Ob.Gyn. News

Women who used marijuana during pregnancy were at increased risk for adverse neonatal outcomes, based on data from a meta-analysis of nearly 60,000 individuals.

Marijuana misuse remains a top substance use disorder and studies of prenatal use show a prevalence as high as 22% worldwide, wrote Greg J. Marchand, MD, of the Marchand Institute for Minimally Invasive Surgery, Mesa, Ariz., and colleagues.

“The prevalence of marijuana use during pregnancy may continue to increase, given that there is a suggested association between legalized recreational marijuana and increased use in prenatal and postpartum periods,” they wrote. “Remarkably, 34%-60% of individuals who use marijuana keep using it during pregnancy,” and many women cite a belief that marijuana is safe to use while pregnant, they noted.

Cannabinoid receptors are present in the developing fetus by the start of the second trimester, and exposure to exogenous cannabinoids may be associated with changes in the prefrontal cortex, including development and function, the researchers said. However, previous studies of an association between maternal marijuana use and poor neonatal outcomes have been inconsistent, they added.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified 16 interventional and observational studies including 59,138 patients; each study included pregnant women who were exposed to marijuana, compared with those not exposed to marijuana, along with neonatal outcomes. The data selection included studies published until Aug. 16, 2021, and 10 studies were published in 2015 or later.

Overall, the risk for seven adverse neonatal outcomes was significantly increased among women who were exposed to marijuana during pregnancy, compared with those not exposed. The researchers identified increased risk for birth weight less than 2,500 g (relative risk, 2.06; P = .005), small for gestational age (RR, 1.61; P < .001), preterm delivery (RR, 1.28; P < .001), and NICU admission (RR, 1.38; P < .001). In addition, they found significant differences in mean birth weight (mean difference, −112.30 g; P < .001), Apgar score at 1 minute (mean difference, −0.26; P = .002), and infant head circumference (mean difference, −0.34cm; P = .02) between women who used marijuana during pregnancy and those who did not.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the assessment of only cohort studies, which might suffer from bias given their retrospective designs, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, the inability to adjust for tobacco/marijuana coexposure, and the lack of differentiation between levels of use and between different types of marijuana ingestion, they added.

However, the results support an association between marijuana use and adverse neonatal outcomes, and the researchers recommended additional studies of both maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with marijuana exposure. “Given increasing marijuana legalization and use worldwide, raising awareness and educating patients about these adverse outcomes may help to improve neonatal health,” they concluded.

New research prompted new review

The motivation to conduct this analysis at this time was prompted by the publication of several new, high-quality studies on the use of marijuana in pregnancy, according to Dr. Marchand. “It’s been a few years since a full analysis of all of the available data had been done, so we decided it was time to see if the old conclusions still held,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Marchand said he was surprised to see such a clear connection to preterm deliveries and lower birth weights. “When we perform a meta-analysis, we use all of the available data, and some important studies performed as recently as the past few years provided the depth of evidence behind these connections,” he said. “We didn’t have that level of evidence the last time this topic was studied only a few years ago,” he added.

The study is the largest meta-analysis on this topic to date, so the message to clinicians is highly significant, Dr. Marchand said. That message is “that we now have a very high level of evidence to say that smoking marijuana during pregnancy is harmful, and we (physicians especially) can no longer state that we just don’t know,” he said. “This is going to mean that deciding to smoke marijuana during your pregnancy is also deciding to do something that can harm your baby,” he emphasized. “This paper also will force some difficult decisions for mothers who use marijuana to treat medical problems, and there may not be good substitute treatments for some of these conditions, especially chronic pain and anxiety,” Dr. Marchand noted. “This will set up a difficult risk-versus-benefits situation, where these mothers, ideally with the help of their physicians, will have to decide if the risks of stopping marijuana outweigh the possible harm to the unborn baby,” he said.

As for additional research, long-term studies to assess behavioral changes as exposed children grow up would be beneficial, Dr. Marchand said. Such studies “could really help us balance the risk of marijuana exposure in pregnancy, especially if it is being used to treat serious medical conditions,” he noted.

Findings are a call to action

The view among many women that prenatal cannabis use is safe and without consequence “is a false narrative perpetuated by a combination of outdated evidence and recent changes to state-level cannabis policies,” wrote Kara R. Skelton, PhD, of Towson (Md.) University, and Sara E. Benjamin-Neelon, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an accompanying editorial.

The findings from the current study add to the growing evidence that prenatal cannabis use is associated with adverse birth outcomes, they wrote. “Clinician-directed communication about cannabis has been criticized by pregnant women, with recent findings supporting a need for increased cannabis communication by clinicians,” and not only clinicians, but all health professionals who encounter women who are pregnant or attempting pregnancy should not miss the opportunity to communicate the risks of prenatal cannabis use, they emphasized.

The authors highlighted some of the current study’s limitations, including the inability to determine a dose-response association, the reliance on self-reports, and the lack of adjustment for tobacco/marijuana coexposure. However, they noted that the inclusion of recent studies (10 published in 2015 or later) strengthens the results because of the significant increase in the potency of Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, in recent decades.

“We urge clinicians, public health professionals, and policy makers to carefully consider the consequences of in utero cannabis exposure identified by Marchand et al. and partner to ensure prioritization of infant and child health during this time of precipitous cannabis legalization and commercialization,” the authors emphasized. “Without necessary safeguards to protect neonatal health, prenatal cannabis use poses a substantial threat to current and future generations of children,” they wrote.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Women who used marijuana during pregnancy were at increased risk for adverse neonatal outcomes, based on data from a meta-analysis of nearly 60,000 individuals.

Marijuana misuse remains a top substance use disorder and studies of prenatal use show a prevalence as high as 22% worldwide, wrote Greg J. Marchand, MD, of the Marchand Institute for Minimally Invasive Surgery, Mesa, Ariz., and colleagues.

“The prevalence of marijuana use during pregnancy may continue to increase, given that there is a suggested association between legalized recreational marijuana and increased use in prenatal and postpartum periods,” they wrote. “Remarkably, 34%-60% of individuals who use marijuana keep using it during pregnancy,” and many women cite a belief that marijuana is safe to use while pregnant, they noted.

Cannabinoid receptors are present in the developing fetus by the start of the second trimester, and exposure to exogenous cannabinoids may be associated with changes in the prefrontal cortex, including development and function, the researchers said. However, previous studies of an association between maternal marijuana use and poor neonatal outcomes have been inconsistent, they added.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified 16 interventional and observational studies including 59,138 patients; each study included pregnant women who were exposed to marijuana, compared with those not exposed to marijuana, along with neonatal outcomes. The data selection included studies published until Aug. 16, 2021, and 10 studies were published in 2015 or later.

Overall, the risk for seven adverse neonatal outcomes was significantly increased among women who were exposed to marijuana during pregnancy, compared with those not exposed. The researchers identified increased risk for birth weight less than 2,500 g (relative risk, 2.06; P = .005), small for gestational age (RR, 1.61; P < .001), preterm delivery (RR, 1.28; P < .001), and NICU admission (RR, 1.38; P < .001). In addition, they found significant differences in mean birth weight (mean difference, −112.30 g; P < .001), Apgar score at 1 minute (mean difference, −0.26; P = .002), and infant head circumference (mean difference, −0.34cm; P = .02) between women who used marijuana during pregnancy and those who did not.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the assessment of only cohort studies, which might suffer from bias given their retrospective designs, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, the inability to adjust for tobacco/marijuana coexposure, and the lack of differentiation between levels of use and between different types of marijuana ingestion, they added.

However, the results support an association between marijuana use and adverse neonatal outcomes, and the researchers recommended additional studies of both maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with marijuana exposure. “Given increasing marijuana legalization and use worldwide, raising awareness and educating patients about these adverse outcomes may help to improve neonatal health,” they concluded.

New research prompted new review

The motivation to conduct this analysis at this time was prompted by the publication of several new, high-quality studies on the use of marijuana in pregnancy, according to Dr. Marchand. “It’s been a few years since a full analysis of all of the available data had been done, so we decided it was time to see if the old conclusions still held,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Marchand said he was surprised to see such a clear connection to preterm deliveries and lower birth weights. “When we perform a meta-analysis, we use all of the available data, and some important studies performed as recently as the past few years provided the depth of evidence behind these connections,” he said. “We didn’t have that level of evidence the last time this topic was studied only a few years ago,” he added.

The study is the largest meta-analysis on this topic to date, so the message to clinicians is highly significant, Dr. Marchand said. That message is “that we now have a very high level of evidence to say that smoking marijuana during pregnancy is harmful, and we (physicians especially) can no longer state that we just don’t know,” he said. “This is going to mean that deciding to smoke marijuana during your pregnancy is also deciding to do something that can harm your baby,” he emphasized. “This paper also will force some difficult decisions for mothers who use marijuana to treat medical problems, and there may not be good substitute treatments for some of these conditions, especially chronic pain and anxiety,” Dr. Marchand noted. “This will set up a difficult risk-versus-benefits situation, where these mothers, ideally with the help of their physicians, will have to decide if the risks of stopping marijuana outweigh the possible harm to the unborn baby,” he said.

As for additional research, long-term studies to assess behavioral changes as exposed children grow up would be beneficial, Dr. Marchand said. Such studies “could really help us balance the risk of marijuana exposure in pregnancy, especially if it is being used to treat serious medical conditions,” he noted.

Findings are a call to action

The view among many women that prenatal cannabis use is safe and without consequence “is a false narrative perpetuated by a combination of outdated evidence and recent changes to state-level cannabis policies,” wrote Kara R. Skelton, PhD, of Towson (Md.) University, and Sara E. Benjamin-Neelon, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an accompanying editorial.

The findings from the current study add to the growing evidence that prenatal cannabis use is associated with adverse birth outcomes, they wrote. “Clinician-directed communication about cannabis has been criticized by pregnant women, with recent findings supporting a need for increased cannabis communication by clinicians,” and not only clinicians, but all health professionals who encounter women who are pregnant or attempting pregnancy should not miss the opportunity to communicate the risks of prenatal cannabis use, they emphasized.

The authors highlighted some of the current study’s limitations, including the inability to determine a dose-response association, the reliance on self-reports, and the lack of adjustment for tobacco/marijuana coexposure. However, they noted that the inclusion of recent studies (10 published in 2015 or later) strengthens the results because of the significant increase in the potency of Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, in recent decades.

“We urge clinicians, public health professionals, and policy makers to carefully consider the consequences of in utero cannabis exposure identified by Marchand et al. and partner to ensure prioritization of infant and child health during this time of precipitous cannabis legalization and commercialization,” the authors emphasized. “Without necessary safeguards to protect neonatal health, prenatal cannabis use poses a substantial threat to current and future generations of children,” they wrote.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Women who used marijuana during pregnancy were at increased risk for adverse neonatal outcomes, based on data from a meta-analysis of nearly 60,000 individuals.

Marijuana misuse remains a top substance use disorder and studies of prenatal use show a prevalence as high as 22% worldwide, wrote Greg J. Marchand, MD, of the Marchand Institute for Minimally Invasive Surgery, Mesa, Ariz., and colleagues.

