Ob.Gyn. News

In this month’s column we continue to discuss recommendations from the gynecologic oncologist to the general gynecologist.

Don’t screen average-risk women for ovarian cancer.

Ovarian cancer is most often diagnosed at an advanced stage, which limits the curability of the disease. Consequently, there is a strong focus on attempting to diagnose the disease at earlier, more curable stages. This leads to the impulse by some well-intentioned providers to implement screening tests, such as ultrasounds and tumor markers, for all women. Unfortunately, the screening of “average risk” women for ovarian cancer is not recommended. Randomized controlled trials of tens of thousands of women have not observed a clinically significant decrease in ovarian cancer mortality with the addition of screening with tumor markers and ultrasound.¹ These studies did observe a false-positive rate of 5%. While that may seem like a low rate of false-positive testing, the definitive diagnostic test which follows is a major abdominal surgery (oophorectomy) and serious complications are encountered in 15% of patients undergoing surgery for false-positive ovarian cancer screening.¹ Therefore, quite simply, the harms are not balanced by benefits.

The key to offering patients appropriate and effective screening is case selection. It is important to identify which patients are at higher risk for ovarian cancer and offer those women testing for germline mutations and screening strategies. An important component of a well-woman visit is to take a thorough family history of cancer. Women are considered at high risk for having hereditary predisposition to ovarian cancer if they have a first- or second-degree relative with breast cancer younger than 45-50 years, or any age if Ashkenazi Jewish, triple-negative breast cancer younger than 60 years of age, two or more primary breast cancers with the first diagnosed at less than 50 years of age, male breast cancer, ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, a known BRCA 1/2 mutation, or a personal history of those same conditions. These women should be recommended to undergo genetic testing for BRCA 1, 2, and Lynch syndrome. They should not automatically be offered ovarian cancer screening. If a patient has a more remote family history for ovarian cancer, their personal risk may be somewhat elevated above the baseline population risk, however, not substantially enough to justify implementing screening in the absence of a confirmed genetic mutation.

While screening tests may not be appropriate for all patients, all patients should be asked about the early symptoms of ovarian cancer because these are consistently present, and frequently overlooked, prior to the eventual diagnosis of advanced disease. Those symptoms include abdominal discomfort, abdominal swelling and bloating, and urinary urgency.² Consider offering all patients a dedicated ovarian cancer specific review of systems that includes inquiries about these symptoms at their annual wellness visits.
 

Opt for vertical midline incisions when surgery is anticipated to be complex

What is the first thing gynecologic oncologists do when called in to assist in a difficult gynecologic procedure? Get better exposure. Exposure is the cornerstone of safe, effective surgery. Sometimes this simply means placing a more effective retractor. In other cases, it might mean extending the incision. However, if the incision is a low transverse incision (the go-to for many gynecologists because of its favorable cosmetic and pain-producing profile) this proves to be difficult. Attempting to assist in a complicated case, such as a frozen pelvis, severed ureter or rectal injury, through a pfannensteil incision can be extraordinarily difficult, and while these incisions can be extended by incising the rectus muscle bellies, upper abdominal visualization remains elusive in most patients. This is particularly problematic if the ureter or splenic flexure need to be mobilized, or if extensive lysis of adhesions is necessary to ensure there is no occult enterotomy. As my mentor Dr. John Soper once described to me: “It’s like trying to scratch your armpit by reaching through your fly.”

While pfannensteil incisions come naturally, and comfortably, to most gynecologists, likely because of their frequent application during cesarean section, all gynecologists should be confident in the steps and anatomy for vertical midline, or paramedian incisions. This is not only beneficial for complex gynecologic cases, but also in the event of vascular emergency. In the hands of an experienced abdominal/pelvic surgeon, the vertical midline incision is the quickest way to safely enter the abdomen, and provides the kind of exposure that may be critical in safely repairing or controlling hemorrhage from a major vessel.

While low transverse incisions may be more cosmetic, less painful, and associated with fewer wound complications, our first concern as surgeons should be mitigating complications. In situations where risks of complications are high, it is best to not handicap ourselves with the incision location. And always remember, wound complications are highest when a transverse incision needs to be converted to a vertical one with a “T.”
 

It’s not just about diagnosis of cancer, it’s also prevention

Detection of cancer is an important role of the obstetrician gynecologist. However, equally important is being able to seize opportunities for cancer prevention. Cervical, vulvar, endometrial and ovarian cancer are all known to have preventative strategies.

All patients up to the age of 45 should be offered vaccination against HPV. Initial indications for HPV vaccination were for women up to age 26; however, recent data support the safety and efficacy of the vaccine in older women.³ HPV vaccination is most effective at preventing cancer when administered prior to exposure (ideally age 9-11), leaving this in the hands of our pediatrician colleagues. However, we must be vigilant to inquire about vaccination status for all our patients and encourage vaccines for those who were missed earlier in their life.

Patients should be counseled regarding the significant risk reduction for cancer that is gained from use of oral hormonal contraceptives and progestin-releasing IUDs (especially for endometrial and ovarian cancers). Providing them with knowledge of this information when considering options for contraception or menstrual cycle management is important in their decision-making process.

Endometrial cancer incidence is sadly on the rise in the United States, likely secondary to increasing rates of obesity. Pregnancy is a time when many women begin to gain, and accumulate, weight and therefore obstetric providers have a unique opportunity to assist patients in strategies to normalize their weight after pregnancy. Many of my patients with endometrial cancer state that they have never heard that it is associated with obesity. This suggests that more can be done to educate patients on the carcinogenic effect of obesity (for both endometrial and breast cancer), which may aid in motivating change of modifiable behaviors.

The fallopian tubes are the source of many ovarian cancers and knowledge of this has led to the recommendation to perform opportunistic salpingectomy as a cancer risk-reducing strategy. Hysterectomy and sterilization procedures are most apropos for this modification. While prospective data to confirm a reduced risk of ovarian cancer with opportunistic salpingectomy are lacking, a reduced incidence of cancer has been observed when the tubes have been removed for indicated surgeries; there appear to be no significant deleterious sequelae.^4,5 A focus should be made on removal of the entire distal third of the tube, particularly the fimbriated ends, as this is the portion most implicated in malignancy.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant disclosures. Contact her at [email protected].
 

References

1. Buys SS et al. JAMA. 2011;305(22):2295.

2. Goff BA et al. JAMA. 2004;291(22):2705.

3. Castellsagué X et al. Br J Cancer. 2011;105(1):28.

4. Yoon SH et al. Eur J Cancer. 2016 Mar;55:38-46.

5. Hanley GE et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(2):172.

In this month’s column we continue to discuss recommendations from the gynecologic oncologist to the general gynecologist.

Don’t screen average-risk women for ovarian cancer.

Ovarian cancer is most often diagnosed at an advanced stage, which limits the curability of the disease. Consequently, there is a strong focus on attempting to diagnose the disease at earlier, more curable stages. This leads to the impulse by some well-intentioned providers to implement screening tests, such as ultrasounds and tumor markers, for all women. Unfortunately, the screening of “average risk” women for ovarian cancer is not recommended. Randomized controlled trials of tens of thousands of women have not observed a clinically significant decrease in ovarian cancer mortality with the addition of screening with tumor markers and ultrasound.¹ These studies did observe a false-positive rate of 5%. While that may seem like a low rate of false-positive testing, the definitive diagnostic test which follows is a major abdominal surgery (oophorectomy) and serious complications are encountered in 15% of patients undergoing surgery for false-positive ovarian cancer screening.¹ Therefore, quite simply, the harms are not balanced by benefits.

The key to offering patients appropriate and effective screening is case selection. It is important to identify which patients are at higher risk for ovarian cancer and offer those women testing for germline mutations and screening strategies. An important component of a well-woman visit is to take a thorough family history of cancer. Women are considered at high risk for having hereditary predisposition to ovarian cancer if they have a first- or second-degree relative with breast cancer younger than 45-50 years, or any age if Ashkenazi Jewish, triple-negative breast cancer younger than 60 years of age, two or more primary breast cancers with the first diagnosed at less than 50 years of age, male breast cancer, ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, a known BRCA 1/2 mutation, or a personal history of those same conditions. These women should be recommended to undergo genetic testing for BRCA 1, 2, and Lynch syndrome. They should not automatically be offered ovarian cancer screening. If a patient has a more remote family history for ovarian cancer, their personal risk may be somewhat elevated above the baseline population risk, however, not substantially enough to justify implementing screening in the absence of a confirmed genetic mutation.

While screening tests may not be appropriate for all patients, all patients should be asked about the early symptoms of ovarian cancer because these are consistently present, and frequently overlooked, prior to the eventual diagnosis of advanced disease. Those symptoms include abdominal discomfort, abdominal swelling and bloating, and urinary urgency.² Consider offering all patients a dedicated ovarian cancer specific review of systems that includes inquiries about these symptoms at their annual wellness visits.
 

Opt for vertical midline incisions when surgery is anticipated to be complex

What is the first thing gynecologic oncologists do when called in to assist in a difficult gynecologic procedure? Get better exposure. Exposure is the cornerstone of safe, effective surgery. Sometimes this simply means placing a more effective retractor. In other cases, it might mean extending the incision. However, if the incision is a low transverse incision (the go-to for many gynecologists because of its favorable cosmetic and pain-producing profile) this proves to be difficult. Attempting to assist in a complicated case, such as a frozen pelvis, severed ureter or rectal injury, through a pfannensteil incision can be extraordinarily difficult, and while these incisions can be extended by incising the rectus muscle bellies, upper abdominal visualization remains elusive in most patients. This is particularly problematic if the ureter or splenic flexure need to be mobilized, or if extensive lysis of adhesions is necessary to ensure there is no occult enterotomy. As my mentor Dr. John Soper once described to me: “It’s like trying to scratch your armpit by reaching through your fly.”

While pfannensteil incisions come naturally, and comfortably, to most gynecologists, likely because of their frequent application during cesarean section, all gynecologists should be confident in the steps and anatomy for vertical midline, or paramedian incisions. This is not only beneficial for complex gynecologic cases, but also in the event of vascular emergency. In the hands of an experienced abdominal/pelvic surgeon, the vertical midline incision is the quickest way to safely enter the abdomen, and provides the kind of exposure that may be critical in safely repairing or controlling hemorrhage from a major vessel.

While low transverse incisions may be more cosmetic, less painful, and associated with fewer wound complications, our first concern as surgeons should be mitigating complications. In situations where risks of complications are high, it is best to not handicap ourselves with the incision location. And always remember, wound complications are highest when a transverse incision needs to be converted to a vertical one with a “T.”
 

It’s not just about diagnosis of cancer, it’s also prevention

Detection of cancer is an important role of the obstetrician gynecologist. However, equally important is being able to seize opportunities for cancer prevention. Cervical, vulvar, endometrial and ovarian cancer are all known to have preventative strategies.

All patients up to the age of 45 should be offered vaccination against HPV. Initial indications for HPV vaccination were for women up to age 26; however, recent data support the safety and efficacy of the vaccine in older women.³ HPV vaccination is most effective at preventing cancer when administered prior to exposure (ideally age 9-11), leaving this in the hands of our pediatrician colleagues. However, we must be vigilant to inquire about vaccination status for all our patients and encourage vaccines for those who were missed earlier in their life.

Patients should be counseled regarding the significant risk reduction for cancer that is gained from use of oral hormonal contraceptives and progestin-releasing IUDs (especially for endometrial and ovarian cancers). Providing them with knowledge of this information when considering options for contraception or menstrual cycle management is important in their decision-making process.

Endometrial cancer incidence is sadly on the rise in the United States, likely secondary to increasing rates of obesity. Pregnancy is a time when many women begin to gain, and accumulate, weight and therefore obstetric providers have a unique opportunity to assist patients in strategies to normalize their weight after pregnancy. Many of my patients with endometrial cancer state that they have never heard that it is associated with obesity. This suggests that more can be done to educate patients on the carcinogenic effect of obesity (for both endometrial and breast cancer), which may aid in motivating change of modifiable behaviors.

The fallopian tubes are the source of many ovarian cancers and knowledge of this has led to the recommendation to perform opportunistic salpingectomy as a cancer risk-reducing strategy. Hysterectomy and sterilization procedures are most apropos for this modification. While prospective data to confirm a reduced risk of ovarian cancer with opportunistic salpingectomy are lacking, a reduced incidence of cancer has been observed when the tubes have been removed for indicated surgeries; there appear to be no significant deleterious sequelae.^4,5 A focus should be made on removal of the entire distal third of the tube, particularly the fimbriated ends, as this is the portion most implicated in malignancy.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant disclosures. Contact her at [email protected].
 

References

1. Buys SS et al. JAMA. 2011;305(22):2295.

2. Goff BA et al. JAMA. 2004;291(22):2705.

3. Castellsagué X et al. Br J Cancer. 2011;105(1):28.

4. Yoon SH et al. Eur J Cancer. 2016 Mar;55:38-46.

5. Hanley GE et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(2):172.

In this month’s column we continue to discuss recommendations from the gynecologic oncologist to the general gynecologist.

Don’t screen average-risk women for ovarian cancer.

Ovarian cancer is most often diagnosed at an advanced stage, which limits the curability of the disease. Consequently, there is a strong focus on attempting to diagnose the disease at earlier, more curable stages. This leads to the impulse by some well-intentioned providers to implement screening tests, such as ultrasounds and tumor markers, for all women. Unfortunately, the screening of “average risk” women for ovarian cancer is not recommended. Randomized controlled trials of tens of thousands of women have not observed a clinically significant decrease in ovarian cancer mortality with the addition of screening with tumor markers and ultrasound.¹ These studies did observe a false-positive rate of 5%. While that may seem like a low rate of false-positive testing, the definitive diagnostic test which follows is a major abdominal surgery (oophorectomy) and serious complications are encountered in 15% of patients undergoing surgery for false-positive ovarian cancer screening.¹ Therefore, quite simply, the harms are not balanced by benefits.

