 61%, 7% were positive for HIV when they were tested by the NHBS (15% of blacks, 7% of Hispanics, and 3% of whites).

In general, men with higher incomes and education were more likely to be tested. Testing rates were similar among different ethnicities. However, "the high proportion of HIV-infected persons among minority MSM, particularly black MSM, who had not previously received a diagnosis of HIV infection and were tested during the past year underscores that testing among these populations should be a priority for HIV testing programs," the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the possible underreporting of HIV-positive status and high-risk behaviors, and the recruitment of study participants from bars and clubs in cities with a high prevalence of AIDS, the researchers noted.

But the results suggest that MSM could be tested every 3 months or every 6 months, instead of the annual testing currently recommended by the CDC, they added.

"MSM account for just [2%] of the U.S. population but represent more than half of all new [HIV] infections in the United States," CDC director Thomas R. Frieden said in a statement issued on June 2.

The statement and the current MMWR report appear on the 30-year anniversary of the publication of the first case of HIV in what became the MMWR, Dr. Frieden said. Although effective treatment for HIV is widely available, high-risk groups such as MSM should remain vigilant about prevention, and they should be encouraged to take advantage of new interventions such as pre-exposure prophylaxis, he emphasized.

Visit http://www.hivtest.org/ for HIV testing sites in your area.

More than half – 59% – of new cases of HIV in the United States in 2009 occurred in men who have sex with men, based on data from 7,271 of them, as published on June 2 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

"Given the high prevalence of new HIV infection among MSM [men who have sex with men] who had been tested during the past year, sexually active MSM might benefit from more frequent HIV testing," such as every 3-6 months, the researchers wrote (MMWR 2011;60:694-9).

Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reviewed data from MSM in 21 cities that were collected as part of the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System (NHBS). The MSM were aged 18 years and older (mean, 34 years); 44% were white, 25% were Hispanic, and 23% were black.

Overall, 680 (9%) of the MSM were infected with HIV. Although 29% of these had been tested during the past 6 months, 16% had never been tested. A total of 61% had tested negative for HIV during the past year. Of the 61%, 7% were positive for HIV when they were tested by the NHBS (15% of blacks, 7% of Hispanics, and 3% of whites).

In general, men with higher incomes and education were more likely to be tested. Testing rates were similar among different ethnicities. However, "the high proportion of HIV-infected persons among minority MSM, particularly black MSM, who had not previously received a diagnosis of HIV infection and were tested during the past year underscores that testing among these populations should be a priority for HIV testing programs," the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the possible underreporting of HIV-positive status and high-risk behaviors, and the recruitment of study participants from bars and clubs in cities with a high prevalence of AIDS, the researchers noted.

But the results suggest that MSM could be tested every 3 months or every 6 months, instead of the annual testing currently recommended by the CDC, they added.

"MSM account for just [2%] of the U.S. population but represent more than half of all new [HIV] infections in the United States," CDC director Thomas R. Frieden said in a statement issued on June 2.

The statement and the current MMWR report appear on the 30-year anniversary of the publication of the first case of HIV in what became the MMWR, Dr. Frieden said. Although effective treatment for HIV is widely available, high-risk groups such as MSM should remain vigilant about prevention, and they should be encouraged to take advantage of new interventions such as pre-exposure prophylaxis, he emphasized.

Visit http://www.hivtest.org/ for HIV testing sites in your area.

More than half – 59% – of new cases of HIV in the United States in 2009 occurred in men who have sex with men, based on data from 7,271 of them, as published on June 2 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

"Given the high prevalence of new HIV infection among MSM [men who have sex with men] who had been tested during the past year, sexually active MSM might benefit from more frequent HIV testing," such as every 3-6 months, the researchers wrote (MMWR 2011;60:694-9).

Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reviewed data from MSM in 21 cities that were collected as part of the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System (NHBS). The MSM were aged 18 years and older (mean, 34 years); 44% were white, 25% were Hispanic, and 23% were black.

Overall, 680 (9%) of the MSM were infected with HIV. Although 29% of these had been tested during the past 6 months, 16% had never been tested. A total of 61% had tested negative for HIV during the past year. Of the 61%, 7% were positive for HIV when they were tested by the NHBS (15% of blacks, 7% of Hispanics, and 3% of whites).