“The prevalence of marijuana use during pregnancy may continue to increase, given that there is a suggested association between legalized recreational marijuana and increased use in prenatal and postpartum periods,” they wrote. “Remarkably, 34%-60% of individuals who use marijuana keep using it during pregnancy,” and many women cite a belief that marijuana is safe to use while pregnant, they noted.

Cannabinoid receptors are present in the developing fetus by the start of the second trimester, and exposure to exogenous cannabinoids may be associated with changes in the prefrontal cortex, including development and function, the researchers said. However, previous studies of an association between maternal marijuana use and poor neonatal outcomes have been inconsistent, they added.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified 16 interventional and observational studies including 59,138 patients; each study included pregnant women who were exposed to marijuana, compared with those not exposed to marijuana, along with neonatal outcomes. The data selection included studies published until Aug. 16, 2021, and 10 studies were published in 2015 or later.

Overall, the risk for seven adverse neonatal outcomes was significantly increased among women who were exposed to marijuana during pregnancy, compared with those not exposed. The researchers identified increased risk for birth weight less than 2,500 g (relative risk, 2.06; P = .005), small for gestational age (RR, 1.61; P < .001), preterm delivery (RR, 1.28; P < .001), and NICU admission (RR, 1.38; P < .001). In addition, they found significant differences in mean birth weight (mean difference, −112.30 g; P < .001), Apgar score at 1 minute (mean difference, −0.26; P = .002), and infant head circumference (mean difference, −0.34cm; P = .02) between women who used marijuana during pregnancy and those who did not.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the assessment of only cohort studies, which might suffer from bias given their retrospective designs, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, the inability to adjust for tobacco/marijuana coexposure, and the lack of differentiation between levels of use and between different types of marijuana ingestion, they added.

However, the results support an association between marijuana use and adverse neonatal outcomes, and the researchers recommended additional studies of both maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with marijuana exposure. “Given increasing marijuana legalization and use worldwide, raising awareness and educating patients about these adverse outcomes may help to improve neonatal health,” they concluded.

New research prompted new review

The motivation to conduct this analysis at this time was prompted by the publication of several new, high-quality studies on the use of marijuana in pregnancy, according to Dr. Marchand. “It’s been a few years since a full analysis of all of the available data had been done, so we decided it was time to see if the old conclusions still held,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Marchand said he was surprised to see such a clear connection to preterm deliveries and lower birth weights. “When we perform a meta-analysis, we use all of the available data, and some important studies performed as recently as the past few years provided the depth of evidence behind these connections,” he said. “We didn’t have that level of evidence the last time this topic was studied only a few years ago,” he added.

The study is the largest meta-analysis on this topic to date, so the message to clinicians is highly significant, Dr. Marchand said. That message is “that we now have a very high level of evidence to say that smoking marijuana during pregnancy is harmful, and we (physicians especially) can no longer state that we just don’t know,” he said. “This is going to mean that deciding to smoke marijuana during your pregnancy is also deciding to do something that can harm your baby,” he emphasized. “This paper also will force some difficult decisions for mothers who use marijuana to treat medical problems, and there may not be good substitute treatments for some of these conditions, especially chronic pain and anxiety,” Dr. Marchand noted. “This will set up a difficult risk-versus-benefits situation, where these mothers, ideally with the help of their physicians, will have to decide if the risks of stopping marijuana outweigh the possible harm to the unborn baby,” he said.

As for additional research, long-term studies to assess behavioral changes as exposed children grow up would be beneficial, Dr. Marchand said. Such studies “could really help us balance the risk of marijuana exposure in pregnancy, especially if it is being used to treat serious medical conditions,” he noted.

Findings are a call to action

The view among many women that prenatal cannabis use is safe and without consequence “is a false narrative perpetuated by a combination of outdated evidence and recent changes to state-level cannabis policies,” wrote Kara R. Skelton, PhD, of Towson (Md.) University, and Sara E. Benjamin-Neelon, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an accompanying editorial.

The findings from the current study add to the growing evidence that prenatal cannabis use is associated with adverse birth outcomes, they wrote. “Clinician-directed communication about cannabis has been criticized by pregnant women, with recent findings supporting a need for increased cannabis communication by clinicians,” and not only clinicians, but all health professionals who encounter women who are pregnant or attempting pregnancy should not miss the opportunity to communicate the risks of prenatal cannabis use, they emphasized.

The authors highlighted some of the current study’s limitations, including the inability to determine a dose-response association, the reliance on self-reports, and the lack of adjustment for tobacco/marijuana coexposure. However, they noted that the inclusion of recent studies (10 published in 2015 or later) strengthens the results because of the significant increase in the potency of Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, in recent decades.

“We urge clinicians, public health professionals, and policy makers to carefully consider the consequences of in utero cannabis exposure identified by Marchand et al. and partner to ensure prioritization of infant and child health during this time of precipitous cannabis legalization and commercialization,” the authors emphasized. “Without necessary safeguards to protect neonatal health, prenatal cannabis use poses a substantial threat to current and future generations of children,” they wrote.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Are you tired? Or are you death tired?

When we’re feeling that burnout monster creep in we sometimes say that we’re being worked to death or that we’re dead tired, but what if that feeling could predict when it’s your actual time to go?

In a recent study published in the Journals of Gerontology: Series A, epidemiologists from the University of Pittsburgh were able to associate a level of “physical fatigability” with mortality.

LittleBee80/Thinkstock

The researchers administered the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale to almost 3,000 participants aged ≥ 60 years, who ranked from 0 to 5 on how tired they thought they would be after doing activities like light housework or a leisurely 30-minute walk. After accounting for factors such as preexisting conditions and mental health, the researchers found that people who scored 25 or more points were 2.3 times more likely to die in the next 2.7 years, compared with those who scored under 25.

So what does that tell us about the importance of being continuously active? It’s pretty important.

“Previous research indicates that getting more physical activity can reduce a person’s fatigability. Our study is the first to link more severe physical fatigability to an earlier death,” lead author Nancy W. Glynn, PhD, said in a separate statement. The best way to keep physically active, she suggested, is to set manageable goals and a routine.

A nice walk around the neighborhood during golden hour or a little bit of yoga before breakfast could be a great way to keep the body moving, because you know what they say: Use it or lose it.
 

This work is NFT protected: Do not screenshot

If you’ve been following the nonmedical news, you’ve likely heard the term “NFT” explode in the past few months. Standing for nonfungible token, NFTs are, at least theoretically, a proof of ownership for digital creations that prevents anyone other than the buyer from reselling the artwork. Sounds like a great idea: It protects artists and buyers alike.

Dr. Manuel González Reyes/Pixabay

Much like its cousin cryptocurrency, however, the NFT world is rife with speculation, scams, misunderstanding, and drawings of bored monkeys. It’s the Wild West out there in the digital art universe: One poor unfortunate accidentally sold a $300k NFT image for $3,000, a group of investors spent $3 million buying an NFT for a rare version of Dune believing it gave them the copyright (it did not), and an Indonesian engineering student’s 5-year series of expressionless selfies is now worth a million dollars.

This is a column detailing weird medical news, however, so with our setup complete (though our understanding of NFTs is very much not), we move to France and meet our hero (?), Emmanuel Masmejean, an orthopedic surgeon who apparently wasn’t making enough money in his lucrative medical career.

In a move of apocalyptic madness, he threw ethics out the window, delved into his archive, and found an x-ray of a young woman with a bullet lodged in her arm. The woman was a survivor of the Bataclan mass shooting and bombing in 2015, and don’t you worry, our intrepid entrepreneur made sure to identify her as such when he tried selling the x-ray as an NFT on an online art website for $2,776. Yes, this is very much a violation of doctor-patient confidentiality, and no, that’s not a lot of money to risk your medical career on.

Naturally, the woman was horrified and shocked to learn that the image was being sold, her lawyer told the Guardian. When the doctor called her, he merely attempted to justify his action, rather than apologizing or showing any remorse. Dr. Masmejean is now facing legal action and a disciplinary charge for his attempted entry into the NFT world for publishing the image without permission, and the NFT has been removed from the website. Should have stuck with the bored monkeys.
 

Avatars could be the future

Zoom, FaceTime, and Skype are great when people can’t be together in the same room, state, or country. Not the same as being somewhere in person, but a pretty good replacement during a global pandemic. But what if you had a robot that could be present for you?

mohamed hassan/PxHere

Seven-year-old Joshua Martinangeli of Berlin has a severe lung disease and needs to wear a tube in his neck, so he cannot attend school. A robot avatar, donated to Joshua through a private initiative, sits in his seat in the classroom and is able to interact with the students and teacher, according to Reuters. A light on the avatar blinks when Joshua wants to speak and the children can talk with him too. Joshua and his classmates agree that it’s not the same as him really being there to talk and learn, but it’s a great way to keep him included.

“We are the only district in Berlin that has bought four avatars for its schools. The impetus was COVID-19, but I think this will be the future well beyond the pandemic,” Torsten Kuehne, district education councilor, told Reuters.

So where do we get an avatar to go out and run errands? Can we send it to the office instead of Zooming the next meeting? Or maybe our avatar could go to the gym for us. But how do we get the results to show up on our bodies? C’mon science, figure this out.
 

Futility, thy name is Kiribati

Before we get to the rest of our regularly scheduled hilarity, a brief geography lesson is in order: Kiribati is an island nation – actually 32 atolls and one coral island – in the central Pacific Ocean. Those atolls are spread out across 1.4 million square miles around the intersection of the equator and the International Date Line, so Kiribati is the only country in the world located in all four hemispheres.

U.S. Department of State

Now, back to the news.

Kiribati closed its borders early in the COVID-19 pandemic and recorded only two cases in almost 2 years. Things were going so well that the authorities recently decided to reopen the country to international travelers. Silly authorities.

The first plane was set to arrive on Jan. 14 from Fiji. This being the age of COVID, plans were made and precautions were taken. All 54 passengers quarantined for 2 weeks before the flight and underwent regular testing, the Guardian noted, and “they were only allowed on the flight after returning negative tests.”

You guessed it. Two-thirds of those 54 people tested positive for COVID-19 after landing in Kiribati.

All of the passengers were quarantined, but since then a security guard at the quarantine center has tested positive, as has someone who was not involved in the quarantine. According to NPR, the government said that “there is now an assumption that COVID-19 is now spreading in the community on South Tarawa and Betio.”

Moral of the story? You can’t beat COVID, so never try.

[EDITOR: Is that really the message we want to send to our readers?]

If you can’t beat them, join them.

[EDITOR: Nope. Try again.]

Resistance is futile?

[EDITOR: Sigh. Close enough.]
 

Are you tired? Or are you death tired?

When we’re feeling that burnout monster creep in we sometimes say that we’re being worked to death or that we’re dead tired, but what if that feeling could predict when it’s your actual time to go?

In a recent study published in the Journals of Gerontology: Series A, epidemiologists from the University of Pittsburgh were able to associate a level of “physical fatigability” with mortality.

LittleBee80/Thinkstock

The researchers administered the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale to almost 3,000 participants aged ≥ 60 years, who ranked from 0 to 5 on how tired they thought they would be after doing activities like light housework or a leisurely 30-minute walk. After accounting for factors such as preexisting conditions and mental health, the researchers found that people who scored 25 or more points were 2.3 times more likely to die in the next 2.7 years, compared with those who scored under 25.