The key to offering patients appropriate and effective screening is case selection. It is important to identify which patients are at higher risk for ovarian cancer and offer those women testing for germline mutations and screening strategies. An important component of a well-woman visit is to take a thorough family history of cancer. Women are considered at high risk for having hereditary predisposition to ovarian cancer if they have a first- or second-degree relative with breast cancer younger than 45-50 years, or any age if Ashkenazi Jewish, triple-negative breast cancer younger than 60 years of age, two or more primary breast cancers with the first diagnosed at less than 50 years of age, male breast cancer, ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, a known BRCA 1/2 mutation, or a personal history of those same conditions. These women should be recommended to undergo genetic testing for BRCA 1, 2, and Lynch syndrome. They should not automatically be offered ovarian cancer screening. If a patient has a more remote family history for ovarian cancer, their personal risk may be somewhat elevated above the baseline population risk, however, not substantially enough to justify implementing screening in the absence of a confirmed genetic mutation.

While screening tests may not be appropriate for all patients, all patients should be asked about the early symptoms of ovarian cancer because these are consistently present, and frequently overlooked, prior to the eventual diagnosis of advanced disease. Those symptoms include abdominal discomfort, abdominal swelling and bloating, and urinary urgency.² Consider offering all patients a dedicated ovarian cancer specific review of systems that includes inquiries about these symptoms at their annual wellness visits.
 

Opt for vertical midline incisions when surgery is anticipated to be complex

What is the first thing gynecologic oncologists do when called in to assist in a difficult gynecologic procedure? Get better exposure. Exposure is the cornerstone of safe, effective surgery. Sometimes this simply means placing a more effective retractor. In other cases, it might mean extending the incision. However, if the incision is a low transverse incision (the go-to for many gynecologists because of its favorable cosmetic and pain-producing profile) this proves to be difficult. Attempting to assist in a complicated case, such as a frozen pelvis, severed ureter or rectal injury, through a pfannensteil incision can be extraordinarily difficult, and while these incisions can be extended by incising the rectus muscle bellies, upper abdominal visualization remains elusive in most patients. This is particularly problematic if the ureter or splenic flexure need to be mobilized, or if extensive lysis of adhesions is necessary to ensure there is no occult enterotomy. As my mentor Dr. John Soper once described to me: “It’s like trying to scratch your armpit by reaching through your fly.”

While pfannensteil incisions come naturally, and comfortably, to most gynecologists, likely because of their frequent application during cesarean section, all gynecologists should be confident in the steps and anatomy for vertical midline, or paramedian incisions. This is not only beneficial for complex gynecologic cases, but also in the event of vascular emergency. In the hands of an experienced abdominal/pelvic surgeon, the vertical midline incision is the quickest way to safely enter the abdomen, and provides the kind of exposure that may be critical in safely repairing or controlling hemorrhage from a major vessel.

While low transverse incisions may be more cosmetic, less painful, and associated with fewer wound complications, our first concern as surgeons should be mitigating complications. In situations where risks of complications are high, it is best to not handicap ourselves with the incision location. And always remember, wound complications are highest when a transverse incision needs to be converted to a vertical one with a “T.”
 

It’s not just about diagnosis of cancer, it’s also prevention

Detection of cancer is an important role of the obstetrician gynecologist. However, equally important is being able to seize opportunities for cancer prevention. Cervical, vulvar, endometrial and ovarian cancer are all known to have preventative strategies.

All patients up to the age of 45 should be offered vaccination against HPV. Initial indications for HPV vaccination were for women up to age 26; however, recent data support the safety and efficacy of the vaccine in older women.³ HPV vaccination is most effective at preventing cancer when administered prior to exposure (ideally age 9-11), leaving this in the hands of our pediatrician colleagues. However, we must be vigilant to inquire about vaccination status for all our patients and encourage vaccines for those who were missed earlier in their life.

Patients should be counseled regarding the significant risk reduction for cancer that is gained from use of oral hormonal contraceptives and progestin-releasing IUDs (especially for endometrial and ovarian cancers). Providing them with knowledge of this information when considering options for contraception or menstrual cycle management is important in their decision-making process.

Endometrial cancer incidence is sadly on the rise in the United States, likely secondary to increasing rates of obesity. Pregnancy is a time when many women begin to gain, and accumulate, weight and therefore obstetric providers have a unique opportunity to assist patients in strategies to normalize their weight after pregnancy. Many of my patients with endometrial cancer state that they have never heard that it is associated with obesity. This suggests that more can be done to educate patients on the carcinogenic effect of obesity (for both endometrial and breast cancer), which may aid in motivating change of modifiable behaviors.

The fallopian tubes are the source of many ovarian cancers and knowledge of this has led to the recommendation to perform opportunistic salpingectomy as a cancer risk-reducing strategy. Hysterectomy and sterilization procedures are most apropos for this modification. While prospective data to confirm a reduced risk of ovarian cancer with opportunistic salpingectomy are lacking, a reduced incidence of cancer has been observed when the tubes have been removed for indicated surgeries; there appear to be no significant deleterious sequelae.^4,5 A focus should be made on removal of the entire distal third of the tube, particularly the fimbriated ends, as this is the portion most implicated in malignancy.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant disclosures. Contact her at [email protected].
 

References

1. Buys SS et al. JAMA. 2011;305(22):2295.

2. Goff BA et al. JAMA. 2004;291(22):2705.

3. Castellsagué X et al. Br J Cancer. 2011;105(1):28.

4. Yoon SH et al. Eur J Cancer. 2016 Mar;55:38-46.

5. Hanley GE et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(2):172.

Young women who received the quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine had fewer and fewer infections with high-risk HPV strains covered by the vaccine year after year, but the incidence of high-risk strains that were not covered by the vaccine increased over the same 12-year period, researchers report in a study published August 23 in JAMA Open Network.

“One of the unique contributions that this study provides is the evaluation of a real-world example of the HPV infection rates following immunization in a population of adolescent girls and young adult women at a single health center in a large U.S. city, reflecting strong evidence of vaccine effectiveness,” write Nicolas F. Schlecht, PhD, a professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, and his colleagues. “Previous surveillance studies from the U.S. have involved older women and populations with relatively low vaccine coverage.”

In addition to supporting the value of continuing to vaccinate teens against HPV, the findings underscore the importance of continuing to screen women for cervical cancer, Dr. Schlecht said in an interview.

“HPV has not and is not going away,” he said. “We need to keep on our toes with screening and other measures to continue to prevent the development of cervix cancer,” including monitoring different high-risk HPV types and keeping a close eye on cervical precancer rates, particularly CIN3 and cervix cancer, he said. “The vaccines are definitely a good thing. Just getting rid of HPV16 is an amazing accomplishment.”

Kevin Ault, MD, a professor of ob/gyn and academic specialist director of clinical and translational research at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, told this news organization that other studies have had similar findings, but this one is larger with longer follow-up.

“The take-home message is that vaccines work, and this is especially true for the HPV vaccine,” said Dr. Ault, who was not involved in the research. “The vaccine prevents HPV infections and the consequences of these infections, such as cervical cancer. The results are consistent with other studies in different settings, so they are likely generalizable.”

The researchers collected data from October 2007, shortly after the vaccine was approved, through September 2019 on sexually active adolescent and young women aged 13 to 21 years who had received the HPV vaccine and had agreed to follow-up assessments every 6 months until they turned 26. Each follow-up included the collecting of samples of cervical and anal cells for polymerase chain reaction testing for the presence of HPV types.

More than half of the 1,453 participants were Hispanic (58.8%), and half were Black (50.4%), including 15% Hispanic and Black patients. The average age of the participants was 18 years. They were tracked for a median 2.4 years. Nearly half the participants (48%) received the HPV vaccine prior to sexual debut.

For the longitudinal study, the researchers adjusted for participants’ age, the year they received the vaccine, and the years since they were vaccinated. They also tracked breakthrough infections for the four types of HPV covered by the vaccine in participants who received the vaccine before sexual debut.

“We evaluated whether infection rates for HPV have changed since the administration of the vaccine by assessing longitudinally the probability of HPV detection over time among vaccinated participants while adjusting for changes in cohort characteristics over time,” the researchers write. In their statistical analysis, they made adjustments for the number of vaccine doses participants received before their first study visit, age at sexual debut, age at first vaccine dose, number of sexual partners in the preceding 6 months, consistency of condom use during sex, history of a positive chlamydia test, and, for anal HPV analyses, whether the participants had had anal sex in the previous 6 months.

The average age at first intercourse remained steady at 15 years throughout the study, but the average age of vaccination dropped from 18 years in 2008 to 12 years in 2019 (P < .001). More than half the participants (64%) had had at least three lifetime sexual partners at baseline.

After adjustment for age, the researchers found that the incidence of the four HPV types covered by the vaccine – HPV-6, HPV-11, HPV-16, and HPV-18 – dropped more each year, shifting from 9.1% from 2008-2010 to 4.7% from 2017-2019. The effect was even greater among those vaccinated prior to sexual debut; for those patients, the incidence of the four vaccine types dropped from 8.8% to 1.7% over the course of the study. Declines over time also occurred for anal types HPV-31 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.76) and HPV-45 (aOR = 0.77). Those vaccinated prior to any sexual intercourse had 19% lower odds of infection per year with a vaccine-covered HPV type.

“We were really excited to see that the types targeted by the vaccines were considerably lower over time in our population,” Dr. Schlecht told this news organization. “This is an important observation, since most of these types are the most worrisome for cervical cancer.”

They were surprised, however, to see overall HPV prevalence increase over time, particularly with the high-risk HPV types that were not covered by the quadrivalent vaccine.

Prevalence of cervical high-risk types not in the vaccine increased from 25.1% from 2008-2010 to 30.5% from 2017-2019. Odds of detection of high-risk HPV types not covered by the vaccine increased 8% each year, particularly for HPV-56 and HPV-68; anal HPV types increased 11% each year. Neither age nor recent number of sexual partners affected the findings.

“The underlying mechanisms for the observed increased detection of specific non-vaccine HPV types over time are not yet clear.”

“We hope this doesn’t translate into some increase in cervical neoplasia that is unanticipated,” Dr. Schlecht said. He noted that the attributable risks for cancer associated with nonvaccine high-risk HPV types remain low. “Theoretical concerns are one thing; actual data is what drives the show,” he said.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Schlecht has served on advisory boards for Merck, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and PDS Biotechnology. One author previously served on a GSK advisory board, and another worked with Merck on an early vaccine trial. Dr. Ault has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Young women who received the quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine had fewer and fewer infections with high-risk HPV strains covered by the vaccine year after year, but the incidence of high-risk strains that were not covered by the vaccine increased over the same 12-year period, researchers report in a study published August 23 in JAMA Open Network.

“One of the unique contributions that this study provides is the evaluation of a real-world example of the HPV infection rates following immunization in a population of adolescent girls and young adult women at a single health center in a large U.S. city, reflecting strong evidence of vaccine effectiveness,” write Nicolas F. Schlecht, PhD, a professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, and his colleagues. “Previous surveillance studies from the U.S. have involved older women and populations with relatively low vaccine coverage.”

In addition to supporting the value of continuing to vaccinate teens against HPV, the findings underscore the importance of continuing to screen women for cervical cancer, Dr. Schlecht said in an interview.

“HPV has not and is not going away,” he said. “We need to keep on our toes with screening and other measures to continue to prevent the development of cervix cancer,” including monitoring different high-risk HPV types and keeping a close eye on cervical precancer rates, particularly CIN3 and cervix cancer, he said. “The vaccines are definitely a good thing. Just getting rid of HPV16 is an amazing accomplishment.”

Kevin Ault, MD, a professor of ob/gyn and academic specialist director of clinical and translational research at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, told this news organization that other studies have had similar findings, but this one is larger with longer follow-up.

“The take-home message is that vaccines work, and this is especially true for the HPV vaccine,” said Dr. Ault, who was not involved in the research. “The vaccine prevents HPV infections and the consequences of these infections, such as cervical cancer. The results are consistent with other studies in different settings, so they are likely generalizable.”

The researchers collected data from October 2007, shortly after the vaccine was approved, through September 2019 on sexually active adolescent and young women aged 13 to 21 years who had received the HPV vaccine and had agreed to follow-up assessments every 6 months until they turned 26. Each follow-up included the collecting of samples of cervical and anal cells for polymerase chain reaction testing for the presence of HPV types.

More than half of the 1,453 participants were Hispanic (58.8%), and half were Black (50.4%), including 15% Hispanic and Black patients. The average age of the participants was 18 years. They were tracked for a median 2.4 years. Nearly half the participants (48%) received the HPV vaccine prior to sexual debut.

For the longitudinal study, the researchers adjusted for participants’ age, the year they received the vaccine, and the years since they were vaccinated. They also tracked breakthrough infections for the four types of HPV covered by the vaccine in participants who received the vaccine before sexual debut.

“We evaluated whether infection rates for HPV have changed since the administration of the vaccine by assessing longitudinally the probability of HPV detection over time among vaccinated participants while adjusting for changes in cohort characteristics over time,” the researchers write. In their statistical analysis, they made adjustments for the number of vaccine doses participants received before their first study visit, age at sexual debut, age at first vaccine dose, number of sexual partners in the preceding 6 months, consistency of condom use during sex, history of a positive chlamydia test, and, for anal HPV analyses, whether the participants had had anal sex in the previous 6 months.

The average age at first intercourse remained steady at 15 years throughout the study, but the average age of vaccination dropped from 18 years in 2008 to 12 years in 2019 (P < .001). More than half the participants (64%) had had at least three lifetime sexual partners at baseline.

After adjustment for age, the researchers found that the incidence of the four HPV types covered by the vaccine – HPV-6, HPV-11, HPV-16, and HPV-18 – dropped more each year, shifting from 9.1% from 2008-2010 to 4.7% from 2017-2019. The effect was even greater among those vaccinated prior to sexual debut; for those patients, the incidence of the four vaccine types dropped from 8.8% to 1.7% over the course of the study. Declines over time also occurred for anal types HPV-31 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.76) and HPV-45 (aOR = 0.77). Those vaccinated prior to any sexual intercourse had 19% lower odds of infection per year with a vaccine-covered HPV type.

“We were really excited to see that the types targeted by the vaccines were considerably lower over time in our population,” Dr. Schlecht told this news organization. “This is an important observation, since most of these types are the most worrisome for cervical cancer.”