In general, men with higher incomes and education were more likely to be tested. Testing rates were similar among different ethnicities. However, "the high proportion of HIV-infected persons among minority MSM, particularly black MSM, who had not previously received a diagnosis of HIV infection and were tested during the past year underscores that testing among these populations should be a priority for HIV testing programs," the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the possible underreporting of HIV-positive status and high-risk behaviors, and the recruitment of study participants from bars and clubs in cities with a high prevalence of AIDS, the researchers noted.

But the results suggest that MSM could be tested every 3 months or every 6 months, instead of the annual testing currently recommended by the CDC, they added.

"MSM account for just [2%] of the U.S. population but represent more than half of all new [HIV] infections in the United States," CDC director Thomas R. Frieden said in a statement issued on June 2.

The statement and the current MMWR report appear on the 30-year anniversary of the publication of the first case of HIV in what became the MMWR, Dr. Frieden said. Although effective treatment for HIV is widely available, high-risk groups such as MSM should remain vigilant about prevention, and they should be encouraged to take advantage of new interventions such as pre-exposure prophylaxis, he emphasized.

Visit http://www.hivtest.org/ for HIV testing sites in your area.

More than half – 59% – of new cases of HIV in the United States in 2009 occurred in men who have sex with men, based on data from 7,271 of them, as published on June 2 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

"Given the high prevalence of new HIV infection among MSM [men who have sex with men] who had been tested during the past year, sexually active MSM might benefit from more frequent HIV testing," such as every 3-6 months, the researchers wrote (MMWR 2011;60:694-9).

Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reviewed data from MSM in 21 cities that were collected as part of the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System (NHBS). The MSM were aged 18 years and older (mean, 34 years); 44% were white, 25% were Hispanic, and 23% were black.

Overall, 680 (9%) of the MSM were infected with HIV. Although 29% of these had been tested during the past 6 months, 16% had never been tested. A total of 61% had tested negative for HIV during the past year. Of the 61%, 7% were positive for HIV when they were tested by the NHBS (15% of blacks, 7% of Hispanics, and 3% of whites).

In general, men with higher incomes and education were more likely to be tested. Testing rates were similar among different ethnicities. However, "the high proportion of HIV-infected persons among minority MSM, particularly black MSM, who had not previously received a diagnosis of HIV infection and were tested during the past year underscores that testing among these populations should be a priority for HIV testing programs," the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the possible underreporting of HIV-positive status and high-risk behaviors, and the recruitment of study participants from bars and clubs in cities with a high prevalence of AIDS, the researchers noted.

But the results suggest that MSM could be tested every 3 months or every 6 months, instead of the annual testing currently recommended by the CDC, they added.

"MSM account for just [2%] of the U.S. population but represent more than half of all new [HIV] infections in the United States," CDC director Thomas R. Frieden said in a statement issued on June 2.

The statement and the current MMWR report appear on the 30-year anniversary of the publication of the first case of HIV in what became the MMWR, Dr. Frieden said. Although effective treatment for HIV is widely available, high-risk groups such as MSM should remain vigilant about prevention, and they should be encouraged to take advantage of new interventions such as pre-exposure prophylaxis, he emphasized.

Visit http://www.hivtest.org/ for HIV testing sites in your area.

More than half – 59% – of new cases of HIV in the United States in 2009 occurred in men who have sex with men, based on data from 7,271 of them, as published on June 2 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

"Given the high prevalence of new HIV infection among MSM [men who have sex with men] who had been tested during the past year, sexually active MSM might benefit from more frequent HIV testing," such as every 3-6 months, the researchers wrote (MMWR 2011;60:694-9).

Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reviewed data from MSM in 21 cities that were collected as part of the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System (NHBS). The MSM were aged 18 years and older (mean, 34 years); 44% were white, 25% were Hispanic, and 23% were black.

Overall, 680 (9%) of the MSM were infected with HIV. Although 29% of these had been tested during the past 6 months, 16% had never been tested. A total of 61% had tested negative for HIV during the past year. Of the 61%, 7% were positive for HIV when they were tested by the NHBS (15% of blacks, 7% of Hispanics, and 3% of whites).

In general, men with higher incomes and education were more likely to be tested. Testing rates were similar among different ethnicities. However, "the high proportion of HIV-infected persons among minority MSM, particularly black MSM, who had not previously received a diagnosis of HIV infection and were tested during the past year underscores that testing among these populations should be a priority for HIV testing programs," the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the possible underreporting of HIV-positive status and high-risk behaviors, and the recruitment of study participants from bars and clubs in cities with a high prevalence of AIDS, the researchers noted.