So what does that tell us about the importance of being continuously active? It’s pretty important.

“Previous research indicates that getting more physical activity can reduce a person’s fatigability. Our study is the first to link more severe physical fatigability to an earlier death,” lead author Nancy W. Glynn, PhD, said in a separate statement. The best way to keep physically active, she suggested, is to set manageable goals and a routine.

A nice walk around the neighborhood during golden hour or a little bit of yoga before breakfast could be a great way to keep the body moving, because you know what they say: Use it or lose it.
 

This work is NFT protected: Do not screenshot

If you’ve been following the nonmedical news, you’ve likely heard the term “NFT” explode in the past few months. Standing for nonfungible token, NFTs are, at least theoretically, a proof of ownership for digital creations that prevents anyone other than the buyer from reselling the artwork. Sounds like a great idea: It protects artists and buyers alike.

Dr. Manuel González Reyes/Pixabay

Much like its cousin cryptocurrency, however, the NFT world is rife with speculation, scams, misunderstanding, and drawings of bored monkeys. It’s the Wild West out there in the digital art universe: One poor unfortunate accidentally sold a $300k NFT image for $3,000, a group of investors spent $3 million buying an NFT for a rare version of Dune believing it gave them the copyright (it did not), and an Indonesian engineering student’s 5-year series of expressionless selfies is now worth a million dollars.

This is a column detailing weird medical news, however, so with our setup complete (though our understanding of NFTs is very much not), we move to France and meet our hero (?), Emmanuel Masmejean, an orthopedic surgeon who apparently wasn’t making enough money in his lucrative medical career.

In a move of apocalyptic madness, he threw ethics out the window, delved into his archive, and found an x-ray of a young woman with a bullet lodged in her arm. The woman was a survivor of the Bataclan mass shooting and bombing in 2015, and don’t you worry, our intrepid entrepreneur made sure to identify her as such when he tried selling the x-ray as an NFT on an online art website for $2,776. Yes, this is very much a violation of doctor-patient confidentiality, and no, that’s not a lot of money to risk your medical career on.

Naturally, the woman was horrified and shocked to learn that the image was being sold, her lawyer told the Guardian. When the doctor called her, he merely attempted to justify his action, rather than apologizing or showing any remorse. Dr. Masmejean is now facing legal action and a disciplinary charge for his attempted entry into the NFT world for publishing the image without permission, and the NFT has been removed from the website. Should have stuck with the bored monkeys.
 

Avatars could be the future

Zoom, FaceTime, and Skype are great when people can’t be together in the same room, state, or country. Not the same as being somewhere in person, but a pretty good replacement during a global pandemic. But what if you had a robot that could be present for you?

mohamed hassan/PxHere

Seven-year-old Joshua Martinangeli of Berlin has a severe lung disease and needs to wear a tube in his neck, so he cannot attend school. A robot avatar, donated to Joshua through a private initiative, sits in his seat in the classroom and is able to interact with the students and teacher, according to Reuters. A light on the avatar blinks when Joshua wants to speak and the children can talk with him too. Joshua and his classmates agree that it’s not the same as him really being there to talk and learn, but it’s a great way to keep him included.

“We are the only district in Berlin that has bought four avatars for its schools. The impetus was COVID-19, but I think this will be the future well beyond the pandemic,” Torsten Kuehne, district education councilor, told Reuters.

So where do we get an avatar to go out and run errands? Can we send it to the office instead of Zooming the next meeting? Or maybe our avatar could go to the gym for us. But how do we get the results to show up on our bodies? C’mon science, figure this out.
 

Futility, thy name is Kiribati

Before we get to the rest of our regularly scheduled hilarity, a brief geography lesson is in order: Kiribati is an island nation – actually 32 atolls and one coral island – in the central Pacific Ocean. Those atolls are spread out across 1.4 million square miles around the intersection of the equator and the International Date Line, so Kiribati is the only country in the world located in all four hemispheres.

U.S. Department of State

Now, back to the news.

Kiribati closed its borders early in the COVID-19 pandemic and recorded only two cases in almost 2 years. Things were going so well that the authorities recently decided to reopen the country to international travelers. Silly authorities.

The first plane was set to arrive on Jan. 14 from Fiji. This being the age of COVID, plans were made and precautions were taken. All 54 passengers quarantined for 2 weeks before the flight and underwent regular testing, the Guardian noted, and “they were only allowed on the flight after returning negative tests.”

You guessed it. Two-thirds of those 54 people tested positive for COVID-19 after landing in Kiribati.

All of the passengers were quarantined, but since then a security guard at the quarantine center has tested positive, as has someone who was not involved in the quarantine. According to NPR, the government said that “there is now an assumption that COVID-19 is now spreading in the community on South Tarawa and Betio.”

Moral of the story? You can’t beat COVID, so never try.

[EDITOR: Is that really the message we want to send to our readers?]

If you can’t beat them, join them.

[EDITOR: Nope. Try again.]

Resistance is futile?

[EDITOR: Sigh. Close enough.]
 

Are you tired? Or are you death tired?

When we’re feeling that burnout monster creep in we sometimes say that we’re being worked to death or that we’re dead tired, but what if that feeling could predict when it’s your actual time to go?

In a recent study published in the Journals of Gerontology: Series A, epidemiologists from the University of Pittsburgh were able to associate a level of “physical fatigability” with mortality.

LittleBee80/Thinkstock

The researchers administered the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale to almost 3,000 participants aged ≥ 60 years, who ranked from 0 to 5 on how tired they thought they would be after doing activities like light housework or a leisurely 30-minute walk. After accounting for factors such as preexisting conditions and mental health, the researchers found that people who scored 25 or more points were 2.3 times more likely to die in the next 2.7 years, compared with those who scored under 25.

So what does that tell us about the importance of being continuously active? It’s pretty important.

“Previous research indicates that getting more physical activity can reduce a person’s fatigability. Our study is the first to link more severe physical fatigability to an earlier death,” lead author Nancy W. Glynn, PhD, said in a separate statement. The best way to keep physically active, she suggested, is to set manageable goals and a routine.

A nice walk around the neighborhood during golden hour or a little bit of yoga before breakfast could be a great way to keep the body moving, because you know what they say: Use it or lose it.
 

This work is NFT protected: Do not screenshot

If you’ve been following the nonmedical news, you’ve likely heard the term “NFT” explode in the past few months. Standing for nonfungible token, NFTs are, at least theoretically, a proof of ownership for digital creations that prevents anyone other than the buyer from reselling the artwork. Sounds like a great idea: It protects artists and buyers alike.

Dr. Manuel González Reyes/Pixabay

Much like its cousin cryptocurrency, however, the NFT world is rife with speculation, scams, misunderstanding, and drawings of bored monkeys. It’s the Wild West out there in the digital art universe: One poor unfortunate accidentally sold a $300k NFT image for $3,000, a group of investors spent $3 million buying an NFT for a rare version of Dune believing it gave them the copyright (it did not), and an Indonesian engineering student’s 5-year series of expressionless selfies is now worth a million dollars.

This is a column detailing weird medical news, however, so with our setup complete (though our understanding of NFTs is very much not), we move to France and meet our hero (?), Emmanuel Masmejean, an orthopedic surgeon who apparently wasn’t making enough money in his lucrative medical career.

In a move of apocalyptic madness, he threw ethics out the window, delved into his archive, and found an x-ray of a young woman with a bullet lodged in her arm. The woman was a survivor of the Bataclan mass shooting and bombing in 2015, and don’t you worry, our intrepid entrepreneur made sure to identify her as such when he tried selling the x-ray as an NFT on an online art website for $2,776. Yes, this is very much a violation of doctor-patient confidentiality, and no, that’s not a lot of money to risk your medical career on.

Naturally, the woman was horrified and shocked to learn that the image was being sold, her lawyer told the Guardian. When the doctor called her, he merely attempted to justify his action, rather than apologizing or showing any remorse. Dr. Masmejean is now facing legal action and a disciplinary charge for his attempted entry into the NFT world for publishing the image without permission, and the NFT has been removed from the website. Should have stuck with the bored monkeys.
 

Avatars could be the future

Zoom, FaceTime, and Skype are great when people can’t be together in the same room, state, or country. Not the same as being somewhere in person, but a pretty good replacement during a global pandemic. But what if you had a robot that could be present for you?

mohamed hassan/PxHere

Seven-year-old Joshua Martinangeli of Berlin has a severe lung disease and needs to wear a tube in his neck, so he cannot attend school. A robot avatar, donated to Joshua through a private initiative, sits in his seat in the classroom and is able to interact with the students and teacher, according to Reuters. A light on the avatar blinks when Joshua wants to speak and the children can talk with him too. Joshua and his classmates agree that it’s not the same as him really being there to talk and learn, but it’s a great way to keep him included.

“We are the only district in Berlin that has bought four avatars for its schools. The impetus was COVID-19, but I think this will be the future well beyond the pandemic,” Torsten Kuehne, district education councilor, told Reuters.

So where do we get an avatar to go out and run errands? Can we send it to the office instead of Zooming the next meeting? Or maybe our avatar could go to the gym for us. But how do we get the results to show up on our bodies? C’mon science, figure this out.
 

Futility, thy name is Kiribati

Before we get to the rest of our regularly scheduled hilarity, a brief geography lesson is in order: Kiribati is an island nation – actually 32 atolls and one coral island – in the central Pacific Ocean. Those atolls are spread out across 1.4 million square miles around the intersection of the equator and the International Date Line, so Kiribati is the only country in the world located in all four hemispheres.

U.S. Department of State

Now, back to the news.

Kiribati closed its borders early in the COVID-19 pandemic and recorded only two cases in almost 2 years. Things were going so well that the authorities recently decided to reopen the country to international travelers. Silly authorities.

The first plane was set to arrive on Jan. 14 from Fiji. This being the age of COVID, plans were made and precautions were taken. All 54 passengers quarantined for 2 weeks before the flight and underwent regular testing, the Guardian noted, and “they were only allowed on the flight after returning negative tests.”

You guessed it. Two-thirds of those 54 people tested positive for COVID-19 after landing in Kiribati.

All of the passengers were quarantined, but since then a security guard at the quarantine center has tested positive, as has someone who was not involved in the quarantine. According to NPR, the government said that “there is now an assumption that COVID-19 is now spreading in the community on South Tarawa and Betio.”

Moral of the story? You can’t beat COVID, so never try.

[EDITOR: Is that really the message we want to send to our readers?]

If you can’t beat them, join them.

[EDITOR: Nope. Try again.]

Resistance is futile?

[EDITOR: Sigh. Close enough.]
 

A recent poll found 35% of employers plan to implement some sort of COVID-19 vaccine mandate for workers, despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that blocked the Biden administration’s vaccine-or-test rule for big businesses.

But the poll by Gartner Inc. showed no consensus among employers. About 4% of polled executives said they’re dropping their vaccine mandate, 29% are in a wait-and-see position, and 12% are less likely to impose a mandate now, Bloomberg reported.

Executives were divided on how a vaccine mandate would affect absenteeism and employee morale. Almost 40% of polled employers said they thought a mandate would attract workers, but about 25% said it would do the opposite, Bloomberg said.