They were surprised, however, to see overall HPV prevalence increase over time, particularly with the high-risk HPV types that were not covered by the quadrivalent vaccine.

Prevalence of cervical high-risk types not in the vaccine increased from 25.1% from 2008-2010 to 30.5% from 2017-2019. Odds of detection of high-risk HPV types not covered by the vaccine increased 8% each year, particularly for HPV-56 and HPV-68; anal HPV types increased 11% each year. Neither age nor recent number of sexual partners affected the findings.

“The underlying mechanisms for the observed increased detection of specific non-vaccine HPV types over time are not yet clear.”

“We hope this doesn’t translate into some increase in cervical neoplasia that is unanticipated,” Dr. Schlecht said. He noted that the attributable risks for cancer associated with nonvaccine high-risk HPV types remain low. “Theoretical concerns are one thing; actual data is what drives the show,” he said.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Schlecht has served on advisory boards for Merck, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and PDS Biotechnology. One author previously served on a GSK advisory board, and another worked with Merck on an early vaccine trial. Dr. Ault has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Young women who received the quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine had fewer and fewer infections with high-risk HPV strains covered by the vaccine year after year, but the incidence of high-risk strains that were not covered by the vaccine increased over the same 12-year period, researchers report in a study published August 23 in JAMA Open Network.

“One of the unique contributions that this study provides is the evaluation of a real-world example of the HPV infection rates following immunization in a population of adolescent girls and young adult women at a single health center in a large U.S. city, reflecting strong evidence of vaccine effectiveness,” write Nicolas F. Schlecht, PhD, a professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, and his colleagues. “Previous surveillance studies from the U.S. have involved older women and populations with relatively low vaccine coverage.”

In addition to supporting the value of continuing to vaccinate teens against HPV, the findings underscore the importance of continuing to screen women for cervical cancer, Dr. Schlecht said in an interview.

“HPV has not and is not going away,” he said. “We need to keep on our toes with screening and other measures to continue to prevent the development of cervix cancer,” including monitoring different high-risk HPV types and keeping a close eye on cervical precancer rates, particularly CIN3 and cervix cancer, he said. “The vaccines are definitely a good thing. Just getting rid of HPV16 is an amazing accomplishment.”

Kevin Ault, MD, a professor of ob/gyn and academic specialist director of clinical and translational research at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, told this news organization that other studies have had similar findings, but this one is larger with longer follow-up.

“The take-home message is that vaccines work, and this is especially true for the HPV vaccine,” said Dr. Ault, who was not involved in the research. “The vaccine prevents HPV infections and the consequences of these infections, such as cervical cancer. The results are consistent with other studies in different settings, so they are likely generalizable.”

The researchers collected data from October 2007, shortly after the vaccine was approved, through September 2019 on sexually active adolescent and young women aged 13 to 21 years who had received the HPV vaccine and had agreed to follow-up assessments every 6 months until they turned 26. Each follow-up included the collecting of samples of cervical and anal cells for polymerase chain reaction testing for the presence of HPV types.

More than half of the 1,453 participants were Hispanic (58.8%), and half were Black (50.4%), including 15% Hispanic and Black patients. The average age of the participants was 18 years. They were tracked for a median 2.4 years. Nearly half the participants (48%) received the HPV vaccine prior to sexual debut.

For the longitudinal study, the researchers adjusted for participants’ age, the year they received the vaccine, and the years since they were vaccinated. They also tracked breakthrough infections for the four types of HPV covered by the vaccine in participants who received the vaccine before sexual debut.

“We evaluated whether infection rates for HPV have changed since the administration of the vaccine by assessing longitudinally the probability of HPV detection over time among vaccinated participants while adjusting for changes in cohort characteristics over time,” the researchers write. In their statistical analysis, they made adjustments for the number of vaccine doses participants received before their first study visit, age at sexual debut, age at first vaccine dose, number of sexual partners in the preceding 6 months, consistency of condom use during sex, history of a positive chlamydia test, and, for anal HPV analyses, whether the participants had had anal sex in the previous 6 months.

The average age at first intercourse remained steady at 15 years throughout the study, but the average age of vaccination dropped from 18 years in 2008 to 12 years in 2019 (P < .001). More than half the participants (64%) had had at least three lifetime sexual partners at baseline.

After adjustment for age, the researchers found that the incidence of the four HPV types covered by the vaccine – HPV-6, HPV-11, HPV-16, and HPV-18 – dropped more each year, shifting from 9.1% from 2008-2010 to 4.7% from 2017-2019. The effect was even greater among those vaccinated prior to sexual debut; for those patients, the incidence of the four vaccine types dropped from 8.8% to 1.7% over the course of the study. Declines over time also occurred for anal types HPV-31 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.76) and HPV-45 (aOR = 0.77). Those vaccinated prior to any sexual intercourse had 19% lower odds of infection per year with a vaccine-covered HPV type.

“We were really excited to see that the types targeted by the vaccines were considerably lower over time in our population,” Dr. Schlecht told this news organization. “This is an important observation, since most of these types are the most worrisome for cervical cancer.”

They were surprised, however, to see overall HPV prevalence increase over time, particularly with the high-risk HPV types that were not covered by the quadrivalent vaccine.

Prevalence of cervical high-risk types not in the vaccine increased from 25.1% from 2008-2010 to 30.5% from 2017-2019. Odds of detection of high-risk HPV types not covered by the vaccine increased 8% each year, particularly for HPV-56 and HPV-68; anal HPV types increased 11% each year. Neither age nor recent number of sexual partners affected the findings.

“The underlying mechanisms for the observed increased detection of specific non-vaccine HPV types over time are not yet clear.”

“We hope this doesn’t translate into some increase in cervical neoplasia that is unanticipated,” Dr. Schlecht said. He noted that the attributable risks for cancer associated with nonvaccine high-risk HPV types remain low. “Theoretical concerns are one thing; actual data is what drives the show,” he said.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Schlecht has served on advisory boards for Merck, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and PDS Biotechnology. One author previously served on a GSK advisory board, and another worked with Merck on an early vaccine trial. Dr. Ault has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnant women who experience migraine with aura – and also the far more common tension-type headache – are at increased risk for giving birth to small-for-gestational-age babies, according to results from an observational study.

Migraine during pregnancy has been associated in previous studies with hypertensive pregnancy complications including preeclampsia; however, little is known about other headache types and their effects on pregnancy and birth outcomes.

For their research, published online July 20 in Cephalalgia, Isabella Neri, MD, PhD, and colleagues at Hospital Policlinico of Modena, Italy, looked at headache status for 515 consecutive pregnant women evaluated during their first trimester and followed through childbirth. 

Altogether 224 women, or 43.5% of the cohort, were diagnosed with migraine without aura (n = 72), migraine with aura (n = 27), or tension-type headache (n = 125). The authors did not report on the severity or frequency of headaches.

Women with migraine with aura and tension-type headache saw higher rates of small-for-gestational-age infants (25.9% and 10.4% of births, respectively) compared with 5.5% for women without headache. Women presenting with tension-type headache saw elevated risk for small-for-gestational-age infants (odds ratio [OR] 4.19, P = .004) as did women with migraine with aura (OR 5.37, P = .02).

Admission to neonatal intensive care was significantly higher in all the headache groups. However, the authors found no statistically significant associations between headaches and any other perinatal outcome investigated in the study, including gestational diabetes, placental abruption, gestational hypertension, and preterm delivery.

A previous study conducted by the same research group had reported a relationship between migraine and gestational hypertension. The authors cited the small sample size of the migraine groups in the current study, “the diverse features of the population,” and the popularity of low-dose aspirin administration as potentially affecting that outcome.
 

Interpret findings with caution

Asked by this news organization to comment on the research, two headache neurologists praised Dr. Neri and colleagues’ research for focusing on an understudied topic – but also said that the results would not change their practice unless replicated in larger studies.

Elizabeth W. Loder, MD, MPH, chief emeritus of the division of headache at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, urged caution in interpreting the findings, particularly with regard to tension-type headache. “This study adds to information suggesting that pregnancy complications probably are higher in women who have migraine with aura, and there’s biological plausibility for that,” Dr. Loder said. “Having aura means you may have some vascular abnormalities and things that logically might be associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational age infants.” But the small size of the migraine-with-aura group in this study – 27 women – and the fact that other perinatal outcomes measured in the study did not reach significance, allows for the possibility that the small-for-gestational-age findings were due to chance, Dr. Loder noted.

With tension-type headache, a biological rationale for small-for-gestational-age risk is more elusive, Dr. Loder said. “I would want to see that association replicated in another study before I thought that I needed to warn women with tension-type headache about this potential outcome. There’s lot of uncertainty here about the magnitude of the risk.”

While Dr. Neri and colleagues described the instruments used in their study to diagnose migraine and migraine with aura, they did not explain how tension-type headache was diagnosed. 

Tension-type headache, while common, is still not well characterized, Dr. Loder noted, and may represent a heterogeneous condition or the milder end of a biological continuum that includes migraine with aura. Also, the group in the study had a higher prevalence of smoking, and though the authors made statistical adjustments for smoking status, “smokers are systematically different than people who aren’t in other ways that could be associated with these outcomes,” Dr. Loder said.

While the authors of the study suggested that interventions might be indicated for women with tension-type headache in pregnancy, “showing an association doesn’t necessarily mean that intervening would make a difference” on pregnancy outcomes, Dr. Loder said.

Amaal J. Starling, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., said in an interview that she, too, appreciated that this study looked at pregnancy outcomes in the setting of headache disorders. “Unfortunately even though headache disorders and especially migraine affect women so much, we still know very little about migraine in pregnancy,” she said.

Dr. Starling noted that many women with migraine are discouraged by their health care providers from becoming pregnant, because of the false belief that migraine cannot be managed in pregnancy. In her own practice, she said, she treats many patients with severe headache who become pregnant and who require pharmacological intervention during pregnancy.

This does not mean she regards headache in pregnancy as innocent. “I want patients to be on high alert for changes in headache symptoms in pregnancy. If someone has worsening of headache or migraine or aura in the setting of pregnancy, we consider that a red flag,” potentially indicating complications such as high blood pressure, gestational hypertension, or a blood clot.

Like Dr. Loder, Dr. Starling said she was not surprised by Dr. Neri and colleagues’ finding that migraine with aura might impact pregnancy outcomes. “We know that migraine with aura has a lot of vascular abnormalities that underlie the pathogenesis,” she said.

Dr. Starling found the findings related to tension-type headache less convincing, not least because the diagnostic criteria for tension-type headache was not made clear in the study. “I view this as an exploratory study that says maybe there’s a signal here. A larger epidemiological study would need to be done to confirm or refute this data,” Dr. Starling said. Until the findings can be replicated, “this study would not affect my clinical practice in any way.”

Dr. Neri and colleagues described no outside funding for their research or financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Starling has received consulting fees from pharmaceutical manufacturers but reported no disclosures relevant to the study discussed. Dr. Loder reported no financial conflicts of interest.

Pregnant women who experience migraine with aura – and also the far more common tension-type headache – are at increased risk for giving birth to small-for-gestational-age babies, according to results from an observational study.

Migraine during pregnancy has been associated in previous studies with hypertensive pregnancy complications including preeclampsia; however, little is known about other headache types and their effects on pregnancy and birth outcomes.

For their research, published online July 20 in Cephalalgia, Isabella Neri, MD, PhD, and colleagues at Hospital Policlinico of Modena, Italy, looked at headache status for 515 consecutive pregnant women evaluated during their first trimester and followed through childbirth. 

Altogether 224 women, or 43.5% of the cohort, were diagnosed with migraine without aura (n = 72), migraine with aura (n = 27), or tension-type headache (n = 125). The authors did not report on the severity or frequency of headaches.

Women with migraine with aura and tension-type headache saw higher rates of small-for-gestational-age infants (25.9% and 10.4% of births, respectively) compared with 5.5% for women without headache. Women presenting with tension-type headache saw elevated risk for small-for-gestational-age infants (odds ratio [OR] 4.19, P = .004) as did women with migraine with aura (OR 5.37, P = .02).

Admission to neonatal intensive care was significantly higher in all the headache groups. However, the authors found no statistically significant associations between headaches and any other perinatal outcome investigated in the study, including gestational diabetes, placental abruption, gestational hypertension, and preterm delivery.

A previous study conducted by the same research group had reported a relationship between migraine and gestational hypertension. The authors cited the small sample size of the migraine groups in the current study, “the diverse features of the population,” and the popularity of low-dose aspirin administration as potentially affecting that outcome.
 

Interpret findings with caution

Asked by this news organization to comment on the research, two headache neurologists praised Dr. Neri and colleagues’ research for focusing on an understudied topic – but also said that the results would not change their practice unless replicated in larger studies.

Elizabeth W. Loder, MD, MPH, chief emeritus of the division of headache at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, urged caution in interpreting the findings, particularly with regard to tension-type headache. “This study adds to information suggesting that pregnancy complications probably are higher in women who have migraine with aura, and there’s biological plausibility for that,” Dr. Loder said. “Having aura means you may have some vascular abnormalities and things that logically might be associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational age infants.” But the small size of the migraine-with-aura group in this study – 27 women – and the fact that other perinatal outcomes measured in the study did not reach significance, allows for the possibility that the small-for-gestational-age findings were due to chance, Dr. Loder noted.

With tension-type headache, a biological rationale for small-for-gestational-age risk is more elusive, Dr. Loder said. “I would want to see that association replicated in another study before I thought that I needed to warn women with tension-type headache about this potential outcome. There’s lot of uncertainty here about the magnitude of the risk.”

While Dr. Neri and colleagues described the instruments used in their study to diagnose migraine and migraine with aura, they did not explain how tension-type headache was diagnosed. 

Tension-type headache, while common, is still not well characterized, Dr. Loder noted, and may represent a heterogeneous condition or the milder end of a biological continuum that includes migraine with aura. Also, the group in the study had a higher prevalence of smoking, and though the authors made statistical adjustments for smoking status, “smokers are systematically different than people who aren’t in other ways that could be associated with these outcomes,” Dr. Loder said.