But the results suggest that MSM could be tested every 3 months or every 6 months, instead of the annual testing currently recommended by the CDC, they added.

"MSM account for just [2%] of the U.S. population but represent more than half of all new [HIV] infections in the United States," CDC director Thomas R. Frieden said in a statement issued on June 2.

The statement and the current MMWR report appear on the 30-year anniversary of the publication of the first case of HIV in what became the MMWR, Dr. Frieden said. Although effective treatment for HIV is widely available, high-risk groups such as MSM should remain vigilant about prevention, and they should be encouraged to take advantage of new interventions such as pre-exposure prophylaxis, he emphasized.

Visit http://www.hivtest.org/ for HIV testing sites in your area.

More than half – 59% – of new cases of HIV in the United States in 2009 occurred in men who have sex with men, based on data from 7,271 of them, as published on June 2 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

"Given the high prevalence of new HIV infection among MSM [men who have sex with men] who had been tested during the past year, sexually active MSM might benefit from more frequent HIV testing," such as every 3-6 months, the researchers wrote (MMWR 2011;60:694-9).

Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reviewed data from MSM in 21 cities that were collected as part of the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System (NHBS). The MSM were aged 18 years and older (mean, 34 years); 44% were white, 25% were Hispanic, and 23% were black.

Overall, 680 (9%) of the MSM were infected with HIV. Although 29% of these had been tested during the past 6 months, 16% had never been tested. A total of 61% had tested negative for HIV during the past year. Of the 61%, 7% were positive for HIV when they were tested by the NHBS (15% of blacks, 7% of Hispanics, and 3% of whites).

In general, men with higher incomes and education were more likely to be tested. Testing rates were similar among different ethnicities. However, "the high proportion of HIV-infected persons among minority MSM, particularly black MSM, who had not previously received a diagnosis of HIV infection and were tested during the past year underscores that testing among these populations should be a priority for HIV testing programs," the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the possible underreporting of HIV-positive status and high-risk behaviors, and the recruitment of study participants from bars and clubs in cities with a high prevalence of AIDS, the researchers noted.

But the results suggest that MSM could be tested every 3 months or every 6 months, instead of the annual testing currently recommended by the CDC, they added.

"MSM account for just [2%] of the U.S. population but represent more than half of all new [HIV] infections in the United States," CDC director Thomas R. Frieden said in a statement issued on June 2.

The statement and the current MMWR report appear on the 30-year anniversary of the publication of the first case of HIV in what became the MMWR, Dr. Frieden said. Although effective treatment for HIV is widely available, high-risk groups such as MSM should remain vigilant about prevention, and they should be encouraged to take advantage of new interventions such as pre-exposure prophylaxis, he emphasized.

Visit http://www.hivtest.org/ for HIV testing sites in your area.

More than half – 59% – of new cases of HIV in the United States in 2009 occurred in men who have sex with men, based on data from 7,271 of them, as published on June 2 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

"Given the high prevalence of new HIV infection among MSM [men who have sex with men] who had been tested during the past year, sexually active MSM might benefit from more frequent HIV testing," such as every 3-6 months, the researchers wrote (MMWR 2011;60:694-9).

Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reviewed data from MSM in 21 cities that were collected as part of the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System (NHBS). The MSM were aged 18 years and older (mean, 34 years); 44% were white, 25% were Hispanic, and 23% were black.

Overall, 680 (9%) of the MSM were infected with HIV. Although 29% of these had been tested during the past 6 months, 16% had never been tested. A total of 61% had tested negative for HIV during the past year. Of the 61%, 7% were positive for HIV when they were tested by the NHBS (15% of blacks, 7% of Hispanics, and 3% of whites).

In general, men with higher incomes and education were more likely to be tested. Testing rates were similar among different ethnicities. However, "the high proportion of HIV-infected persons among minority MSM, particularly black MSM, who had not previously received a diagnosis of HIV infection and were tested during the past year underscores that testing among these populations should be a priority for HIV testing programs," the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the possible underreporting of HIV-positive status and high-risk behaviors, and the recruitment of study participants from bars and clubs in cities with a high prevalence of AIDS, the researchers noted.

But the results suggest that MSM could be tested every 3 months or every 6 months, instead of the annual testing currently recommended by the CDC, they added.

"MSM account for just [2%] of the U.S. population but represent more than half of all new [HIV] infections in the United States," CDC director Thomas R. Frieden said in a statement issued on June 2.