“What is more attractive -- to have a mandate or not?” Brian Kropp, PhD, Gartner’s chief of human resources research, said in an interview with Bloomberg. “Most are not exactly sure what to do.”

Big companies have reacted differently since the court’s ruling.

Starbucks announced it was dropping its vaccine-or-test rule for the company’s approximately 228,000 employees. General Electric dropped its mandate after the ruling, but Honeywell International Inc. announced it was staying with its vaccination policy, Bloomberg said.

The Supreme Court ruled Jan. 13 against the Biden administration’s mandate for businesses. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration had proposed that every company with more than 100 employees would be required to ensure workers were either vaccinated or tested weekly for COVID-19.

State governments and business groups immediately appealed, and the court ruled 6-3 against the mandate. The Biden administration officially dropped its rule on Wednesday.

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

A recent poll found 35% of employers plan to implement some sort of COVID-19 vaccine mandate for workers, despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that blocked the Biden administration’s vaccine-or-test rule for big businesses.

But the poll by Gartner Inc. showed no consensus among employers. About 4% of polled executives said they’re dropping their vaccine mandate, 29% are in a wait-and-see position, and 12% are less likely to impose a mandate now, Bloomberg reported.

Executives were divided on how a vaccine mandate would affect absenteeism and employee morale. Almost 40% of polled employers said they thought a mandate would attract workers, but about 25% said it would do the opposite, Bloomberg said.

“What is more attractive -- to have a mandate or not?” Brian Kropp, PhD, Gartner’s chief of human resources research, said in an interview with Bloomberg. “Most are not exactly sure what to do.”

Big companies have reacted differently since the court’s ruling.

Starbucks announced it was dropping its vaccine-or-test rule for the company’s approximately 228,000 employees. General Electric dropped its mandate after the ruling, but Honeywell International Inc. announced it was staying with its vaccination policy, Bloomberg said.

The Supreme Court ruled Jan. 13 against the Biden administration’s mandate for businesses. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration had proposed that every company with more than 100 employees would be required to ensure workers were either vaccinated or tested weekly for COVID-19.

State governments and business groups immediately appealed, and the court ruled 6-3 against the mandate. The Biden administration officially dropped its rule on Wednesday.

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

A recent poll found 35% of employers plan to implement some sort of COVID-19 vaccine mandate for workers, despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that blocked the Biden administration’s vaccine-or-test rule for big businesses.

But the poll by Gartner Inc. showed no consensus among employers. About 4% of polled executives said they’re dropping their vaccine mandate, 29% are in a wait-and-see position, and 12% are less likely to impose a mandate now, Bloomberg reported.

Executives were divided on how a vaccine mandate would affect absenteeism and employee morale. Almost 40% of polled employers said they thought a mandate would attract workers, but about 25% said it would do the opposite, Bloomberg said.

“What is more attractive -- to have a mandate or not?” Brian Kropp, PhD, Gartner’s chief of human resources research, said in an interview with Bloomberg. “Most are not exactly sure what to do.”

Big companies have reacted differently since the court’s ruling.

Starbucks announced it was dropping its vaccine-or-test rule for the company’s approximately 228,000 employees. General Electric dropped its mandate after the ruling, but Honeywell International Inc. announced it was staying with its vaccination policy, Bloomberg said.

The Supreme Court ruled Jan. 13 against the Biden administration’s mandate for businesses. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration had proposed that every company with more than 100 employees would be required to ensure workers were either vaccinated or tested weekly for COVID-19.

State governments and business groups immediately appealed, and the court ruled 6-3 against the mandate. The Biden administration officially dropped its rule on Wednesday.

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

Japanese researchers say the Omicron variant survives longer on plastic and skin than other COVID-19 variants, one possible explanation for why Omicron has spread so rapidly around the world.

In a lab experiment, samples of different variants were applied to pieces of plastic and human skin collected from autopsies, researchers from Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine wrote in bioRxiv. A variant “survived” until it could no longer be detected on the surface.

“This study showed that the Omicron variant also has the highest environmental stability among VOCs (variants of concern), which suggests that this high stability might also be one of the factors that have allowed the Omicron variant to replace the Delta variant and spread rapidly,” the researchers wrote.

On plastic, the Omicron variant samples survived an average of 193.5 hours, a little more than 8 days. By comparison, the other survival times on plastic were 56 hours for the original COVID strain, 191.3 hours for Alpha, 156.6 hours for Beta, 59.3 hours for Gamma, and 114 hours for Delta.

On skin samples, the Omicron samples survived an average of 21.1 hours. The other variants had these average survival times on skin: 8.6 hours for the original version, 19.6 hours for Alpha, 19.1 hours for Beta, 11 hours for Gamma, and 16.8 hours for Delta.

The study found that the variants had more resistance to ethanol than the original strain of COVID. That said, all COVID samples were inactivated after being exposed to alcohol-based hand sanitizers for 15 seconds.

“Therefore, it is highly recommended that current infection control (hand hygiene) practices use disinfectants ... as proposed by the World Health Organization,” the researchers said.

The study has not been peer-reviewed.

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

Japanese researchers say the Omicron variant survives longer on plastic and skin than other COVID-19 variants, one possible explanation for why Omicron has spread so rapidly around the world.

In a lab experiment, samples of different variants were applied to pieces of plastic and human skin collected from autopsies, researchers from Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine wrote in bioRxiv. A variant “survived” until it could no longer be detected on the surface.

“This study showed that the Omicron variant also has the highest environmental stability among VOCs (variants of concern), which suggests that this high stability might also be one of the factors that have allowed the Omicron variant to replace the Delta variant and spread rapidly,” the researchers wrote.

On plastic, the Omicron variant samples survived an average of 193.5 hours, a little more than 8 days. By comparison, the other survival times on plastic were 56 hours for the original COVID strain, 191.3 hours for Alpha, 156.6 hours for Beta, 59.3 hours for Gamma, and 114 hours for Delta.

On skin samples, the Omicron samples survived an average of 21.1 hours. The other variants had these average survival times on skin: 8.6 hours for the original version, 19.6 hours for Alpha, 19.1 hours for Beta, 11 hours for Gamma, and 16.8 hours for Delta.

The study found that the variants had more resistance to ethanol than the original strain of COVID. That said, all COVID samples were inactivated after being exposed to alcohol-based hand sanitizers for 15 seconds.

“Therefore, it is highly recommended that current infection control (hand hygiene) practices use disinfectants ... as proposed by the World Health Organization,” the researchers said.

The study has not been peer-reviewed.

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

Japanese researchers say the Omicron variant survives longer on plastic and skin than other COVID-19 variants, one possible explanation for why Omicron has spread so rapidly around the world.

In a lab experiment, samples of different variants were applied to pieces of plastic and human skin collected from autopsies, researchers from Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine wrote in bioRxiv. A variant “survived” until it could no longer be detected on the surface.

“This study showed that the Omicron variant also has the highest environmental stability among VOCs (variants of concern), which suggests that this high stability might also be one of the factors that have allowed the Omicron variant to replace the Delta variant and spread rapidly,” the researchers wrote.

On plastic, the Omicron variant samples survived an average of 193.5 hours, a little more than 8 days. By comparison, the other survival times on plastic were 56 hours for the original COVID strain, 191.3 hours for Alpha, 156.6 hours for Beta, 59.3 hours for Gamma, and 114 hours for Delta.

On skin samples, the Omicron samples survived an average of 21.1 hours. The other variants had these average survival times on skin: 8.6 hours for the original version, 19.6 hours for Alpha, 19.1 hours for Beta, 11 hours for Gamma, and 16.8 hours for Delta.

The study found that the variants had more resistance to ethanol than the original strain of COVID. That said, all COVID samples were inactivated after being exposed to alcohol-based hand sanitizers for 15 seconds.

“Therefore, it is highly recommended that current infection control (hand hygiene) practices use disinfectants ... as proposed by the World Health Organization,” the researchers said.

The study has not been peer-reviewed.

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

The goal of advanced ovarian cancer surgery is to remove all gross disease, or all visible and palpable disease implants. This became the established standard when improved survival was consistently observed among patients who had undergone complete surgical resection. Traditionally, definitions of no gross residual disease have been left in the hands, and eyes, of the surgeon. However, new technology has emerged which affords surgeons the ability to visualize ovarian cancer deposits that are imperceptible to the naked eye. But will this improve upon the poor cure rates for advanced ovarian cancer?

Many are familiar with the traditional definitions of “optimal” (less than 1 cm–sized deposits at any one location) and “suboptimal” (greater than 1 cm–sized deposits remaining) when referring to surgical cytoreduction of ovarian cancer. This nomenclature was introduced to define, categorize, and prognosticate patient groups after surgery. In recent years we have moved away from these descriptive definitions of ovarian cancer resection, borrowing from surgical oncology measures of surgical outcomes where “R0” defines surgical resection with negative margins, “R1” includes resection with positive microscopic margins (negative for tumor intraoperatively, but positive on microscopic pathology), and “R2” refers to macroscopic residual disease remaining.¹

In ovarian cancer, surgeons have adopted the expression R0 to include patients in whom there is no gross visible or palpable residual disease, a special, favorable subgrouping of the previous “optimal” group. R1 is applied to patients with macroscopic, residual disease that fits within the traditional “optimal” cytoreduction classification (<1 cm in any one location). Obviously, these are significant variations to the traditional surgical oncology definitions, but not without supporting data. For example, patients with no gross residual disease (now defined as “R0”) have been observed to have improved survival, compared with patients who are “optimally” debulked but with R1 (<1 cm) residual disease.² Therefore, this new goal of complete surgical resection has replaced the previous standard of “optimal” cytoreduction in which small macroscopic residual disease was acceptable.

Whether or not a surgery is completed with no gross residual disease is a subjective assessment made by the surgeon, and in practice, highly inaccurate. When a posttrial ad hoc analysis of 1,873 patients with advanced ovarian cancer who had been enrolled in a Gynecologic Oncology Group cooperative trial correlated surgeons’ assessments of “optimal” cytoreduction with objective postoperative radiographic findings (performed, on average, less than 1 month postoperatively) they found that postoperative CT scans identified lesions >1 cm in 40% of cases that had been characterized by surgeons as an “optimal” cytoreduction.³ Most commonly, discrepant lesions were identified in the upper abdominal quadrants and retroperitoneal aortic nodal regions. Therefore, surgeons’ subjective assessment of cytoreduction is prone to error, and given how important the completeness of cytoreduction is for clinical outcomes, there is interest in discovering methods to improve upon surgeons’ ability to discriminate volume of disease.

Pafolacianine (Cytalux, On Target Laboratories) is a novel drug that binds a fluorescent molecule to folic acid targeting the folate alpha receptors which are overexpressed on nonmucinous epithelial ovarian cancer cells compared with adjacent nonmalignant tissues.⁴ The drug is intravenously infused preoperatively and then visualized with companion near-infrared imaging devices during surgery to visualize its fluorescent signal where it is bound to ovarian cancer implants. In a phase 2 study of 178 patients with confirmed or suspected ovarian cancer, pafolacianine was able to detect implants of ovarian cancer in 26.9% of cases where the surgeon’s visual inspection was negative.⁵ Of note, the false-positive rate of this drug was not trivial, at 20%. Based on this efficacy data, the drug has been granted FDA approved for use in ovarian cancer surgery to augment the surgeon’s visualization of cancer. However, important questions remain unanswered by these preliminary data.