While the authors of the study suggested that interventions might be indicated for women with tension-type headache in pregnancy, “showing an association doesn’t necessarily mean that intervening would make a difference” on pregnancy outcomes, Dr. Loder said.

Amaal J. Starling, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., said in an interview that she, too, appreciated that this study looked at pregnancy outcomes in the setting of headache disorders. “Unfortunately even though headache disorders and especially migraine affect women so much, we still know very little about migraine in pregnancy,” she said.

Dr. Starling noted that many women with migraine are discouraged by their health care providers from becoming pregnant, because of the false belief that migraine cannot be managed in pregnancy. In her own practice, she said, she treats many patients with severe headache who become pregnant and who require pharmacological intervention during pregnancy.

This does not mean she regards headache in pregnancy as innocent. “I want patients to be on high alert for changes in headache symptoms in pregnancy. If someone has worsening of headache or migraine or aura in the setting of pregnancy, we consider that a red flag,” potentially indicating complications such as high blood pressure, gestational hypertension, or a blood clot.

Like Dr. Loder, Dr. Starling said she was not surprised by Dr. Neri and colleagues’ finding that migraine with aura might impact pregnancy outcomes. “We know that migraine with aura has a lot of vascular abnormalities that underlie the pathogenesis,” she said.

Dr. Starling found the findings related to tension-type headache less convincing, not least because the diagnostic criteria for tension-type headache was not made clear in the study. “I view this as an exploratory study that says maybe there’s a signal here. A larger epidemiological study would need to be done to confirm or refute this data,” Dr. Starling said. Until the findings can be replicated, “this study would not affect my clinical practice in any way.”

Dr. Neri and colleagues described no outside funding for their research or financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Starling has received consulting fees from pharmaceutical manufacturers but reported no disclosures relevant to the study discussed. Dr. Loder reported no financial conflicts of interest.

Pregnant women who experience migraine with aura – and also the far more common tension-type headache – are at increased risk for giving birth to small-for-gestational-age babies, according to results from an observational study.

Migraine during pregnancy has been associated in previous studies with hypertensive pregnancy complications including preeclampsia; however, little is known about other headache types and their effects on pregnancy and birth outcomes.

For their research, published online July 20 in Cephalalgia, Isabella Neri, MD, PhD, and colleagues at Hospital Policlinico of Modena, Italy, looked at headache status for 515 consecutive pregnant women evaluated during their first trimester and followed through childbirth. 

Altogether 224 women, or 43.5% of the cohort, were diagnosed with migraine without aura (n = 72), migraine with aura (n = 27), or tension-type headache (n = 125). The authors did not report on the severity or frequency of headaches.

Women with migraine with aura and tension-type headache saw higher rates of small-for-gestational-age infants (25.9% and 10.4% of births, respectively) compared with 5.5% for women without headache. Women presenting with tension-type headache saw elevated risk for small-for-gestational-age infants (odds ratio [OR] 4.19, P = .004) as did women with migraine with aura (OR 5.37, P = .02).

Admission to neonatal intensive care was significantly higher in all the headache groups. However, the authors found no statistically significant associations between headaches and any other perinatal outcome investigated in the study, including gestational diabetes, placental abruption, gestational hypertension, and preterm delivery.

A previous study conducted by the same research group had reported a relationship between migraine and gestational hypertension. The authors cited the small sample size of the migraine groups in the current study, “the diverse features of the population,” and the popularity of low-dose aspirin administration as potentially affecting that outcome.
 

Interpret findings with caution

Asked by this news organization to comment on the research, two headache neurologists praised Dr. Neri and colleagues’ research for focusing on an understudied topic – but also said that the results would not change their practice unless replicated in larger studies.

Elizabeth W. Loder, MD, MPH, chief emeritus of the division of headache at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, urged caution in interpreting the findings, particularly with regard to tension-type headache. “This study adds to information suggesting that pregnancy complications probably are higher in women who have migraine with aura, and there’s biological plausibility for that,” Dr. Loder said. “Having aura means you may have some vascular abnormalities and things that logically might be associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational age infants.” But the small size of the migraine-with-aura group in this study – 27 women – and the fact that other perinatal outcomes measured in the study did not reach significance, allows for the possibility that the small-for-gestational-age findings were due to chance, Dr. Loder noted.

With tension-type headache, a biological rationale for small-for-gestational-age risk is more elusive, Dr. Loder said. “I would want to see that association replicated in another study before I thought that I needed to warn women with tension-type headache about this potential outcome. There’s lot of uncertainty here about the magnitude of the risk.”

While Dr. Neri and colleagues described the instruments used in their study to diagnose migraine and migraine with aura, they did not explain how tension-type headache was diagnosed. 

Tension-type headache, while common, is still not well characterized, Dr. Loder noted, and may represent a heterogeneous condition or the milder end of a biological continuum that includes migraine with aura. Also, the group in the study had a higher prevalence of smoking, and though the authors made statistical adjustments for smoking status, “smokers are systematically different than people who aren’t in other ways that could be associated with these outcomes,” Dr. Loder said.

While the authors of the study suggested that interventions might be indicated for women with tension-type headache in pregnancy, “showing an association doesn’t necessarily mean that intervening would make a difference” on pregnancy outcomes, Dr. Loder said.

Amaal J. Starling, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., said in an interview that she, too, appreciated that this study looked at pregnancy outcomes in the setting of headache disorders. “Unfortunately even though headache disorders and especially migraine affect women so much, we still know very little about migraine in pregnancy,” she said.

Dr. Starling noted that many women with migraine are discouraged by their health care providers from becoming pregnant, because of the false belief that migraine cannot be managed in pregnancy. In her own practice, she said, she treats many patients with severe headache who become pregnant and who require pharmacological intervention during pregnancy.

This does not mean she regards headache in pregnancy as innocent. “I want patients to be on high alert for changes in headache symptoms in pregnancy. If someone has worsening of headache or migraine or aura in the setting of pregnancy, we consider that a red flag,” potentially indicating complications such as high blood pressure, gestational hypertension, or a blood clot.

Like Dr. Loder, Dr. Starling said she was not surprised by Dr. Neri and colleagues’ finding that migraine with aura might impact pregnancy outcomes. “We know that migraine with aura has a lot of vascular abnormalities that underlie the pathogenesis,” she said.

Dr. Starling found the findings related to tension-type headache less convincing, not least because the diagnostic criteria for tension-type headache was not made clear in the study. “I view this as an exploratory study that says maybe there’s a signal here. A larger epidemiological study would need to be done to confirm or refute this data,” Dr. Starling said. Until the findings can be replicated, “this study would not affect my clinical practice in any way.”

Dr. Neri and colleagues described no outside funding for their research or financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Starling has received consulting fees from pharmaceutical manufacturers but reported no disclosures relevant to the study discussed. Dr. Loder reported no financial conflicts of interest.

The potential of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to become key components in the assessment of individual risk for disease in the clinical setting is inching closer to fruition; however, the technology is plagued by one glaring omission of most existing PRSs – the lack of applicability to those of non-European ancestry.

Polygenic risk scores predict an individual’s risk of disease based on common genetic variants identified in large genomewide association studies (GWASs). They have gained ground in research, as well as in the unregulated realm of the direct-to-consumer market where they are sold as add-ons to DNA ancestry kits such as 23andMe and MyHeritage.com.

While the risk scores show strong validation in estimating risk among people of European descent, their striking caveat is the lack of applicability to other ancestries, particularly African, and their use in practice outside of clinical trials is discouraged in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

Study underscores need for ethnically diverse datasets

In a recent study published in JAMA Network Open, researchers evaluated the use of polygenic risk scores’ models in a clinical setting. Researchers tested 7 PRSs models for breast cancer risk against the medical records data of 39,591 women of European, African, and Latinx ancestry.

The PRSs models – all used only for research purposes – included three models involving European ancestry cohorts, two from Latinx cohorts, and two from women African descent.

After adjusting for factors including age, breast cancer family history, and ancestry, the PRSs from women with European ancestry highly corresponded to breast cancer risk, with a mean odds ratio of 1.46 per standard deviation increase in the score.

PRSs were also generalized relatively well among women of Latinx ancestry with a mean OR of 1.31. The authors noted that association is likely caused by Latinx individuals in the United States having a greater proportion of European ancestry than individuals with African ancestry. Importantly, however, the effect size was lower for women of African ancestry with a highest OR of 1.19 per standard deviation.

In the highest percentiles of breast cancer risk, women of European descent had odds ratio as high as 2.19-2.48, suggesting a statistically significant association with overall breast cancer risk. No statistically significant associations were found among women of Latinx and African-ancestry.

The PRSs models were smaller for women of non-European ancestry and included fewer genetic variants for women of non-European ancestry were notably smaller and hence reflected fewer genetic variants. Of the two risk scores involving African ancestry, the Women’s Health Initiative for Women with African ancestry risk score had just 75 variants, while the African diaspora study (ROOT) had 34 variants, compared with 3,820 and 5,218 in the two largest European ancestry PRSs, the Breast Cancer Association Consortium and the UK Biobank, respectively.

“These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts,” the authors wrote.

First author, Cong Liu, PhD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said that efforts are underway to improve the inclusivity in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics network data set used in this study.

“Until well-developed and validated PRSs for women with non-European ancestry become available, the current PRSs based on cohorts with European ancestry could be adapted for Latinx women, but not women with African ancestry until additional data sets become available in this important and high-risk group,” Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote.

In a commentary published with the study, Payal D. Shah, MD, of the Basser Center for BRCA at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that PRSs are “disproportionately applicable to patients with European ancestry and are insufficiently vetted and developed in other populations. If an instrument exists that has clinical utility in informing effective cancer risk mitigation strategies, then we must strive to ensure that it is available and applicable to all.”

Higher morality among African American women

While American Cancer Society data shows women with African ancestry generally have incidence rates of breast cancer similar to White women, they have significantly higher mortality from the disease in part because of later-stage diagnosis and health care barriers.

Anne Marie McCarthy, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, and Katrina Armstrong, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that African American women “have 42% higher breast cancer mortality than white women, despite having lower disease incidence, and are more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer, which has poorer prognosis than other molecular subtypes.”

Dr. McCarthy and Dr. Armstrong wrote that African American women are chronically underrepresented in breast cancer studies. And as such, it is impossible to know the extent of the prevalence of mutations and risk.

Failing to address the lack of diversity in genomic studies may worsen health disparities for women with African ancestry, Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote. The higher mortality “underscores the urgent need to increase diversity in genomic studies so that future clinical applications of the PRS do not exacerbate existing health disparities. These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts.”
 

Potential PRS benefits underscore need to eliminate bias

The potentially important benefits of PRSs as risk prediction tools used in combination with family history, reproductive history and other factors, should provide strong incentive to push for improvement, Dr. Shah wrote.

For instance, if an individual is estrogen receptor positive and shows elevations in breast cancer risk on a reliable PRS, “this may inform antiestrogen chemoprevention strategies,” she wrote.

A risk score could furthermore influence the age at which breast cancer screening should begin or factor into whether a patient should also receive surveillance breast MRI.

Importantly, PRSs could also add to other risk factors to provide more precise risk estimates and inform management of women with a pathogenic variant in a breast cancer risk predisposition gene, Dr. Shah wrote.

Confluence project

Among the most promising developments in research is the National Cancer Institute’s Confluence Project, a large research resource aiming to include approximately 300,000 breast cancer cases and 300,000 controls of different races/ethnicities, utilizing the confluence of existing GWAS and new genomewide genotyping data.

Having started enrollment in 2018, the project is approaching implementation, said Montserrat García-Closas, MD, MPH, DrPH, deputy director of cancer epidemiology and genetics with the National Cancer Institute.

“We expect genotyping to be completed by the end of 2022 and for the data to be made available to the research community soon after that,” she said.

Among the project’s key objectives are the development of PRSs to be integrated with known risk factors to provide a personalized risk assessment for breast cancer, overall and by ancestral subtype.

“We plan to apply novel methods to derive multiancestry PRS that will account for differences and similarities in genetic architecture across ethnic/racial groups to develop breast cancer PRSs that can be applied in multiethnic/racial populations,” she said.

NCI is working with investigators in Africa, Central and South America, and Asia, and reaching out to non-European organizations such as AORTIC for studies of African populations.

Direct-to-consumer global PRS

In the commercial PRS market, efforts to address diversity shortcomings are also gaining momentum, with Myriad Genetics touting a first-of-its kind “global PRS.”

The PRS, a recalibrated version the company’s riskScore PRS, sold as part of its Myriad myRisk Hereditary Cancer test, will reportedly apply to all ethnicities in estimating an individual’s 5-year and lifetime risk of breast cancer.

A study presented in June at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, describes the development of the model with the use of three large ancestry-specific PRSs based on African American, Asian, and European cohorts, with the system including a total of 149 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, including 93 well established for breast cancer and 56 that are ancestry specific.

In validation of the data in an independent cohort of 62,707 individuals, the global PRS was strongly associated with breast cancer in the full combined validation cohort as well as in all three of the ancestry subcohorts.

However, the effect size among women with African ancestry was still the lowest of all of the groups, with a mean OR of 1.24 per standard deviation, versus the highest rate of mixed ancestry (OR, 1.59).

According to senior author Holly Pederson, MD, director of medical breast services at the Cleveland Clinic, the applicability of the PRS to women with African ancestry is expected to further improve as additional data become available.

“The discriminatory power in women of African descent was significantly improved but still suboptimal,” she said. “The need for more data, particularly in Black women, is challenging not only because there is likely more diversity in the genomic landscape of women of African descent, but also because the barriers created by historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal dynamics result in the paucity of this data.”

“We must be committed to ending bias resulting in health care disparities,” Dr. Pederson said. She noted that the global PRS is nevertheless “still clinically useful in Black women,” and recommended that clinicians be up front with patients on the status of the research challenges.

“As with any clinical shared decision-making conversation between a patient and her provider, it is important for Black women to know that data is limited in the African American population, particularly given the vast genomic diversity of the African continent,” she said. “This model, as models that have gone before it, will improve with additional data, particularly in this population.”