The statement and the current MMWR report appear on the 30-year anniversary of the publication of the first case of HIV in what became the MMWR, Dr. Frieden said. Although effective treatment for HIV is widely available, high-risk groups such as MSM should remain vigilant about prevention, and they should be encouraged to take advantage of new interventions such as pre-exposure prophylaxis, he emphasized.

Visit http://www.hivtest.org/ for HIV testing sites in your area.

More than half – 59% – of new cases of HIV in the United States in 2009 occurred in men who have sex with men, based on data from 7,271 of them, as published on June 2 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

"Given the high prevalence of new HIV infection among MSM [men who have sex with men] who had been tested during the past year, sexually active MSM might benefit from more frequent HIV testing," such as every 3-6 months, the researchers wrote (MMWR 2011;60:694-9).

Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reviewed data from MSM in 21 cities that were collected as part of the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System (NHBS). The MSM were aged 18 years and older (mean, 34 years); 44% were white, 25% were Hispanic, and 23% were black.

Overall, 680 (9%) of the MSM were infected with HIV. Although 29% of these had been tested during the past 6 months, 16% had never been tested. A total of 61% had tested negative for HIV during the past year. Of the 61%, 7% were positive for HIV when they were tested by the NHBS (15% of blacks, 7% of Hispanics, and 3% of whites).

In general, men with higher incomes and education were more likely to be tested. Testing rates were similar among different ethnicities. However, "the high proportion of HIV-infected persons among minority MSM, particularly black MSM, who had not previously received a diagnosis of HIV infection and were tested during the past year underscores that testing among these populations should be a priority for HIV testing programs," the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the possible underreporting of HIV-positive status and high-risk behaviors, and the recruitment of study participants from bars and clubs in cities with a high prevalence of AIDS, the researchers noted.

But the results suggest that MSM could be tested every 3 months or every 6 months, instead of the annual testing currently recommended by the CDC, they added.

"MSM account for just [2%] of the U.S. population but represent more than half of all new [HIV] infections in the United States," CDC director Thomas R. Frieden said in a statement issued on June 2.

The statement and the current MMWR report appear on the 30-year anniversary of the publication of the first case of HIV in what became the MMWR, Dr. Frieden said. Although effective treatment for HIV is widely available, high-risk groups such as MSM should remain vigilant about prevention, and they should be encouraged to take advantage of new interventions such as pre-exposure prophylaxis, he emphasized.

Visit http://www.hivtest.org/ for HIV testing sites in your area.

More than half – 59% – of new cases of HIV in the United States in 2009 occurred in men who have sex with men, based on data from 7,271 of them, as published on June 2 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

"Given the high prevalence of new HIV infection among MSM [men who have sex with men] who had been tested during the past year, sexually active MSM might benefit from more frequent HIV testing," such as every 3-6 months, the researchers wrote (MMWR 2011;60:694-9).

Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reviewed data from MSM in 21 cities that were collected as part of the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System (NHBS). The MSM were aged 18 years and older (mean, 34 years); 44% were white, 25% were Hispanic, and 23% were black.

Overall, 680 (9%) of the MSM were infected with HIV. Although 29% of these had been tested during the past 6 months, 16% had never been tested. A total of 61% had tested negative for HIV during the past year. Of the 61%, 7% were positive for HIV when they were tested by the NHBS (15% of blacks, 7% of Hispanics, and 3% of whites).

In general, men with higher incomes and education were more likely to be tested. Testing rates were similar among different ethnicities. However, "the high proportion of HIV-infected persons among minority MSM, particularly black MSM, who had not previously received a diagnosis of HIV infection and were tested during the past year underscores that testing among these populations should be a priority for HIV testing programs," the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the possible underreporting of HIV-positive status and high-risk behaviors, and the recruitment of study participants from bars and clubs in cities with a high prevalence of AIDS, the researchers noted.

But the results suggest that MSM could be tested every 3 months or every 6 months, instead of the annual testing currently recommended by the CDC, they added.

"MSM account for just [2%] of the U.S. population but represent more than half of all new [HIV] infections in the United States," CDC director Thomas R. Frieden said in a statement issued on June 2.

The statement and the current MMWR report appear on the 30-year anniversary of the publication of the first case of HIV in what became the MMWR, Dr. Frieden said. Although effective treatment for HIV is widely available, high-risk groups such as MSM should remain vigilant about prevention, and they should be encouraged to take advantage of new interventions such as pre-exposure prophylaxis, he emphasized.

Visit http://www.hivtest.org/ for HIV testing sites in your area.