Will removal of additional microscopic ovarian cancer implants, only seen by pafolacianine, improve the survival of patients with ovarian cancer, and what effect will the addition of this extra surgery have on their surgical morbidity and risk? The use of pafolacianine to augment ovarian cancer debulking surgeries pivots on the premise that ovarian cancer outcomes are determined by surgical “effort” more than the biology of the disease. Otherwise said: The more we surgically remove, the more we cure. But this seems an old-fashioned notion, increasingly challenged by data. It has been shown that, when ovarian cancer debulking surgeries are necessarily more radical because of extensive disease distribution, prognosis is worse, compared with those patients with less extensive disease distribution.⁶ The effect of surgical effort contributes less than that of predetermined patterns of disease presentation. Additionally, genomic traits are different in tumors that are objectively determined to be not amenable to optimal cytoreduction, compared with resectable tumors.⁷ These data suggest that it is the disease, more than the surgeon, that most influences outcomes.

Additionally, the question of whether surgical removal of microscopic disease improves ovarian cancer survival has already been addressed with negative findings. The LION trial randomized 647 women with advanced ovarian cancer to primary cytoreductive surgery either with or without routine lymphadenectomy of clinically negative nodes.⁸ This study found no survival benefit to resecting clinically negative, microscopically positive nodes. In light of these data, it is difficult to imagine that there would be different results with the resection of microscopic peritoneal disease implants identified by pafolacianine.

While pafolacianine promises to move us closer to a true “R0” (negative margins) resection of ovarian cancer, is this even a feasible goal in a disease that is widely metastatic, particularly in the peritoneal cavity? What do “negative margins” mean in the peritoneal cavity? The sensitivity of pafolacianine in detecting microscopic disease is obviously not so high that it can guarantee patients a complete resection of a disseminated disease, and we still do not know what absolute benefit is derived from moving a little bit further on the continuum of surgical resection.

Perhaps augmentation of debulking is not the only, or best, use of pafolacianine for ovarian cancer surgery. Perhaps it might serve a role in diagnostics or staging of the disease rather than for a therapeutic purpose. In the meantime, we await ongoing clinical trials in this space to better inform clinicians what benefits, or harms, they might expect from the addition of this new drug as we continue to define the “optimal” surgical procedure for advanced ovarian cancer.

Dr. Emma Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Hermanek P, Wittekind C. Semin Surg Oncol 1994;10:12-20.

2. Elattar A et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011 Aug 10;2011(8):CD007565.

3. Eskander RN et al. Gynecol Oncol 2018;149:525-30.

4. Randall LM et al. Gynecol Oncol 2019;155:63-8.

5. Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves pafolacianine for identifying malignant ovarian cancer lesions. 2021 Dec 1.

6. Horowitz NS et al. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:937-43.

7. Lee S et al. Cell Rep. 2020;31:107502.

8. Harter P et al. N Engl J Med 2019;380:822-32.

The goal of advanced ovarian cancer surgery is to remove all gross disease, or all visible and palpable disease implants. This became the established standard when improved survival was consistently observed among patients who had undergone complete surgical resection. Traditionally, definitions of no gross residual disease have been left in the hands, and eyes, of the surgeon. However, new technology has emerged which affords surgeons the ability to visualize ovarian cancer deposits that are imperceptible to the naked eye. But will this improve upon the poor cure rates for advanced ovarian cancer?

Many are familiar with the traditional definitions of “optimal” (less than 1 cm–sized deposits at any one location) and “suboptimal” (greater than 1 cm–sized deposits remaining) when referring to surgical cytoreduction of ovarian cancer. This nomenclature was introduced to define, categorize, and prognosticate patient groups after surgery. In recent years we have moved away from these descriptive definitions of ovarian cancer resection, borrowing from surgical oncology measures of surgical outcomes where “R0” defines surgical resection with negative margins, “R1” includes resection with positive microscopic margins (negative for tumor intraoperatively, but positive on microscopic pathology), and “R2” refers to macroscopic residual disease remaining.¹

In ovarian cancer, surgeons have adopted the expression R0 to include patients in whom there is no gross visible or palpable residual disease, a special, favorable subgrouping of the previous “optimal” group. R1 is applied to patients with macroscopic, residual disease that fits within the traditional “optimal” cytoreduction classification (<1 cm in any one location). Obviously, these are significant variations to the traditional surgical oncology definitions, but not without supporting data. For example, patients with no gross residual disease (now defined as “R0”) have been observed to have improved survival, compared with patients who are “optimally” debulked but with R1 (<1 cm) residual disease.² Therefore, this new goal of complete surgical resection has replaced the previous standard of “optimal” cytoreduction in which small macroscopic residual disease was acceptable.

Whether or not a surgery is completed with no gross residual disease is a subjective assessment made by the surgeon, and in practice, highly inaccurate. When a posttrial ad hoc analysis of 1,873 patients with advanced ovarian cancer who had been enrolled in a Gynecologic Oncology Group cooperative trial correlated surgeons’ assessments of “optimal” cytoreduction with objective postoperative radiographic findings (performed, on average, less than 1 month postoperatively) they found that postoperative CT scans identified lesions >1 cm in 40% of cases that had been characterized by surgeons as an “optimal” cytoreduction.³ Most commonly, discrepant lesions were identified in the upper abdominal quadrants and retroperitoneal aortic nodal regions. Therefore, surgeons’ subjective assessment of cytoreduction is prone to error, and given how important the completeness of cytoreduction is for clinical outcomes, there is interest in discovering methods to improve upon surgeons’ ability to discriminate volume of disease.

Pafolacianine (Cytalux, On Target Laboratories) is a novel drug that binds a fluorescent molecule to folic acid targeting the folate alpha receptors which are overexpressed on nonmucinous epithelial ovarian cancer cells compared with adjacent nonmalignant tissues.⁴ The drug is intravenously infused preoperatively and then visualized with companion near-infrared imaging devices during surgery to visualize its fluorescent signal where it is bound to ovarian cancer implants. In a phase 2 study of 178 patients with confirmed or suspected ovarian cancer, pafolacianine was able to detect implants of ovarian cancer in 26.9% of cases where the surgeon’s visual inspection was negative.⁵ Of note, the false-positive rate of this drug was not trivial, at 20%. Based on this efficacy data, the drug has been granted FDA approved for use in ovarian cancer surgery to augment the surgeon’s visualization of cancer. However, important questions remain unanswered by these preliminary data.

Will removal of additional microscopic ovarian cancer implants, only seen by pafolacianine, improve the survival of patients with ovarian cancer, and what effect will the addition of this extra surgery have on their surgical morbidity and risk? The use of pafolacianine to augment ovarian cancer debulking surgeries pivots on the premise that ovarian cancer outcomes are determined by surgical “effort” more than the biology of the disease. Otherwise said: The more we surgically remove, the more we cure. But this seems an old-fashioned notion, increasingly challenged by data. It has been shown that, when ovarian cancer debulking surgeries are necessarily more radical because of extensive disease distribution, prognosis is worse, compared with those patients with less extensive disease distribution.⁶ The effect of surgical effort contributes less than that of predetermined patterns of disease presentation. Additionally, genomic traits are different in tumors that are objectively determined to be not amenable to optimal cytoreduction, compared with resectable tumors.⁷ These data suggest that it is the disease, more than the surgeon, that most influences outcomes.

Additionally, the question of whether surgical removal of microscopic disease improves ovarian cancer survival has already been addressed with negative findings. The LION trial randomized 647 women with advanced ovarian cancer to primary cytoreductive surgery either with or without routine lymphadenectomy of clinically negative nodes.⁸ This study found no survival benefit to resecting clinically negative, microscopically positive nodes. In light of these data, it is difficult to imagine that there would be different results with the resection of microscopic peritoneal disease implants identified by pafolacianine.

While pafolacianine promises to move us closer to a true “R0” (negative margins) resection of ovarian cancer, is this even a feasible goal in a disease that is widely metastatic, particularly in the peritoneal cavity? What do “negative margins” mean in the peritoneal cavity? The sensitivity of pafolacianine in detecting microscopic disease is obviously not so high that it can guarantee patients a complete resection of a disseminated disease, and we still do not know what absolute benefit is derived from moving a little bit further on the continuum of surgical resection.

Perhaps augmentation of debulking is not the only, or best, use of pafolacianine for ovarian cancer surgery. Perhaps it might serve a role in diagnostics or staging of the disease rather than for a therapeutic purpose. In the meantime, we await ongoing clinical trials in this space to better inform clinicians what benefits, or harms, they might expect from the addition of this new drug as we continue to define the “optimal” surgical procedure for advanced ovarian cancer.

Dr. Emma Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Hermanek P, Wittekind C. Semin Surg Oncol 1994;10:12-20.

2. Elattar A et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011 Aug 10;2011(8):CD007565.

3. Eskander RN et al. Gynecol Oncol 2018;149:525-30.

4. Randall LM et al. Gynecol Oncol 2019;155:63-8.

5. Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves pafolacianine for identifying malignant ovarian cancer lesions. 2021 Dec 1.

6. Horowitz NS et al. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:937-43.

7. Lee S et al. Cell Rep. 2020;31:107502.

8. Harter P et al. N Engl J Med 2019;380:822-32.

The goal of advanced ovarian cancer surgery is to remove all gross disease, or all visible and palpable disease implants. This became the established standard when improved survival was consistently observed among patients who had undergone complete surgical resection. Traditionally, definitions of no gross residual disease have been left in the hands, and eyes, of the surgeon. However, new technology has emerged which affords surgeons the ability to visualize ovarian cancer deposits that are imperceptible to the naked eye. But will this improve upon the poor cure rates for advanced ovarian cancer?

Many are familiar with the traditional definitions of “optimal” (less than 1 cm–sized deposits at any one location) and “suboptimal” (greater than 1 cm–sized deposits remaining) when referring to surgical cytoreduction of ovarian cancer. This nomenclature was introduced to define, categorize, and prognosticate patient groups after surgery. In recent years we have moved away from these descriptive definitions of ovarian cancer resection, borrowing from surgical oncology measures of surgical outcomes where “R0” defines surgical resection with negative margins, “R1” includes resection with positive microscopic margins (negative for tumor intraoperatively, but positive on microscopic pathology), and “R2” refers to macroscopic residual disease remaining.¹

In ovarian cancer, surgeons have adopted the expression R0 to include patients in whom there is no gross visible or palpable residual disease, a special, favorable subgrouping of the previous “optimal” group. R1 is applied to patients with macroscopic, residual disease that fits within the traditional “optimal” cytoreduction classification (<1 cm in any one location). Obviously, these are significant variations to the traditional surgical oncology definitions, but not without supporting data. For example, patients with no gross residual disease (now defined as “R0”) have been observed to have improved survival, compared with patients who are “optimally” debulked but with R1 (<1 cm) residual disease.² Therefore, this new goal of complete surgical resection has replaced the previous standard of “optimal” cytoreduction in which small macroscopic residual disease was acceptable.