Commercial PRSs may benefit research

While the commercial marketing of PRSs in a direct-to-consumer fashion have raised some concerns, such as how individuals respond to their risk scores, there could be important benefits as well, commented Megan C. Roberts, PhD.

“There may be an opportunity to learn from these companies about how to engage diverse communities in genomic testing,” said Dr. Roberts, an assistant professor and director of implementation science in precision health and society at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Moreover, the data they collect from their customers often can be used for research purposes as well.”

In a recent perspective, Dr. Roberts and colleagues addressed the role of health disparities in PRSs. She’ll be joining international precision public health researchers in October in hosting a free virtual conference at UNC on the topic.

“There is a huge need to improve racial and ethnic diversity in our genomic datasets,” Dr. Roberts said. “Without this, we will not be able to return on the promise of precision medicine and prevention for improving the health of our whole population.”

Dr. Pederson disclosed that she is a consultant for Myriad Genetics.

The potential of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to become key components in the assessment of individual risk for disease in the clinical setting is inching closer to fruition; however, the technology is plagued by one glaring omission of most existing PRSs – the lack of applicability to those of non-European ancestry.

Polygenic risk scores predict an individual’s risk of disease based on common genetic variants identified in large genomewide association studies (GWASs). They have gained ground in research, as well as in the unregulated realm of the direct-to-consumer market where they are sold as add-ons to DNA ancestry kits such as 23andMe and MyHeritage.com.

While the risk scores show strong validation in estimating risk among people of European descent, their striking caveat is the lack of applicability to other ancestries, particularly African, and their use in practice outside of clinical trials is discouraged in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

Study underscores need for ethnically diverse datasets

In a recent study published in JAMA Network Open, researchers evaluated the use of polygenic risk scores’ models in a clinical setting. Researchers tested 7 PRSs models for breast cancer risk against the medical records data of 39,591 women of European, African, and Latinx ancestry.

The PRSs models – all used only for research purposes – included three models involving European ancestry cohorts, two from Latinx cohorts, and two from women African descent.

After adjusting for factors including age, breast cancer family history, and ancestry, the PRSs from women with European ancestry highly corresponded to breast cancer risk, with a mean odds ratio of 1.46 per standard deviation increase in the score.

PRSs were also generalized relatively well among women of Latinx ancestry with a mean OR of 1.31. The authors noted that association is likely caused by Latinx individuals in the United States having a greater proportion of European ancestry than individuals with African ancestry. Importantly, however, the effect size was lower for women of African ancestry with a highest OR of 1.19 per standard deviation.

In the highest percentiles of breast cancer risk, women of European descent had odds ratio as high as 2.19-2.48, suggesting a statistically significant association with overall breast cancer risk. No statistically significant associations were found among women of Latinx and African-ancestry.

The PRSs models were smaller for women of non-European ancestry and included fewer genetic variants for women of non-European ancestry were notably smaller and hence reflected fewer genetic variants. Of the two risk scores involving African ancestry, the Women’s Health Initiative for Women with African ancestry risk score had just 75 variants, while the African diaspora study (ROOT) had 34 variants, compared with 3,820 and 5,218 in the two largest European ancestry PRSs, the Breast Cancer Association Consortium and the UK Biobank, respectively.

“These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts,” the authors wrote.

First author, Cong Liu, PhD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said that efforts are underway to improve the inclusivity in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics network data set used in this study.

“Until well-developed and validated PRSs for women with non-European ancestry become available, the current PRSs based on cohorts with European ancestry could be adapted for Latinx women, but not women with African ancestry until additional data sets become available in this important and high-risk group,” Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote.

In a commentary published with the study, Payal D. Shah, MD, of the Basser Center for BRCA at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that PRSs are “disproportionately applicable to patients with European ancestry and are insufficiently vetted and developed in other populations. If an instrument exists that has clinical utility in informing effective cancer risk mitigation strategies, then we must strive to ensure that it is available and applicable to all.”

Higher morality among African American women

While American Cancer Society data shows women with African ancestry generally have incidence rates of breast cancer similar to White women, they have significantly higher mortality from the disease in part because of later-stage diagnosis and health care barriers.

Anne Marie McCarthy, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, and Katrina Armstrong, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that African American women “have 42% higher breast cancer mortality than white women, despite having lower disease incidence, and are more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer, which has poorer prognosis than other molecular subtypes.”

Dr. McCarthy and Dr. Armstrong wrote that African American women are chronically underrepresented in breast cancer studies. And as such, it is impossible to know the extent of the prevalence of mutations and risk.

Failing to address the lack of diversity in genomic studies may worsen health disparities for women with African ancestry, Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote. The higher mortality “underscores the urgent need to increase diversity in genomic studies so that future clinical applications of the PRS do not exacerbate existing health disparities. These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts.”
 

Potential PRS benefits underscore need to eliminate bias

The potentially important benefits of PRSs as risk prediction tools used in combination with family history, reproductive history and other factors, should provide strong incentive to push for improvement, Dr. Shah wrote.

For instance, if an individual is estrogen receptor positive and shows elevations in breast cancer risk on a reliable PRS, “this may inform antiestrogen chemoprevention strategies,” she wrote.

A risk score could furthermore influence the age at which breast cancer screening should begin or factor into whether a patient should also receive surveillance breast MRI.

Importantly, PRSs could also add to other risk factors to provide more precise risk estimates and inform management of women with a pathogenic variant in a breast cancer risk predisposition gene, Dr. Shah wrote.

Confluence project

Among the most promising developments in research is the National Cancer Institute’s Confluence Project, a large research resource aiming to include approximately 300,000 breast cancer cases and 300,000 controls of different races/ethnicities, utilizing the confluence of existing GWAS and new genomewide genotyping data.

Having started enrollment in 2018, the project is approaching implementation, said Montserrat García-Closas, MD, MPH, DrPH, deputy director of cancer epidemiology and genetics with the National Cancer Institute.

“We expect genotyping to be completed by the end of 2022 and for the data to be made available to the research community soon after that,” she said.

Among the project’s key objectives are the development of PRSs to be integrated with known risk factors to provide a personalized risk assessment for breast cancer, overall and by ancestral subtype.

“We plan to apply novel methods to derive multiancestry PRS that will account for differences and similarities in genetic architecture across ethnic/racial groups to develop breast cancer PRSs that can be applied in multiethnic/racial populations,” she said.

NCI is working with investigators in Africa, Central and South America, and Asia, and reaching out to non-European organizations such as AORTIC for studies of African populations.

Direct-to-consumer global PRS

In the commercial PRS market, efforts to address diversity shortcomings are also gaining momentum, with Myriad Genetics touting a first-of-its kind “global PRS.”

The PRS, a recalibrated version the company’s riskScore PRS, sold as part of its Myriad myRisk Hereditary Cancer test, will reportedly apply to all ethnicities in estimating an individual’s 5-year and lifetime risk of breast cancer.

A study presented in June at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, describes the development of the model with the use of three large ancestry-specific PRSs based on African American, Asian, and European cohorts, with the system including a total of 149 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, including 93 well established for breast cancer and 56 that are ancestry specific.

In validation of the data in an independent cohort of 62,707 individuals, the global PRS was strongly associated with breast cancer in the full combined validation cohort as well as in all three of the ancestry subcohorts.

However, the effect size among women with African ancestry was still the lowest of all of the groups, with a mean OR of 1.24 per standard deviation, versus the highest rate of mixed ancestry (OR, 1.59).

According to senior author Holly Pederson, MD, director of medical breast services at the Cleveland Clinic, the applicability of the PRS to women with African ancestry is expected to further improve as additional data become available.

“The discriminatory power in women of African descent was significantly improved but still suboptimal,” she said. “The need for more data, particularly in Black women, is challenging not only because there is likely more diversity in the genomic landscape of women of African descent, but also because the barriers created by historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal dynamics result in the paucity of this data.”

“We must be committed to ending bias resulting in health care disparities,” Dr. Pederson said. She noted that the global PRS is nevertheless “still clinically useful in Black women,” and recommended that clinicians be up front with patients on the status of the research challenges.

“As with any clinical shared decision-making conversation between a patient and her provider, it is important for Black women to know that data is limited in the African American population, particularly given the vast genomic diversity of the African continent,” she said. “This model, as models that have gone before it, will improve with additional data, particularly in this population.”

Commercial PRSs may benefit research

While the commercial marketing of PRSs in a direct-to-consumer fashion have raised some concerns, such as how individuals respond to their risk scores, there could be important benefits as well, commented Megan C. Roberts, PhD.

“There may be an opportunity to learn from these companies about how to engage diverse communities in genomic testing,” said Dr. Roberts, an assistant professor and director of implementation science in precision health and society at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Moreover, the data they collect from their customers often can be used for research purposes as well.”

In a recent perspective, Dr. Roberts and colleagues addressed the role of health disparities in PRSs. She’ll be joining international precision public health researchers in October in hosting a free virtual conference at UNC on the topic.

“There is a huge need to improve racial and ethnic diversity in our genomic datasets,” Dr. Roberts said. “Without this, we will not be able to return on the promise of precision medicine and prevention for improving the health of our whole population.”

Dr. Pederson disclosed that she is a consultant for Myriad Genetics.

The potential of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to become key components in the assessment of individual risk for disease in the clinical setting is inching closer to fruition; however, the technology is plagued by one glaring omission of most existing PRSs – the lack of applicability to those of non-European ancestry.

Polygenic risk scores predict an individual’s risk of disease based on common genetic variants identified in large genomewide association studies (GWASs). They have gained ground in research, as well as in the unregulated realm of the direct-to-consumer market where they are sold as add-ons to DNA ancestry kits such as 23andMe and MyHeritage.com.

While the risk scores show strong validation in estimating risk among people of European descent, their striking caveat is the lack of applicability to other ancestries, particularly African, and their use in practice outside of clinical trials is discouraged in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

Study underscores need for ethnically diverse datasets

In a recent study published in JAMA Network Open, researchers evaluated the use of polygenic risk scores’ models in a clinical setting. Researchers tested 7 PRSs models for breast cancer risk against the medical records data of 39,591 women of European, African, and Latinx ancestry.

The PRSs models – all used only for research purposes – included three models involving European ancestry cohorts, two from Latinx cohorts, and two from women African descent.

After adjusting for factors including age, breast cancer family history, and ancestry, the PRSs from women with European ancestry highly corresponded to breast cancer risk, with a mean odds ratio of 1.46 per standard deviation increase in the score.

PRSs were also generalized relatively well among women of Latinx ancestry with a mean OR of 1.31. The authors noted that association is likely caused by Latinx individuals in the United States having a greater proportion of European ancestry than individuals with African ancestry. Importantly, however, the effect size was lower for women of African ancestry with a highest OR of 1.19 per standard deviation.

In the highest percentiles of breast cancer risk, women of European descent had odds ratio as high as 2.19-2.48, suggesting a statistically significant association with overall breast cancer risk. No statistically significant associations were found among women of Latinx and African-ancestry.

The PRSs models were smaller for women of non-European ancestry and included fewer genetic variants for women of non-European ancestry were notably smaller and hence reflected fewer genetic variants. Of the two risk scores involving African ancestry, the Women’s Health Initiative for Women with African ancestry risk score had just 75 variants, while the African diaspora study (ROOT) had 34 variants, compared with 3,820 and 5,218 in the two largest European ancestry PRSs, the Breast Cancer Association Consortium and the UK Biobank, respectively.

“These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts,” the authors wrote.

First author, Cong Liu, PhD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said that efforts are underway to improve the inclusivity in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics network data set used in this study.

“Until well-developed and validated PRSs for women with non-European ancestry become available, the current PRSs based on cohorts with European ancestry could be adapted for Latinx women, but not women with African ancestry until additional data sets become available in this important and high-risk group,” Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote.

In a commentary published with the study, Payal D. Shah, MD, of the Basser Center for BRCA at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that PRSs are “disproportionately applicable to patients with European ancestry and are insufficiently vetted and developed in other populations. If an instrument exists that has clinical utility in informing effective cancer risk mitigation strategies, then we must strive to ensure that it is available and applicable to all.”

Higher morality among African American women

While American Cancer Society data shows women with African ancestry generally have incidence rates of breast cancer similar to White women, they have significantly higher mortality from the disease in part because of later-stage diagnosis and health care barriers.

Anne Marie McCarthy, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, and Katrina Armstrong, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that African American women “have 42% higher breast cancer mortality than white women, despite having lower disease incidence, and are more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer, which has poorer prognosis than other molecular subtypes.”

Dr. McCarthy and Dr. Armstrong wrote that African American women are chronically underrepresented in breast cancer studies. And as such, it is impossible to know the extent of the prevalence of mutations and risk.

Failing to address the lack of diversity in genomic studies may worsen health disparities for women with African ancestry, Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote. The higher mortality “underscores the urgent need to increase diversity in genomic studies so that future clinical applications of the PRS do not exacerbate existing health disparities. These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts.”
 

Potential PRS benefits underscore need to eliminate bias

The potentially important benefits of PRSs as risk prediction tools used in combination with family history, reproductive history and other factors, should provide strong incentive to push for improvement, Dr. Shah wrote.

For instance, if an individual is estrogen receptor positive and shows elevations in breast cancer risk on a reliable PRS, “this may inform antiestrogen chemoprevention strategies,” she wrote.

A risk score could furthermore influence the age at which breast cancer screening should begin or factor into whether a patient should also receive surveillance breast MRI.

Importantly, PRSs could also add to other risk factors to provide more precise risk estimates and inform management of women with a pathogenic variant in a breast cancer risk predisposition gene, Dr. Shah wrote.

Confluence project

Among the most promising developments in research is the National Cancer Institute’s Confluence Project, a large research resource aiming to include approximately 300,000 breast cancer cases and 300,000 controls of different races/ethnicities, utilizing the confluence of existing GWAS and new genomewide genotyping data.

Having started enrollment in 2018, the project is approaching implementation, said Montserrat García-Closas, MD, MPH, DrPH, deputy director of cancer epidemiology and genetics with the National Cancer Institute.

“We expect genotyping to be completed by the end of 2022 and for the data to be made available to the research community soon after that,” she said.

Among the project’s key objectives are the development of PRSs to be integrated with known risk factors to provide a personalized risk assessment for breast cancer, overall and by ancestral subtype.

“We plan to apply novel methods to derive multiancestry PRS that will account for differences and similarities in genetic architecture across ethnic/racial groups to develop breast cancer PRSs that can be applied in multiethnic/racial populations,” she said.

NCI is working with investigators in Africa, Central and South America, and Asia, and reaching out to non-European organizations such as AORTIC for studies of African populations.

Direct-to-consumer global PRS

In the commercial PRS market, efforts to address diversity shortcomings are also gaining momentum, with Myriad Genetics touting a first-of-its kind “global PRS.”

The PRS, a recalibrated version the company’s riskScore PRS, sold as part of its Myriad myRisk Hereditary Cancer test, will reportedly apply to all ethnicities in estimating an individual’s 5-year and lifetime risk of breast cancer.

A study presented in June at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, describes the development of the model with the use of three large ancestry-specific PRSs based on African American, Asian, and European cohorts, with the system including a total of 149 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, including 93 well established for breast cancer and 56 that are ancestry specific.

In validation of the data in an independent cohort of 62,707 individuals, the global PRS was strongly associated with breast cancer in the full combined validation cohort as well as in all three of the ancestry subcohorts.

However, the effect size among women with African ancestry was still the lowest of all of the groups, with a mean OR of 1.24 per standard deviation, versus the highest rate of mixed ancestry (OR, 1.59).

According to senior author Holly Pederson, MD, director of medical breast services at the Cleveland Clinic, the applicability of the PRS to women with African ancestry is expected to further improve as additional data become available.

“The discriminatory power in women of African descent was significantly improved but still suboptimal,” she said. “The need for more data, particularly in Black women, is challenging not only because there is likely more diversity in the genomic landscape of women of African descent, but also because the barriers created by historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal dynamics result in the paucity of this data.”

“We must be committed to ending bias resulting in health care disparities,” Dr. Pederson said. She noted that the global PRS is nevertheless “still clinically useful in Black women,” and recommended that clinicians be up front with patients on the status of the research challenges.

“As with any clinical shared decision-making conversation between a patient and her provider, it is important for Black women to know that data is limited in the African American population, particularly given the vast genomic diversity of the African continent,” she said. “This model, as models that have gone before it, will improve with additional data, particularly in this population.”

Commercial PRSs may benefit research

While the commercial marketing of PRSs in a direct-to-consumer fashion have raised some concerns, such as how individuals respond to their risk scores, there could be important benefits as well, commented Megan C. Roberts, PhD.

“There may be an opportunity to learn from these companies about how to engage diverse communities in genomic testing,” said Dr. Roberts, an assistant professor and director of implementation science in precision health and society at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Moreover, the data they collect from their customers often can be used for research purposes as well.”

In a recent perspective, Dr. Roberts and colleagues addressed the role of health disparities in PRSs. She’ll be joining international precision public health researchers in October in hosting a free virtual conference at UNC on the topic.

“There is a huge need to improve racial and ethnic diversity in our genomic datasets,” Dr. Roberts said. “Without this, we will not be able to return on the promise of precision medicine and prevention for improving the health of our whole population.”

Dr. Pederson disclosed that she is a consultant for Myriad Genetics.

As COVID vaccine boosters move closer to reality, most physicians and nurses are ready and willing to get another shot in the arm, according to a new Medscape survey.

Altogether, 93% of physicians and 87% of nurses/advanced practice nurses (APNs) said they wanted to get a booster, although the timing of when they wanted the shots differed somewhat between the two groups surveyed Aug. 4-15.

Among the 732 physicians polled, 50% wanted to get their shot immediately, compared with 38% of the 1,193 nurses/APNs who responded, while 44% of physicians and 50% of nurses/APNs said that they would wait until the vaccine booster was authorized and recommended.

At this point in time, almost all of the health care workers surveyed – 98% of physicians and 94% of nurses/APNs – have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. A small proportion of each group, however, received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine (1% of physicians and 3% of nurses) and are not included in the current plan for booster shots.

The Medscape survey sample did include one group that is already eligible for a third dose: About 20% of physicians and 26% of nurses/ANPs said they have a condition or take a medication that compromises their immune system.

Respondents’ experiences with patient requests for boosters suggest a somewhat lower level of interest. About two-thirds of the health care workers (69% of physicians and 63% of nurses) said that patients frequently or sometimes asked about COVID boosters, compared with 13% (physicians) and 19% (nurses) who said their patients had never asked.
 

Interest lower among general population

In a separate survey conducted by WebMD, 82% of those who have been at least partially vaccinated said they want to get a COVID vaccine booster (14% immediately and 68% after authorization and recommendation). Of the remaining vaccinees, 7% said they do not want to get a booster and 11% were unsure.

The full sample of 592 respondents surveyed Aug. 5-10, however, included 19% who do not plan to get vaccinated and 6% who are planning to be vaccinated but have not yet done so.

The proportion of immunocompromised individuals in the two survey groups was similar, with about 25% of those in the WebMD survey reporting they have a condition or take a medication that compromises their immune system. Those respondents were more than twice as likely to want to get a booster immediately, compared to those with an uncompromised immune system (24% vs. 11%).

The distribution of vaccines received by brand was also comparable between the two groups surveyed. Of health care workers and readers, over half of each group received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (59% vs. 54%), followed by Moderna (38% vs. 40%) and Johnson & Johnson (3% vs. 5%).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As COVID vaccine boosters move closer to reality, most physicians and nurses are ready and willing to get another shot in the arm, according to a new Medscape survey.

Altogether, 93% of physicians and 87% of nurses/advanced practice nurses (APNs) said they wanted to get a booster, although the timing of when they wanted the shots differed somewhat between the two groups surveyed Aug. 4-15.

Among the 732 physicians polled, 50% wanted to get their shot immediately, compared with 38% of the 1,193 nurses/APNs who responded, while 44% of physicians and 50% of nurses/APNs said that they would wait until the vaccine booster was authorized and recommended.

At this point in time, almost all of the health care workers surveyed – 98% of physicians and 94% of nurses/APNs – have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. A small proportion of each group, however, received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine (1% of physicians and 3% of nurses) and are not included in the current plan for booster shots.

The Medscape survey sample did include one group that is already eligible for a third dose: About 20% of physicians and 26% of nurses/ANPs said they have a condition or take a medication that compromises their immune system.

Respondents’ experiences with patient requests for boosters suggest a somewhat lower level of interest. About two-thirds of the health care workers (69% of physicians and 63% of nurses) said that patients frequently or sometimes asked about COVID boosters, compared with 13% (physicians) and 19% (nurses) who said their patients had never asked.
 

Interest lower among general population

In a separate survey conducted by WebMD, 82% of those who have been at least partially vaccinated said they want to get a COVID vaccine booster (14% immediately and 68% after authorization and recommendation). Of the remaining vaccinees, 7% said they do not want to get a booster and 11% were unsure.

The full sample of 592 respondents surveyed Aug. 5-10, however, included 19% who do not plan to get vaccinated and 6% who are planning to be vaccinated but have not yet done so.

The proportion of immunocompromised individuals in the two survey groups was similar, with about 25% of those in the WebMD survey reporting they have a condition or take a medication that compromises their immune system. Those respondents were more than twice as likely to want to get a booster immediately, compared to those with an uncompromised immune system (24% vs. 11%).

The distribution of vaccines received by brand was also comparable between the two groups surveyed. Of health care workers and readers, over half of each group received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (59% vs. 54%), followed by Moderna (38% vs. 40%) and Johnson & Johnson (3% vs. 5%).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As COVID vaccine boosters move closer to reality, most physicians and nurses are ready and willing to get another shot in the arm, according to a new Medscape survey.

Altogether, 93% of physicians and 87% of nurses/advanced practice nurses (APNs) said they wanted to get a booster, although the timing of when they wanted the shots differed somewhat between the two groups surveyed Aug. 4-15.

Among the 732 physicians polled, 50% wanted to get their shot immediately, compared with 38% of the 1,193 nurses/APNs who responded, while 44% of physicians and 50% of nurses/APNs said that they would wait until the vaccine booster was authorized and recommended.

At this point in time, almost all of the health care workers surveyed – 98% of physicians and 94% of nurses/APNs – have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. A small proportion of each group, however, received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine (1% of physicians and 3% of nurses) and are not included in the current plan for booster shots.

The Medscape survey sample did include one group that is already eligible for a third dose: About 20% of physicians and 26% of nurses/ANPs said they have a condition or take a medication that compromises their immune system.

Respondents’ experiences with patient requests for boosters suggest a somewhat lower level of interest. About two-thirds of the health care workers (69% of physicians and 63% of nurses) said that patients frequently or sometimes asked about COVID boosters, compared with 13% (physicians) and 19% (nurses) who said their patients had never asked.
 

Interest lower among general population

In a separate survey conducted by WebMD, 82% of those who have been at least partially vaccinated said they want to get a COVID vaccine booster (14% immediately and 68% after authorization and recommendation). Of the remaining vaccinees, 7% said they do not want to get a booster and 11% were unsure.

The full sample of 592 respondents surveyed Aug. 5-10, however, included 19% who do not plan to get vaccinated and 6% who are planning to be vaccinated but have not yet done so.

The proportion of immunocompromised individuals in the two survey groups was similar, with about 25% of those in the WebMD survey reporting they have a condition or take a medication that compromises their immune system. Those respondents were more than twice as likely to want to get a booster immediately, compared to those with an uncompromised immune system (24% vs. 11%).

The distribution of vaccines received by brand was also comparable between the two groups surveyed. Of health care workers and readers, over half of each group received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (59% vs. 54%), followed by Moderna (38% vs. 40%) and Johnson & Johnson (3% vs. 5%).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Plastic barriers that separate people in stores, restaurants, and classrooms may not be as effective at stopping the spread of COVID-19 as originally thought, according to The New York Times.

Scientists who study air flow, ventilation, and aerosol droplets say the barriers may not help, and in fact, could make the situation worse by blocking normal air flow, the newspaper reported.

Typically, as people interact and breathe in a room, currents and ventilation systems recirculate the air and disperse the exhaled particles. With plastic barriers, however, particles could get trapped in “dead zones” and build up.

“If you have a forest of barriers in a classroom, it’s going to interfere with proper ventilation of that room,” Linsey Marr, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech, told the newspaper.

“Everybody’s aerosols are going to be trapped and stuck there and building up, and they will end up spreading beyond your own desk,” she said.

Several variables factor into the efficacy of plastic barriers, The New York Times reported. Shields may stop big respiratory droplets from coughs and sneezes, for instance, but they may not do much to prevent small aerosol particles from viruses such as COVID-19 from spreading.

“We have shown this effect of blocking larger particles, but also that the smaller aerosols travel over the screen and become mixed in the room air within about 5 minutes,” Catherine Noakes, professor of environment engineering at the University of Leeds, told the newspaper.

“This means if people are interacting for more than a few minutes, they would likely be exposed to the virus regardless of the screen,” she said.

The effectiveness of plastic barriers likely also depends on the location and setup, the newspaper reported. A bus driver with a large barrier, for instance, may be able to avoid inhaling the particles that passengers are exhaling. A bank cashier or store clerk behind a large barrier may also be partly protected.

Even still, scientists say more research is needed. For instance, taller barriers are more likely to be effective. However, a large number of barriers in one room could likely block air flow.

Researchers have recommended that schools and offices focus on ventilation, masks, and vaccines to slow the spread of the coronavirus.

“Air flow in rooms is pretty complicated,” Richard Corsi, dean of engineering at the University of California at Davis, told the newspaper.

“Every room is different in terms of the arrangement of furniture, the height of the walls and ceilings, the vents, where the bookshelves are,” he said. “All of these things have a huge impact on the actual flow and air distribution in a room.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Plastic barriers that separate people in stores, restaurants, and classrooms may not be as effective at stopping the spread of COVID-19 as originally thought, according to The New York Times.

Scientists who study air flow, ventilation, and aerosol droplets say the barriers may not help, and in fact, could make the situation worse by blocking normal air flow, the newspaper reported.

Typically, as people interact and breathe in a room, currents and ventilation systems recirculate the air and disperse the exhaled particles. With plastic barriers, however, particles could get trapped in “dead zones” and build up.

“If you have a forest of barriers in a classroom, it’s going to interfere with proper ventilation of that room,” Linsey Marr, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech, told the newspaper.

“Everybody’s aerosols are going to be trapped and stuck there and building up, and they will end up spreading beyond your own desk,” she said.

Several variables factor into the efficacy of plastic barriers, The New York Times reported. Shields may stop big respiratory droplets from coughs and sneezes, for instance, but they may not do much to prevent small aerosol particles from viruses such as COVID-19 from spreading.

“We have shown this effect of blocking larger particles, but also that the smaller aerosols travel over the screen and become mixed in the room air within about 5 minutes,” Catherine Noakes, professor of environment engineering at the University of Leeds, told the newspaper.

“This means if people are interacting for more than a few minutes, they would likely be exposed to the virus regardless of the screen,” she said.

The effectiveness of plastic barriers likely also depends on the location and setup, the newspaper reported. A bus driver with a large barrier, for instance, may be able to avoid inhaling the particles that passengers are exhaling. A bank cashier or store clerk behind a large barrier may also be partly protected.

Even still, scientists say more research is needed. For instance, taller barriers are more likely to be effective. However, a large number of barriers in one room could likely block air flow.

Researchers have recommended that schools and offices focus on ventilation, masks, and vaccines to slow the spread of the coronavirus.

“Air flow in rooms is pretty complicated,” Richard Corsi, dean of engineering at the University of California at Davis, told the newspaper.

“Every room is different in terms of the arrangement of furniture, the height of the walls and ceilings, the vents, where the bookshelves are,” he said. “All of these things have a huge impact on the actual flow and air distribution in a room.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Plastic barriers that separate people in stores, restaurants, and classrooms may not be as effective at stopping the spread of COVID-19 as originally thought, according to The New York Times.