Whether or not a surgery is completed with no gross residual disease is a subjective assessment made by the surgeon, and in practice, highly inaccurate. When a posttrial ad hoc analysis of 1,873 patients with advanced ovarian cancer who had been enrolled in a Gynecologic Oncology Group cooperative trial correlated surgeons’ assessments of “optimal” cytoreduction with objective postoperative radiographic findings (performed, on average, less than 1 month postoperatively) they found that postoperative CT scans identified lesions >1 cm in 40% of cases that had been characterized by surgeons as an “optimal” cytoreduction.³ Most commonly, discrepant lesions were identified in the upper abdominal quadrants and retroperitoneal aortic nodal regions. Therefore, surgeons’ subjective assessment of cytoreduction is prone to error, and given how important the completeness of cytoreduction is for clinical outcomes, there is interest in discovering methods to improve upon surgeons’ ability to discriminate volume of disease.

Pafolacianine (Cytalux, On Target Laboratories) is a novel drug that binds a fluorescent molecule to folic acid targeting the folate alpha receptors which are overexpressed on nonmucinous epithelial ovarian cancer cells compared with adjacent nonmalignant tissues.⁴ The drug is intravenously infused preoperatively and then visualized with companion near-infrared imaging devices during surgery to visualize its fluorescent signal where it is bound to ovarian cancer implants. In a phase 2 study of 178 patients with confirmed or suspected ovarian cancer, pafolacianine was able to detect implants of ovarian cancer in 26.9% of cases where the surgeon’s visual inspection was negative.⁵ Of note, the false-positive rate of this drug was not trivial, at 20%. Based on this efficacy data, the drug has been granted FDA approved for use in ovarian cancer surgery to augment the surgeon’s visualization of cancer. However, important questions remain unanswered by these preliminary data.

Will removal of additional microscopic ovarian cancer implants, only seen by pafolacianine, improve the survival of patients with ovarian cancer, and what effect will the addition of this extra surgery have on their surgical morbidity and risk? The use of pafolacianine to augment ovarian cancer debulking surgeries pivots on the premise that ovarian cancer outcomes are determined by surgical “effort” more than the biology of the disease. Otherwise said: The more we surgically remove, the more we cure. But this seems an old-fashioned notion, increasingly challenged by data. It has been shown that, when ovarian cancer debulking surgeries are necessarily more radical because of extensive disease distribution, prognosis is worse, compared with those patients with less extensive disease distribution.⁶ The effect of surgical effort contributes less than that of predetermined patterns of disease presentation. Additionally, genomic traits are different in tumors that are objectively determined to be not amenable to optimal cytoreduction, compared with resectable tumors.⁷ These data suggest that it is the disease, more than the surgeon, that most influences outcomes.

Additionally, the question of whether surgical removal of microscopic disease improves ovarian cancer survival has already been addressed with negative findings. The LION trial randomized 647 women with advanced ovarian cancer to primary cytoreductive surgery either with or without routine lymphadenectomy of clinically negative nodes.⁸ This study found no survival benefit to resecting clinically negative, microscopically positive nodes. In light of these data, it is difficult to imagine that there would be different results with the resection of microscopic peritoneal disease implants identified by pafolacianine.

While pafolacianine promises to move us closer to a true “R0” (negative margins) resection of ovarian cancer, is this even a feasible goal in a disease that is widely metastatic, particularly in the peritoneal cavity? What do “negative margins” mean in the peritoneal cavity? The sensitivity of pafolacianine in detecting microscopic disease is obviously not so high that it can guarantee patients a complete resection of a disseminated disease, and we still do not know what absolute benefit is derived from moving a little bit further on the continuum of surgical resection.

Perhaps augmentation of debulking is not the only, or best, use of pafolacianine for ovarian cancer surgery. Perhaps it might serve a role in diagnostics or staging of the disease rather than for a therapeutic purpose. In the meantime, we await ongoing clinical trials in this space to better inform clinicians what benefits, or harms, they might expect from the addition of this new drug as we continue to define the “optimal” surgical procedure for advanced ovarian cancer.

Dr. Emma Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Hermanek P, Wittekind C. Semin Surg Oncol 1994;10:12-20.

2. Elattar A et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011 Aug 10;2011(8):CD007565.

3. Eskander RN et al. Gynecol Oncol 2018;149:525-30.

4. Randall LM et al. Gynecol Oncol 2019;155:63-8.

5. Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves pafolacianine for identifying malignant ovarian cancer lesions. 2021 Dec 1.

6. Horowitz NS et al. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:937-43.

7. Lee S et al. Cell Rep. 2020;31:107502.

8. Harter P et al. N Engl J Med 2019;380:822-32.

Violence against women remains a global dilemma in need of attention. Physical violence in particular, is the most prevalent type of violence across all genders, races, and nationalities.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says more than 43 million women and 38 million men report experiencing psychological aggression by an intimate partner in their lifetime. Meanwhile, 11 million women and 5 million men report enduring sexual or physical violence and intimate partner violence (IPV), and/or stalking by an intimate partner during their lifetimes, according to the CDC.1

COVID pandemic’s influence

Isolation tied to the COVID-19 pandemic has been linked to increased IPV. A study conducted by researchers at the University of California, Davis, suggested that extra stress experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic caused by income loss, and the inability to pay for housing and food exacerbated the prevalence of IPV early during the pandemic.⁶

That study, where researchers collected in surveys of nearly 400 adults in the beginning in April 2020 for 10 weeks, showed that more services and communication are needed so that frontline health care and food bank workers, for example, in addition to social workers, doctors, and therapists, can spot the signs and ask clients questions about potential IPV. They could then link survivors to pertinent assistance and resources.

Furthermore, multiple factors probably have played a pivotal role in increasing the prevalence of IPV during the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, disruption to usual health and social services as well as diminished access to support systems, such as shelters, and charity helplines negatively affected the reporting of domestic violence.

Long before the pandemic, over the past decade, international and national bodies have played a crucial role in terms of improving the awareness and response to domestic violence.^7,8 In addition, several policies have been introduced in countries around the globe emphasizing the need to inquire routinely about domestic violence. Nevertheless, mental health services often fail to adequately address domestic violence in clinical encounters. A systematic review of domestic violence assessment screening performed in a variety of health care settings found that evidence was insufficient to conclude that routine inquiry improved morbidity and mortality among victims of IPV.⁹ So the question becomes: How can we get our patients to tell us about these experiences so we can intervene?
 

Gender differences in perpetuating IPV

Several studies have found that abuse can result in various mental illnesses, such as depression, PTSD, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. Again, men have a disproportionately higher rate of perpetrating IPV, compared with women. This theory has been a source of debate in the academic community for years, but recent research has confirmed that women do perpetuate violence against their partners to some extent.^10,11

Some members of the LGBTQ+ community also report experiencing violence from partners, so as clinicians, we also need to raise our awareness about the existence of violence among same-sex couples. In fact, a team of Italian researchers report more than 50% of gay men and almost 75% of lesbian women reported that they had been psychologically abused by a partner.¹² More research into this area is needed.
 

Our role as health care professionals

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force advises that all clinic visits include regular IPV screening.¹³ But these screenings are all too rare. In fact, a meta-analysis of 19 trials of more than 1,600 participants showed only 9%-40% of doctors routinely test for IPV.¹⁴ That research clearly shows how important it is for all clinicians to execute IPV screening. However, numerous challenges toward screening exist, including personal discomfort, limited time during appointments, insufficient resources, and inadequate training.

One ongoing debate revolves around which clinician should screen for IPV. Should the psychiatrist carry out this role – or perhaps the primary care physician, nurse, or social worker? These issues become even more fraught when clinicians worry about offending the patient – especially if the clinician is a male.¹⁵

The bottom line is that physicians should inquire about intimate partner violence, because research indicates that women are more likely to reveal abuse when prompted. In addition, during physician appointments, they can use the physician-patient therapeutic connection to conduct a domestic violence evaluation, give resources to victims, and provide ongoing care. Patients who exhibit treatment resistance, persistent pain, depression, sleeplessness, and headaches should prompt psychiatrists to conduct additional investigations into the likelihood of intimate partner violence and domestic abuse.

W also should be attentive when counseling patients about domestic violence when suggesting life-changing events such as pregnancy, employment loss, separation, or divorce. Similar to the recommendations of the USPSTF that all women and men should be screened for IPV, it is suggested that physicians be conscious of facilitating a conversation and not being overtly judgmental while observing body cues. Using the statements such as “we have been hearing a lot of violence in our community lately” could be a segue to introduce the subject.

Asking the question of whether you are being hit rather than being abused has allowed more women to open up more about domestic violence. While physicians are aware that most victims might recant and often go back to their abusers, victims need to be counseled that the abuse might intensify and lead to death.

For women who perpetuate IPV and survivors of IPV, safety is the priority. Physicians should provide safety options and be the facilitators. Studies have shown that fewer victims get the referral to the supporting agencies when IPV is indicated, which puts their safety at risk. In women who commit IPV, clinicians should assess the role of the individual in an IPV disclosure. There are various treatment modalities, whether the violence is performed through self-defense, bidirectionally, or because of aggression.

With the advancement of technology, web-based training on how to ask for IPV, documentation, acknowledgment, and structured referral increase physicians’ confidence when faced with an IPV disclosure than none.¹⁶ Treatment modalities should include medication reconciliation and cognitive-behavioral therapy – focusing on emotion regulation.

Using instruments such as the danger assessment tool can help physicians intervene early, reducing the risk of domestic violence and IPV recurrence instead of using clinical assessment alone.¹⁷ Physicians should convey empathy, validate victims, and help, especially when abuse is reported.

Also, it is important to evaluate survivors’ safety. Counseling can help people rebuild their self-esteem. Structured referrals for psychiatric help and support services are needed to help survivors on the long road to recovery.

Training all physicians, regardless of specialty, is essential to improve prompt IPV identification and bring awareness to resources available to survivors when IPV is disclosed. Although we described an association between IPV victims becoming possible perpetrators of IPV, more long-term studies are required to show the various processes that influence IPV perpetration rates, especially by survivors.

We would also like international and national regulatory bodies to increase the awareness of IPV and adequately address IPV with special emphasis on how mental health services should assess, identify, and respond to services for people who are survivors and perpetrators of IPV.

Dr. Kumari, Dr. Otite, Dr. Afzal, Dr. Alcera, and Dr. Doumas are affiliated with Hackensack Meridian Health at Ocean Medical Center, Brick, N.J. They have no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preventing intimate partner violence. 2020 Oct 9.

2. Yu R et al. PLOS Med. 16(12):e1002995. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002995.

3. Oram S et al. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2014 Dec;23(4):361-76.

4. Munro OE and Sellbom M. Pers Ment Health. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1002/pmh.1480.

5. Sahraian A et al. Asian J Psychiatry. 2020 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102062.

6. Nikos-Rose K. “COVID-19 Isolation Linked to Increased Domestic Violence, Researchers Suggest.” 2021 Feb 24. University of California, Davis.

7. World Health Organization. “Responding to intimate partner violence and sexual violence against women.” WHO clinical policy guidelines. 2013.

8. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. “Domestic violence and abuse: Multi-agency working.” PH50. 2014 Feb 26.