Scientists who study air flow, ventilation, and aerosol droplets say the barriers may not help, and in fact, could make the situation worse by blocking normal air flow, the newspaper reported.

Typically, as people interact and breathe in a room, currents and ventilation systems recirculate the air and disperse the exhaled particles. With plastic barriers, however, particles could get trapped in “dead zones” and build up.

“If you have a forest of barriers in a classroom, it’s going to interfere with proper ventilation of that room,” Linsey Marr, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech, told the newspaper.

“Everybody’s aerosols are going to be trapped and stuck there and building up, and they will end up spreading beyond your own desk,” she said.

Several variables factor into the efficacy of plastic barriers, The New York Times reported. Shields may stop big respiratory droplets from coughs and sneezes, for instance, but they may not do much to prevent small aerosol particles from viruses such as COVID-19 from spreading.

“We have shown this effect of blocking larger particles, but also that the smaller aerosols travel over the screen and become mixed in the room air within about 5 minutes,” Catherine Noakes, professor of environment engineering at the University of Leeds, told the newspaper.

“This means if people are interacting for more than a few minutes, they would likely be exposed to the virus regardless of the screen,” she said.

The effectiveness of plastic barriers likely also depends on the location and setup, the newspaper reported. A bus driver with a large barrier, for instance, may be able to avoid inhaling the particles that passengers are exhaling. A bank cashier or store clerk behind a large barrier may also be partly protected.

Even still, scientists say more research is needed. For instance, taller barriers are more likely to be effective. However, a large number of barriers in one room could likely block air flow.

Researchers have recommended that schools and offices focus on ventilation, masks, and vaccines to slow the spread of the coronavirus.

“Air flow in rooms is pretty complicated,” Richard Corsi, dean of engineering at the University of California at Davis, told the newspaper.

“Every room is different in terms of the arrangement of furniture, the height of the walls and ceilings, the vents, where the bookshelves are,” he said. “All of these things have a huge impact on the actual flow and air distribution in a room.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Since evidence shows that medication abortion is extremely safe, why is mifepristone so restricted? And should it be? Mifepristone, used with misoprostol for medication abortion for pregnancies up to 10 weeks’ gestation, is highly regulated in the United States. Going back to 2000, when the Food and Drug Administration approved Mifeprex (brand name of mifepristone), its access was restricted under the FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).

REMS is an FDA drug safety program, where certain medications with serious safety concerns are subject to restrictions intended to ensure that the benefits of the medication outweigh its risks. For example, the drug vigabatrin, with a side effect of permanent vision loss, is used to treat epilepsy. The REMS for vigabatrin requires counseling on the risk of vision loss and periodic vision monitoring.

The FDA claims that rare side effects of mifepristone – heavy vaginal bleeding, severe infection, and incomplete abortion – are risks that warrant the REMS, despite the known safety of medication abortion, with less than 1% of patients requiring emergency intervention for heavy vaginal bleeding or infection. The mifepristone REMS requires that the drug is dispensed in a hospital, clinic or medical office by a certified health care provider and not in a pharmacy as is the case with most prescribed medications, and that patients must read and sign the patient agreement form in the physical presence of the dispensing physician and may not receive counseling via telemedicine, for example.

Since FDA approval over 20 years ago, much evidence shows that the REMS is unnecessary and creates a major obstacle to access. Many clinicians cannot meet the REMS requirements. Many women must travel great distances to obtain mifepristone or delay their abortion past the acceptable gestational age for medication abortion.

In spring 2020, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued general guidance recommending use of telemedicine to limit in-person medical visits to reduce risk of exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to ensure access to medication abortion, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit against the FDA to suspend the requirement for in-person mifepristone dispensing. In July 2020, a Maryland District Judge granted a preliminary injunction, preventing the FDA from enforcing the in-person dispensing requirement for the duration of the declared public health emergency, allowing telemedicine medication abortion using mail or delivery service for administration of mifepristone. All other REMS requirements remained in effect.

In January 2021, the FDA appealed, seeking to reinstate the REMS. The U.S. Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, ruled to reimpose the REMS. Following this decision, a large coalition of reproductive rights groups petitioned the Biden administration to suspend the mifepristone in-person requirement during the public health emergency of the pandemic. In April 2021, the FDA announced it would use discretion and cease to enforce the in-person dispensing requirement throughout the remainder of the public health emergency.

We applaud the FDA for doing the right thing, taking the advice of numerous scientific and advocacy groups to expand access to mifepristone by at least temporarily nullifying unnecessary and burdensome restrictions that disproportionately affect people of color; young people; and people who live in rural areas, have lower incomes, and/or who are undocumented. We join the voices of numerous colleagues and organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, our premier women’s health organization, in calling for a permanent end to the mifepristone REMS.

Dr. Dale is an obstetrics and gynecology specialist in Albuquerque, N.M.; Dr. Black is an obstetrics and gynecology specialist in Albuquerque, N.M., who currently practices at the University of New Mexico Children’s Psychiatric Center, Albuquerque; and Dr. Espey is professor and chair of the department of ob.gyn. and family planning, and fellowship director at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

This article was updated 8/24/21.

Since evidence shows that medication abortion is extremely safe, why is mifepristone so restricted? And should it be? Mifepristone, used with misoprostol for medication abortion for pregnancies up to 10 weeks’ gestation, is highly regulated in the United States. Going back to 2000, when the Food and Drug Administration approved Mifeprex (brand name of mifepristone), its access was restricted under the FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).

REMS is an FDA drug safety program, where certain medications with serious safety concerns are subject to restrictions intended to ensure that the benefits of the medication outweigh its risks. For example, the drug vigabatrin, with a side effect of permanent vision loss, is used to treat epilepsy. The REMS for vigabatrin requires counseling on the risk of vision loss and periodic vision monitoring.

The FDA claims that rare side effects of mifepristone – heavy vaginal bleeding, severe infection, and incomplete abortion – are risks that warrant the REMS, despite the known safety of medication abortion, with less than 1% of patients requiring emergency intervention for heavy vaginal bleeding or infection. The mifepristone REMS requires that the drug is dispensed in a hospital, clinic or medical office by a certified health care provider and not in a pharmacy as is the case with most prescribed medications, and that patients must read and sign the patient agreement form in the physical presence of the dispensing physician and may not receive counseling via telemedicine, for example.

Since FDA approval over 20 years ago, much evidence shows that the REMS is unnecessary and creates a major obstacle to access. Many clinicians cannot meet the REMS requirements. Many women must travel great distances to obtain mifepristone or delay their abortion past the acceptable gestational age for medication abortion.

In spring 2020, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued general guidance recommending use of telemedicine to limit in-person medical visits to reduce risk of exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to ensure access to medication abortion, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit against the FDA to suspend the requirement for in-person mifepristone dispensing. In July 2020, a Maryland District Judge granted a preliminary injunction, preventing the FDA from enforcing the in-person dispensing requirement for the duration of the declared public health emergency, allowing telemedicine medication abortion using mail or delivery service for administration of mifepristone. All other REMS requirements remained in effect.

In January 2021, the FDA appealed, seeking to reinstate the REMS. The U.S. Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, ruled to reimpose the REMS. Following this decision, a large coalition of reproductive rights groups petitioned the Biden administration to suspend the mifepristone in-person requirement during the public health emergency of the pandemic. In April 2021, the FDA announced it would use discretion and cease to enforce the in-person dispensing requirement throughout the remainder of the public health emergency.

We applaud the FDA for doing the right thing, taking the advice of numerous scientific and advocacy groups to expand access to mifepristone by at least temporarily nullifying unnecessary and burdensome restrictions that disproportionately affect people of color; young people; and people who live in rural areas, have lower incomes, and/or who are undocumented. We join the voices of numerous colleagues and organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, our premier women’s health organization, in calling for a permanent end to the mifepristone REMS.

Dr. Dale is an obstetrics and gynecology specialist in Albuquerque, N.M.; Dr. Black is an obstetrics and gynecology specialist in Albuquerque, N.M., who currently practices at the University of New Mexico Children’s Psychiatric Center, Albuquerque; and Dr. Espey is professor and chair of the department of ob.gyn. and family planning, and fellowship director at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

This article was updated 8/24/21.

Since evidence shows that medication abortion is extremely safe, why is mifepristone so restricted? And should it be? Mifepristone, used with misoprostol for medication abortion for pregnancies up to 10 weeks’ gestation, is highly regulated in the United States. Going back to 2000, when the Food and Drug Administration approved Mifeprex (brand name of mifepristone), its access was restricted under the FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).

REMS is an FDA drug safety program, where certain medications with serious safety concerns are subject to restrictions intended to ensure that the benefits of the medication outweigh its risks. For example, the drug vigabatrin, with a side effect of permanent vision loss, is used to treat epilepsy. The REMS for vigabatrin requires counseling on the risk of vision loss and periodic vision monitoring.

The FDA claims that rare side effects of mifepristone – heavy vaginal bleeding, severe infection, and incomplete abortion – are risks that warrant the REMS, despite the known safety of medication abortion, with less than 1% of patients requiring emergency intervention for heavy vaginal bleeding or infection. The mifepristone REMS requires that the drug is dispensed in a hospital, clinic or medical office by a certified health care provider and not in a pharmacy as is the case with most prescribed medications, and that patients must read and sign the patient agreement form in the physical presence of the dispensing physician and may not receive counseling via telemedicine, for example.

Since FDA approval over 20 years ago, much evidence shows that the REMS is unnecessary and creates a major obstacle to access. Many clinicians cannot meet the REMS requirements. Many women must travel great distances to obtain mifepristone or delay their abortion past the acceptable gestational age for medication abortion.

In spring 2020, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued general guidance recommending use of telemedicine to limit in-person medical visits to reduce risk of exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to ensure access to medication abortion, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit against the FDA to suspend the requirement for in-person mifepristone dispensing. In July 2020, a Maryland District Judge granted a preliminary injunction, preventing the FDA from enforcing the in-person dispensing requirement for the duration of the declared public health emergency, allowing telemedicine medication abortion using mail or delivery service for administration of mifepristone. All other REMS requirements remained in effect.

In January 2021, the FDA appealed, seeking to reinstate the REMS. The U.S. Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, ruled to reimpose the REMS. Following this decision, a large coalition of reproductive rights groups petitioned the Biden administration to suspend the mifepristone in-person requirement during the public health emergency of the pandemic. In April 2021, the FDA announced it would use discretion and cease to enforce the in-person dispensing requirement throughout the remainder of the public health emergency.

We applaud the FDA for doing the right thing, taking the advice of numerous scientific and advocacy groups to expand access to mifepristone by at least temporarily nullifying unnecessary and burdensome restrictions that disproportionately affect people of color; young people; and people who live in rural areas, have lower incomes, and/or who are undocumented. We join the voices of numerous colleagues and organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, our premier women’s health organization, in calling for a permanent end to the mifepristone REMS.

Dr. Dale is an obstetrics and gynecology specialist in Albuquerque, N.M.; Dr. Black is an obstetrics and gynecology specialist in Albuquerque, N.M., who currently practices at the University of New Mexico Children’s Psychiatric Center, Albuquerque; and Dr. Espey is professor and chair of the department of ob.gyn. and family planning, and fellowship director at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

This article was updated 8/24/21.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted a biological license application, more commonly known as “full approval,” to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

It is the first COVID-19 vaccine to be fully licensed in the United States. It will be marketed under the trade name Comirnaty. 

The approval applies to individuals ages 16 years and older. The vaccine is still available for emergency use for those ages 12-15.

The FDA’s stamp of approval is somewhat anticlimactic, following months of real-world use and millions of doses doled out to the general population. It comes after months of scrutiny by the agency of the clinical trial data.

Still, the approval puts the vaccines on firmer legal footing and is expected to spur a raft of new vaccination requirements by employers, schools, and universities. 

“The FDA approval is the gold standard,” President Joe Biden said from the White House. “Those who have been waiting for full approval should go and get your shot now.”

“It could save your life or the lives of those you love,” he said.

Biden also called on businesses to mandate COVID vaccines for their employees.

Indeed, soon after the approval was announced, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the vaccines would be required for all 1.4 million active duty service members.

Public health advocates have seen full approval as an important tool to increase U.S. vaccination rates and had criticized the FDA for taking so long to grant the license. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was updated on 8/24/21.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted a biological license application, more commonly known as “full approval,” to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

It is the first COVID-19 vaccine to be fully licensed in the United States. It will be marketed under the trade name Comirnaty. 

The approval applies to individuals ages 16 years and older. The vaccine is still available for emergency use for those ages 12-15.

The FDA’s stamp of approval is somewhat anticlimactic, following months of real-world use and millions of doses doled out to the general population. It comes after months of scrutiny by the agency of the clinical trial data.

Still, the approval puts the vaccines on firmer legal footing and is expected to spur a raft of new vaccination requirements by employers, schools, and universities. 

“The FDA approval is the gold standard,” President Joe Biden said from the White House. “Those who have been waiting for full approval should go and get your shot now.”

“It could save your life or the lives of those you love,” he said.

Biden also called on businesses to mandate COVID vaccines for their employees.

Indeed, soon after the approval was announced, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the vaccines would be required for all 1.4 million active duty service members.

Public health advocates have seen full approval as an important tool to increase U.S. vaccination rates and had criticized the FDA for taking so long to grant the license. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was updated on 8/24/21.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted a biological license application, more commonly known as “full approval,” to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

It is the first COVID-19 vaccine to be fully licensed in the United States. It will be marketed under the trade name Comirnaty. 

The approval applies to individuals ages 16 years and older. The vaccine is still available for emergency use for those ages 12-15.

The FDA’s stamp of approval is somewhat anticlimactic, following months of real-world use and millions of doses doled out to the general population. It comes after months of scrutiny by the agency of the clinical trial data.

Still, the approval puts the vaccines on firmer legal footing and is expected to spur a raft of new vaccination requirements by employers, schools, and universities. 

“The FDA approval is the gold standard,” President Joe Biden said from the White House. “Those who have been waiting for full approval should go and get your shot now.”

“It could save your life or the lives of those you love,” he said.

Biden also called on businesses to mandate COVID vaccines for their employees.