9. Feder GS et al. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(1):22-37.

10. Gondolf EW. Violence Against Women. 2014 Dec;20(12)1539-46.

11. Hamberger LK and Larsen SE. J Fam Violence. 2015;30(6):699-717.

12. Rollè L et al. Front Psychol. 21 Aug 2018. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01506.

13. Paterno MT and Draughon JE. J Midwif Women Health. 2016;61(31):370-5.

14. Kalra N et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 May 31;5(5)CD012423.

15. Larsen SE and Hamberger LK. J Fam Viol. 2015;30:1007-30.

16. Kalra N et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb;2017(2):CD012423.

17. Campbell JC et al. J Interpers Violence. 2009;24(4):653-74.

Violence against women remains a global dilemma in need of attention. Physical violence in particular, is the most prevalent type of violence across all genders, races, and nationalities.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says more than 43 million women and 38 million men report experiencing psychological aggression by an intimate partner in their lifetime. Meanwhile, 11 million women and 5 million men report enduring sexual or physical violence and intimate partner violence (IPV), and/or stalking by an intimate partner during their lifetimes, according to the CDC.1

COVID pandemic’s influence

Isolation tied to the COVID-19 pandemic has been linked to increased IPV. A study conducted by researchers at the University of California, Davis, suggested that extra stress experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic caused by income loss, and the inability to pay for housing and food exacerbated the prevalence of IPV early during the pandemic.⁶

That study, where researchers collected in surveys of nearly 400 adults in the beginning in April 2020 for 10 weeks, showed that more services and communication are needed so that frontline health care and food bank workers, for example, in addition to social workers, doctors, and therapists, can spot the signs and ask clients questions about potential IPV. They could then link survivors to pertinent assistance and resources.

Furthermore, multiple factors probably have played a pivotal role in increasing the prevalence of IPV during the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, disruption to usual health and social services as well as diminished access to support systems, such as shelters, and charity helplines negatively affected the reporting of domestic violence.

Long before the pandemic, over the past decade, international and national bodies have played a crucial role in terms of improving the awareness and response to domestic violence.^7,8 In addition, several policies have been introduced in countries around the globe emphasizing the need to inquire routinely about domestic violence. Nevertheless, mental health services often fail to adequately address domestic violence in clinical encounters. A systematic review of domestic violence assessment screening performed in a variety of health care settings found that evidence was insufficient to conclude that routine inquiry improved morbidity and mortality among victims of IPV.⁹ So the question becomes: How can we get our patients to tell us about these experiences so we can intervene?
 

Gender differences in perpetuating IPV

Several studies have found that abuse can result in various mental illnesses, such as depression, PTSD, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. Again, men have a disproportionately higher rate of perpetrating IPV, compared with women. This theory has been a source of debate in the academic community for years, but recent research has confirmed that women do perpetuate violence against their partners to some extent.^10,11

Some members of the LGBTQ+ community also report experiencing violence from partners, so as clinicians, we also need to raise our awareness about the existence of violence among same-sex couples. In fact, a team of Italian researchers report more than 50% of gay men and almost 75% of lesbian women reported that they had been psychologically abused by a partner.¹² More research into this area is needed.
 

Our role as health care professionals

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force advises that all clinic visits include regular IPV screening.¹³ But these screenings are all too rare. In fact, a meta-analysis of 19 trials of more than 1,600 participants showed only 9%-40% of doctors routinely test for IPV.¹⁴ That research clearly shows how important it is for all clinicians to execute IPV screening. However, numerous challenges toward screening exist, including personal discomfort, limited time during appointments, insufficient resources, and inadequate training.

One ongoing debate revolves around which clinician should screen for IPV. Should the psychiatrist carry out this role – or perhaps the primary care physician, nurse, or social worker? These issues become even more fraught when clinicians worry about offending the patient – especially if the clinician is a male.¹⁵

The bottom line is that physicians should inquire about intimate partner violence, because research indicates that women are more likely to reveal abuse when prompted. In addition, during physician appointments, they can use the physician-patient therapeutic connection to conduct a domestic violence evaluation, give resources to victims, and provide ongoing care. Patients who exhibit treatment resistance, persistent pain, depression, sleeplessness, and headaches should prompt psychiatrists to conduct additional investigations into the likelihood of intimate partner violence and domestic abuse.

W also should be attentive when counseling patients about domestic violence when suggesting life-changing events such as pregnancy, employment loss, separation, or divorce. Similar to the recommendations of the USPSTF that all women and men should be screened for IPV, it is suggested that physicians be conscious of facilitating a conversation and not being overtly judgmental while observing body cues. Using the statements such as “we have been hearing a lot of violence in our community lately” could be a segue to introduce the subject.

Asking the question of whether you are being hit rather than being abused has allowed more women to open up more about domestic violence. While physicians are aware that most victims might recant and often go back to their abusers, victims need to be counseled that the abuse might intensify and lead to death.

For women who perpetuate IPV and survivors of IPV, safety is the priority. Physicians should provide safety options and be the facilitators. Studies have shown that fewer victims get the referral to the supporting agencies when IPV is indicated, which puts their safety at risk. In women who commit IPV, clinicians should assess the role of the individual in an IPV disclosure. There are various treatment modalities, whether the violence is performed through self-defense, bidirectionally, or because of aggression.

With the advancement of technology, web-based training on how to ask for IPV, documentation, acknowledgment, and structured referral increase physicians’ confidence when faced with an IPV disclosure than none.¹⁶ Treatment modalities should include medication reconciliation and cognitive-behavioral therapy – focusing on emotion regulation.

Using instruments such as the danger assessment tool can help physicians intervene early, reducing the risk of domestic violence and IPV recurrence instead of using clinical assessment alone.¹⁷ Physicians should convey empathy, validate victims, and help, especially when abuse is reported.

Also, it is important to evaluate survivors’ safety. Counseling can help people rebuild their self-esteem. Structured referrals for psychiatric help and support services are needed to help survivors on the long road to recovery.

Training all physicians, regardless of specialty, is essential to improve prompt IPV identification and bring awareness to resources available to survivors when IPV is disclosed. Although we described an association between IPV victims becoming possible perpetrators of IPV, more long-term studies are required to show the various processes that influence IPV perpetration rates, especially by survivors.

We would also like international and national regulatory bodies to increase the awareness of IPV and adequately address IPV with special emphasis on how mental health services should assess, identify, and respond to services for people who are survivors and perpetrators of IPV.

Dr. Kumari, Dr. Otite, Dr. Afzal, Dr. Alcera, and Dr. Doumas are affiliated with Hackensack Meridian Health at Ocean Medical Center, Brick, N.J. They have no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preventing intimate partner violence. 2020 Oct 9.

2. Yu R et al. PLOS Med. 16(12):e1002995. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002995.

3. Oram S et al. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2014 Dec;23(4):361-76.

4. Munro OE and Sellbom M. Pers Ment Health. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1002/pmh.1480.

5. Sahraian A et al. Asian J Psychiatry. 2020 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102062.

6. Nikos-Rose K. “COVID-19 Isolation Linked to Increased Domestic Violence, Researchers Suggest.” 2021 Feb 24. University of California, Davis.

7. World Health Organization. “Responding to intimate partner violence and sexual violence against women.” WHO clinical policy guidelines. 2013.

8. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. “Domestic violence and abuse: Multi-agency working.” PH50. 2014 Feb 26.

9. Feder GS et al. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(1):22-37.

10. Gondolf EW. Violence Against Women. 2014 Dec;20(12)1539-46.

11. Hamberger LK and Larsen SE. J Fam Violence. 2015;30(6):699-717.

12. Rollè L et al. Front Psychol. 21 Aug 2018. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01506.

13. Paterno MT and Draughon JE. J Midwif Women Health. 2016;61(31):370-5.

14. Kalra N et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 May 31;5(5)CD012423.

15. Larsen SE and Hamberger LK. J Fam Viol. 2015;30:1007-30.

16. Kalra N et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb;2017(2):CD012423.

17. Campbell JC et al. J Interpers Violence. 2009;24(4):653-74.

Violence against women remains a global dilemma in need of attention. Physical violence in particular, is the most prevalent type of violence across all genders, races, and nationalities.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says more than 43 million women and 38 million men report experiencing psychological aggression by an intimate partner in their lifetime. Meanwhile, 11 million women and 5 million men report enduring sexual or physical violence and intimate partner violence (IPV), and/or stalking by an intimate partner during their lifetimes, according to the CDC.1

COVID pandemic’s influence

Isolation tied to the COVID-19 pandemic has been linked to increased IPV. A study conducted by researchers at the University of California, Davis, suggested that extra stress experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic caused by income loss, and the inability to pay for housing and food exacerbated the prevalence of IPV early during the pandemic.⁶

That study, where researchers collected in surveys of nearly 400 adults in the beginning in April 2020 for 10 weeks, showed that more services and communication are needed so that frontline health care and food bank workers, for example, in addition to social workers, doctors, and therapists, can spot the signs and ask clients questions about potential IPV. They could then link survivors to pertinent assistance and resources.

Furthermore, multiple factors probably have played a pivotal role in increasing the prevalence of IPV during the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, disruption to usual health and social services as well as diminished access to support systems, such as shelters, and charity helplines negatively affected the reporting of domestic violence.

Long before the pandemic, over the past decade, international and national bodies have played a crucial role in terms of improving the awareness and response to domestic violence.^7,8 In addition, several policies have been introduced in countries around the globe emphasizing the need to inquire routinely about domestic violence. Nevertheless, mental health services often fail to adequately address domestic violence in clinical encounters. A systematic review of domestic violence assessment screening performed in a variety of health care settings found that evidence was insufficient to conclude that routine inquiry improved morbidity and mortality among victims of IPV.⁹ So the question becomes: How can we get our patients to tell us about these experiences so we can intervene?
 

Gender differences in perpetuating IPV

Several studies have found that abuse can result in various mental illnesses, such as depression, PTSD, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. Again, men have a disproportionately higher rate of perpetrating IPV, compared with women. This theory has been a source of debate in the academic community for years, but recent research has confirmed that women do perpetuate violence against their partners to some extent.^10,11

Some members of the LGBTQ+ community also report experiencing violence from partners, so as clinicians, we also need to raise our awareness about the existence of violence among same-sex couples. In fact, a team of Italian researchers report more than 50% of gay men and almost 75% of lesbian women reported that they had been psychologically abused by a partner.¹² More research into this area is needed.
 

Our role as health care professionals

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force advises that all clinic visits include regular IPV screening.¹³ But these screenings are all too rare. In fact, a meta-analysis of 19 trials of more than 1,600 participants showed only 9%-40% of doctors routinely test for IPV.¹⁴ That research clearly shows how important it is for all clinicians to execute IPV screening. However, numerous challenges toward screening exist, including personal discomfort, limited time during appointments, insufficient resources, and inadequate training.

One ongoing debate revolves around which clinician should screen for IPV. Should the psychiatrist carry out this role – or perhaps the primary care physician, nurse, or social worker? These issues become even more fraught when clinicians worry about offending the patient – especially if the clinician is a male.¹⁵

The bottom line is that physicians should inquire about intimate partner violence, because research indicates that women are more likely to reveal abuse when prompted. In addition, during physician appointments, they can use the physician-patient therapeutic connection to conduct a domestic violence evaluation, give resources to victims, and provide ongoing care. Patients who exhibit treatment resistance, persistent pain, depression, sleeplessness, and headaches should prompt psychiatrists to conduct additional investigations into the likelihood of intimate partner violence and domestic abuse.