Indeed, soon after the approval was announced, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the vaccines would be required for all 1.4 million active duty service members.

Public health advocates have seen full approval as an important tool to increase U.S. vaccination rates and had criticized the FDA for taking so long to grant the license. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was updated on 8/24/21.

A tall, distinguished-looking physician in shirtsleeves and suspenders walked to the microphone at the Mt. Vernon, Ind., school board meeting on a Friday evening in early August. He launched into an impassioned, 7-minute attack on the public health establishment’s medical guidelines for COVID-19.

“The Center for Disease Control and the Indiana State [Department] of Health are giving you very bad scientific guidance,” said Daniel Stock, MD, a primary care physician with a concierge practice in Noblesville, Ind., He described himself as a “functional family medicine physician,” though he is not board certified in family medicine.

Dr. Stock told the school board members that COVID-19 vaccines are counterproductive because they make coronavirus infections worse. He claimed his treatment of “over 15” COVID-19 patients with vitamin D, ivermectin, and zinc has kept them out of the hospital, and that those treatments reduce mortality risk from the disease by 75%. (A study released in mid-August found that ivermectin is ineffective in treating COVID-19).

In response to Dr. Stock’s remarks, the state health department quickly issued a statement reaffirming that COVID-19 vaccines “are highly effective at preventing hospitalizations and deaths.” But by then, the YouTube video of Dr. Stock’s comments had garnered nearly 600,000 views as of Aug. 12 and had been shared over 10,000 times on Facebook. Opponents of COVID-19 vaccines and masking policies across the country have been citing his comments.

Across the country, state medical licensing boards and state and national medical associations are struggling with how to respond to scientifically baseless public statements about COVID-19 by some physicians such as Dr. Stock. They fear such statements are increasing public confusion and are heightening political conflict. Physicians accused of spreading false information include public officials such as Scott Atlas, MD, who served as President Donald Trump’s COVID-19 advisor, and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist, whose YouTube account was temporarily suspended in August after he posted a video disputing the effectiveness of masking in stopping the spread of COVID-19.

“That’s the problem – those types of viral videos of someone somewhere who thinks they know something the rest of us don’t,” lamented Jennifer Bryan, MD, board chair of the Mississippi State Medical Association. “I don’t know any good reason why a physician should be advising against vaccination. It’s appropriate for medical boards to look into those situations.”

The Federation of State Medical Boards agrees. In July, it warned that physicians who willfully spread false information about COVID-19 risk suspension or revocation of their medical license. The federation cited a “dramatic increase in the dissemination of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and disinformation by physicians.” That’s particularly dangerous, it said, because physicians enjoy a high degree of public credibility.

Medical boards will particularly examine cases in which there is a pattern of misinformation or disinformation showing that a physician poses a continuing threat to public health, said Hank Chaudhry, DO, the federation’s CEO. In some cases, he said, boards have contacted physicians and have persuaded them to voluntarily refrain from making false public statements, without taking disciplinary action.

“Words matter,” he said. “Physicians have a really big platform, whether they realize it or not. Misinformation or disinformation in the context of COVID can not only cause harm but also death. We felt it was appropriate to remind physicians to be careful.”

Although medical leaders stress that most physicians are promoting solid science on COVID-19, the London-based Center for Countering Digital Hate, in a May report titled “The Disinformation Dozen,” named four U.S. physicians among 12 people who it said produce 65% of the misleading claims and lies about COVID-19 vaccines that abound on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. The leading spreader of false claims, the group said, is Joseph Mercola, MD, an Illinois-licensed osteopath living in Cape Coral, Fla. He did not respond to requests for comment.

But so far, state licensing boards and federal and state medical associations generally have been reluctant to discipline or publicly call out physicians who have spread misinformation about the causes, treatments, vaccines, and prevention strategies for COVID-19. Some of these physicians, such as Dr. Mercola, have a long history predating the COVID-19 pandemic of disseminating scientifically baseless information, often in connection with their marketing of products and services.

For instance, the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana and the state attorney general’s office, which brings medical disciplinary actions, declined to comment on Dr. Stock’s public statements at the August school board meeting. When asked about Dr. Stock, the Indiana State Medical Association, without mentioning his name, said: “We urge Hoosier physicians to share the proven facts [about public health measures recommended by the CDC and the Indiana Department of Health] with their patients and their communities.” Dr. Stock did not respond to a request for comment.

Experts say state medical boards are ill equipped and are often unwilling to address the challenge of disciplining physicians who disseminate dangerously false medical information. That enforcement gap is particularly troubling in the middle of a deadly pandemic such as this one.

“Unless you can show a harm to an individual patient, it’s pretty tough to get the boards to do much,” said Art Caplan, PhD, a professor of bioethics at New York University. “I wish they would, but they just don’t.”

That’s partly because state laws require the boards to engage in lengthy, confidential investigations and adversarial legal processes before imposing disciplinary actions. The laws generally require patients or members of the public to file a complaint before an investigation can start. Some states, however, do allow their medical boards to take rapid emergency action if a physician poses an immediate threat to patients or the public.

Another hurdle is that medical boards that seek to sanction physicians for making dangerously misleading public statements could face lawsuits alleging that such actions violate the physicians’ constitutional free speech rights or their professional autonomy.

“We have free speech, and you can get away with a lot of stuff,” said Stephen Barrett, MD, who for many years has critically documented examples of medical fraud on his website, Quackwatch. “Some doctors would sue if they were challenged by medical boards, and I’m not sure the boards would win that court fight. People have written books with advice that killed people, and I’m not aware of a single case where the author was disciplined.”

In addition, it’s not clear that U.S. physicians who are not government officials have any legal obligation – as opposed to a moral obligation – to the government or the public to promote public health, said Jonathan Moreno, PhD, a professor of medical ethics at University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “Is transmitting misinformation about COVID-19 public health malpractice?” he asked. “Do we as a society see physicians having a special role as guides in an emergency? I’d like to think we do, but we don’t have a strong tradition like that in the U.S.”

But California State Sen. Richard Pan, MD, a pediatrician who represents the Sacramento area, doesn’t buy the arguments about why medical boards can’t discipline physicians for spreading misinformation. He successfully sponsored a 2019 bill that strengthens the medical board’s ability to discipline physicians who dole out medically unjustified vaccine exemptions to children.

“A medical license is a privilege. It’s an imprimatur from the state that the person is someone who upholds professional standards,” Dr. Pan said. “If someone is intentionally spreading disinformation for personal gain and that’s putting the public at risk, the medical board has a duty to act.”

There have been only a few publicly announced disciplinary actions related to COVID-19 misinformation so far.

Last December, the Oregon Medical Board, on an emergency basis, suspended the license of Steven LaTulippe, MD, of Dallas, Ore. He had publicly announced that he and his staff were not wearing masks in his clinic. In addition, he compared COVID-19 to the common cold and denied the governor’s legal authority to adopt public health protection measures. A recorded message on his office phone said he’s challenging the licensure action in court.

Last January, the Medical Board of California made Thomas Cowan, MD, of San Francisco surrender his license after Dr. Cowan posted a YouTube video, which went viral last year, that claimed that 5G Internet networks cause COVID-19. He did not respond to a request for comment.

In May, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia reprimanded Stephen Malthouse, MD, and forbade him from speaking on issues related to COVID-19. He had written a widely circulated open letter to the province’s chief health office claiming that the pandemic was “over” and that measures to control the spread of COVID-19 were worse than the virus. He has challenged the disciplinary action in court, alleging it violates his right to free speech.

Attacking the problem from a different angle, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission has issued enforcement actions in cases in which physicians and other health care professionals engaged in deceptive business practices related to COVID-19. That approach may be applicable to a number of physicians accused of spreading COVID-19 misinformation, who allegedly have done so at least partly to sell unproven products and services to prevent or treat the disease.

In June, the FTC settled a case against Stephen Meis, MD, of Porterville, Calif. The settlement required that he stop making unsupported claims that his company’s dietary supplements effectively treat COVID-19 symptoms and that he pay $103,420 in refunds to defrauded customers.

State medical boards in the United States generally are not allowed to disclose investigations or disciplinary processes until they finalize a disciplinary action, so other investigations that have not been publicly disclosed may be pending.

A spokesperson for the Medical Board of California said the board is aware of questionable statements about COVID-19 made by several physicians and “will be looking into it.” That comment was in response to a question about statements made at a news conference last year by two Bakersfield emergency physicians, Artin Massihi, MD, and Dan Erickson, DO. They claimed that their COVID-19 testing data showed that the virus is not that dangerous. Dr. Erickson is an osteopath and is regulated by the Osteopathic Medical Board of California.

The two physicians’ news conference prompted an unusual joint statement from the American College of Emergency Medicine and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine in April 2020 declaring that they “emphatically condemn” Dr. Massihi’s and Dr. Erickson’s “reckless and untested musings.” The groups added that it appeared that the physicians issued the comments “to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health.”

Neither Dr. Massihi nor Dr. Erickson responded to a request for comment.

As for the physician dubbed by the Center for Countering Digital Hate as the world’s most influential spreader of COVID-19 misinformation on social media: No recent public complaints have been filed, and no disciplinary action has been taken against Dr. Mercola, according to a spokesman for the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation.

According to court records, Dr. Mercola faced disciplinary complaints from the Illinois board in the early 2000s for allegedly providing false and potentially harmful medical advice on his website. There is no record of any final disciplinary action taken against him.

In widely disseminated online posts, Dr. Mercola has called the COVID-19 pandemic a “scam” and said “forced vaccination” is part of a plan to re-set the global economic system. He called COVID-19 vaccines “a medical fraud,” claiming they “alter your genetic coding.” In February, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordered Dr. Mercola to stop saying on his website that various vitamins and dietary supplements he sells through his website are effective in preventing or treating COVID-19.

The New York Times reported in July that Dr. Mercola’s English-language Facebook page has more than 1.7 million followers, that his Spanish-language page has one million, and that he has 300,000 followers on Twitter and 400,000 on YouTube.

In August, Dr. Mercola announced that he was deleting the large archive of articles he’s written on his website but would continue to post articles every day that would be available on the site for only 48 hours. He explained his decision by saying he’s facing “blatant censorship” as part of a “McCarthyism-like attack” from “the sitting President of the United States.” He encouraged people to read his book, “The Truth about COVID-19.”

The lack of action against Dr. Mercola for his lengthy list of scientifically unfounded statements and marketing claims about COVID-19 and other medical conditions infuriates Quackwatch’s Dr. Barrett. He’s amazed that the Illinois board did not discipline Dr. Mercola despite a number of enforcement actions against him by the FTC and the FDA.

“If a doctor were to say to a patient, ‘Don’t wear a mask and don’t get vaccinated,’ the doctor would be held responsible for a bad outcome,” he said. “But if you say it to millions and as a direct result a dozen people die, shouldn’t the doctor also be held responsible for that misinformation? I think he should lose his license.”

Another of the four physicians cited in the “Disinformation Dozen” report is Sherri Tenpenny, DO, an osteopath licensed in Ohio, who has published posts on social media advocating against masking, testing, and vaccines to prevent COVID-19 infections. A spokesperson for the State Medical Board of Ohio said Dr. Tenpenny’s license expires on Oct. 1, 2021, and that any investigation would be confidential. She added that grounds for disciplinary action include “making a false, fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading statement in relation to the practice of medicine and surgery.” Dr. Tenpenny could not be reached for comment.

A third physician named in the report is Christiane Northrup, MD, an ob.gyn. formerly licensed in Maine, who has published posts advocating unproven cures for COVID-19 and claiming that vaccines increase chronic illness. Dennis Smith, executive director of the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine, said the board received complaints about Dr. Northrup’s posts but can’t act because she withdrew her Maine license in 2015. He added that the Maine board can issue sanctions against physicians who engage in fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation or who post scientifically unfounded statements online.

The fourth physician identified in the “Disinformation Dozen” report is Rashid Buttar, DO, an osteopath practicing in Mooresville, N.C., who has claimed in social media posts that COVID-19 vaccines cause infertility and that COVID-19 tests contain living microorganisms. A spokeswoman for the North Carolina Medical Board said she could not confirm or deny the existence of any investigation of Dr. Buttar, who signed a consent order with the medical board in 2010 following charges of exorbitant fees, worthless tests and treatment, and false diagnoses. Undisclosed conditions were placed on his medical license in 2013. The spokesperson added that the board would investigate any information alleging that a physician spread false information about COVID-19.

Another physician who has caused widespread consternation over scientifically unfounded statements about COVID-19 is Simone Gold, MD, formerly an emergency department physician in Los Angeles. She founded a group called America’s Frontline Doctors, which filed a federal lawsuit in Alabama this spring to block the FDA from issuing an emergency use authorization allowing teenagers to receive COVID-19 vaccinations. She called the vaccines “an experimental biological agent whose harms are well-documented.”

Last summer, Dr. Gold and other physicians in her group held a news conference on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court Building promoting hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment. They declared that masks don’t work and that the virus isn’t deadly, and made other false claims. The news conference was livestreamed by conservative media outlets, was promoted on Twitter by then-President Trump and his family, and was viewed online more than 14 million times.

One of the participating physicians, Stella Immanuel, MD, of Houston, claimed in a video that went viral that she had successfully used hydroxychloroquine for more than 400 patients to cure the disease. In response, the Texas Medical Board, without naming Dr. Immanuel, warned that if it received a complaint about any physician who made a false claim about having a cure for COVID-19, it would investigate and potentially take disciplinary action.

Although no publicly known disciplinary action has been taken against Dr. Gold, she told The Washington Post last January that after participating in that July 2020 news conference, she was fired from her emergency department job at two hospitals and that she hasn’t worked as a physician since. Dr. Gold did not respond to a request for comment.

The outcome in her situation is consistent with the view of NYU’s Dr. Caplan that methods other than medical board discipline – such as action by employers, social media pressure, and reprimands from professional societies –will have to be used to hold physicians accountable for spreading COVID-19 misinformation.

“I’m disappointed to have to say it, but I don’t think medical boards are going to be effective,” he said. “We don’t know how to manage misinformation despite being in a plague. We just don’t.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.