W also should be attentive when counseling patients about domestic violence when suggesting life-changing events such as pregnancy, employment loss, separation, or divorce. Similar to the recommendations of the USPSTF that all women and men should be screened for IPV, it is suggested that physicians be conscious of facilitating a conversation and not being overtly judgmental while observing body cues. Using the statements such as “we have been hearing a lot of violence in our community lately” could be a segue to introduce the subject.

Asking the question of whether you are being hit rather than being abused has allowed more women to open up more about domestic violence. While physicians are aware that most victims might recant and often go back to their abusers, victims need to be counseled that the abuse might intensify and lead to death.

For women who perpetuate IPV and survivors of IPV, safety is the priority. Physicians should provide safety options and be the facilitators. Studies have shown that fewer victims get the referral to the supporting agencies when IPV is indicated, which puts their safety at risk. In women who commit IPV, clinicians should assess the role of the individual in an IPV disclosure. There are various treatment modalities, whether the violence is performed through self-defense, bidirectionally, or because of aggression.

With the advancement of technology, web-based training on how to ask for IPV, documentation, acknowledgment, and structured referral increase physicians’ confidence when faced with an IPV disclosure than none.¹⁶ Treatment modalities should include medication reconciliation and cognitive-behavioral therapy – focusing on emotion regulation.

Using instruments such as the danger assessment tool can help physicians intervene early, reducing the risk of domestic violence and IPV recurrence instead of using clinical assessment alone.¹⁷ Physicians should convey empathy, validate victims, and help, especially when abuse is reported.

Also, it is important to evaluate survivors’ safety. Counseling can help people rebuild their self-esteem. Structured referrals for psychiatric help and support services are needed to help survivors on the long road to recovery.

Training all physicians, regardless of specialty, is essential to improve prompt IPV identification and bring awareness to resources available to survivors when IPV is disclosed. Although we described an association between IPV victims becoming possible perpetrators of IPV, more long-term studies are required to show the various processes that influence IPV perpetration rates, especially by survivors.

We would also like international and national regulatory bodies to increase the awareness of IPV and adequately address IPV with special emphasis on how mental health services should assess, identify, and respond to services for people who are survivors and perpetrators of IPV.

Dr. Kumari, Dr. Otite, Dr. Afzal, Dr. Alcera, and Dr. Doumas are affiliated with Hackensack Meridian Health at Ocean Medical Center, Brick, N.J. They have no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preventing intimate partner violence. 2020 Oct 9.

2. Yu R et al. PLOS Med. 16(12):e1002995. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002995.

3. Oram S et al. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2014 Dec;23(4):361-76.

4. Munro OE and Sellbom M. Pers Ment Health. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1002/pmh.1480.

5. Sahraian A et al. Asian J Psychiatry. 2020 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102062.

6. Nikos-Rose K. “COVID-19 Isolation Linked to Increased Domestic Violence, Researchers Suggest.” 2021 Feb 24. University of California, Davis.

7. World Health Organization. “Responding to intimate partner violence and sexual violence against women.” WHO clinical policy guidelines. 2013.

8. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. “Domestic violence and abuse: Multi-agency working.” PH50. 2014 Feb 26.

9. Feder GS et al. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(1):22-37.

10. Gondolf EW. Violence Against Women. 2014 Dec;20(12)1539-46.

11. Hamberger LK and Larsen SE. J Fam Violence. 2015;30(6):699-717.

12. Rollè L et al. Front Psychol. 21 Aug 2018. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01506.

13. Paterno MT and Draughon JE. J Midwif Women Health. 2016;61(31):370-5.

14. Kalra N et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 May 31;5(5)CD012423.

15. Larsen SE and Hamberger LK. J Fam Viol. 2015;30:1007-30.

16. Kalra N et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb;2017(2):CD012423.

17. Campbell JC et al. J Interpers Violence. 2009;24(4):653-74.

Tosha Rogers, MD, is a one-woman HIV prevention evangelist. For nearly a decade now, the Atlanta-based ob/gyn has been on a mission to increase her gynecological colleagues’ awareness and prescribing of the oral HIV prevention pill. At the same time, she’s been tracking the development of a flexible vaginal ring loaded with a month’s worth of the HIV prevention medication dapivirine. That, she thought, would fit easily into women’s lives and into the toolbox of methods women already use to prevent pregnancy.

But now she’s not sure when – or if – the ring will find its way to her patients. In December, the ring’s maker, the International Partnership for Microbicides (IPM), pulled its application for FDA approval for the pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) ring. Now, one year after the World Health Organization recommended the ring for member nations, there appears to be no path forward in the United States for either the dapivirine-only ring or an approach Dr. Rogers said would change the game: a vaginal ring that supplies both contraception and HIV prevention.

“It would take things to a whole other level,” she said. “It sucks that this happened, and I do think it was not anything medical. I think it was everything political.”

That leaves cisgender women – especially the Black and Latinx women who make up the vast majority of women who acquire HIV every year – with two HIV prevention options. One is the daily pill, first approved in 2012. It’s now generic but previously sold as Truvada by Gilead Sciences. The other is monthly injectable cabotegravir long-acting (Apretude). Another HIV prevention pill, tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (Descovy), is approved for gay men and transgender women but not cisgender women.
 

Vagina-specific protection from HIV

The WHO recommendation for the vaginal ring was followed last July by a positive opinion from the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for women in low- and middle-income countries outside the European Union.

The flexible silicone ring, similar to the hormonal NuvaRing contraceptive, works by slowly releasing the antiretroviral dapivirine directly into the vaginal canal, thereby protecting women who might be exposed to the virus through vaginal sex only. Because the medicine stays where it’s delivered and doesn’t circulate through the body, it has been found to be extremely safe with few adverse events.

However, in initial studies, the ring was found to be just 27% effective overall. Later studies, where scientists divided women by how much drug was missing from the ring – a proxy for use – found that higher use was associated with higher protection (as much as 54%). By comparison, Truvada has been found to be up to 99% effective when used daily, though it can take up to 21 days to be available in the vagina in high enough concentrations to protect women from vaginal exposure. And the HIV prevention shot was found to be 90% more effective than that in a recent trial of the two methods conducted by the HIV Prevention Trials Network.

This, and an orientation away from topical HIV prevention drugs and toward systemic options, led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to discontinue funding for such projects under its Microbicide Trials Network.

“Clearly you want to counsel women to use the highest efficacy method, and that is part of our label,” Zeda Rosenberg, ScD, IPM’s founder and chief executive officer, told this news organization. “Women should not choose the ring if they can and will use oral PrEP, and I would argue it should be the same thing for [cabotegravir shots]. But if they can’t or don’t want to – and we know that especially many young women don’t want to use systemic methods – then the dapivirine ring is a great option.”

Still, Dr. Rosenberg said that the gap in efficacy, the relatively small number of women affected by HIV in the U.S. compared with gay and bisexual men, and the emergence of products like the HIV prevention shot cabotegravir, made it “very unlikely” that FDA regulators would approve the ring. And rather than be “distracted” by the FDA process, Dr. Rosenberg said IPM chose to concentrate on the countries where the ring has already been approved or where women make up the vast majority of people affected by HIV.

Zimbabwe publicly announced it has approved the ring, and three other countries may have approved it, according to Dr. Rosenberg. She declined to name them, saying they had requested silence while they formulate their new HIV prevention guidelines. Aside from Zimbabwe, the other countries where women participated in the ring clinical trials were South Africa, Malawi, and Uganda.

“The U.S. population ... has widespread access to oral PrEP, which is unlike countries in Africa, and which would have widespread access to injectable cabotegravir,” she said. “The U.S. FDA may not see choice in the same way that African women and African activists and advocates see the need for choice.”

But women’s rates of accessing HIV prevention medications in the U.S. continues to be frustratingly low. At the end of 2018, just 7% of women who could benefit from HIV prevention drugs were taking them, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.

New CDC guidelines recommend clinicians talk to every sexually active adult and adolescent about HIV prevention medications at least once and prescribe it to anyone who asks for it, whether or not they understand their patients’ HIV risks. However, research continues to show that clinicians struggle with willingness to prescribe PrEP to Black women, and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology’s committee opinion on managing women using HIV prevention drugs has not been updated to reflect the new guidelines. And while the HIV prevention shot is approved for women and its maker ViiV Healthcare is already initiating postmarket studies of the ring in key populations including women, there are lots of things that need to line up in order for clinicians to be willing to stock it and prescribe it to women.

From where Dázon Dixon Diallo, executive director of the nonprofit SisterLove, sits, the decision to withdraw the ring from FDA consideration and the FDA’s seeming argument that the epidemiology in the U.S. doesn’t warrant the ring’s approval is a slap in the face to the Black women who have led the movement to end HIV in the U.S. for decades.

“No matter how you slice it, we’re talking about Black women, and then we’re talking about brown women,” said Ms. Diallo. “The value [they place on us] from a government standpoint, from a political standpoint, from a public health standpoint is just woeful. It’s woeful and it’s disrespectful and it’s insulting and I’m sick of it.”
 

‘America sneezes and Africa catches a cold’

When she first heard the decision to pull the ring from FDA consideration, Yvette Raphael, the South Africa-based executive director of Advocates for the Prevention of HIV in Africa, started asking, “What can we do to help our sisters in America get this ring?” And then she started worrying about other women in her own country and those nearby.

“The FDA plays a big role,” she said. “You know, America sneezes and Africa catches a cold.”

She worries that IPM’s decision to withdraw the ring from FDA consideration will signal to regulators in other countries either (a) that they should not approve it or (b) in countries where it’s already been approved but guidelines have not been issued, that they won’t invest money in rolling it out to women in those countries – especially now with the U.S. approval of the prevention shot. In much of Africa, ministries of health prefer to provide injectable contraception, often giving women few or no other options. But women, she said, think about more than administration of the drug. They look at if it’s an easier option for them to manage.

“This is a long journey, an emotional one too, for women in South Africa, because the idea of a microbicide is one of the ideas that came directly from women in South Africa,” she said. “[The jab] can be seen as a solution to all. We can just give jabs to all the women. And after all, we know that women don’t adhere, so we can just grab them.”

Dr. Rosenberg pointed to the positive opinion from the EMA as another “rigorous review” process that she said ought to equally influence ministries of health in countries where women tested the ring. And she pointed to the WHO statement released last month, the same day as IPM’s announcement that it was withdrawing the ring from FDA considerations, recommitting the ring as a good option in sub-Saharan Africa: “The U.S. FDA decision is not based on any new or additional data on efficacy and safety,” it stated. “WHO will continue to support countries as they consider whether to include the [dapivirine vaginal ring]. WHO recognizes that country decisionmaking will vary based on their context and that women’s voices remain central to discussions about their prevention choices.”
 

Dual action ring on the horizon, but not in U.S.

What this means, though, is that the next step in the ring’s development – the combination dapivirine ring with contraceptive levonorgestrel (used in the Mirena intrauterine device) – may not come to the U.S., at least for a long while.

“It’s not out of the question,” Dr. Rosenberg said of conducting HIV/pregnancy prevention ring trials in the U.S. “But without the approval of the dapivirine-only ring by FDA, I imagine they would want to see new efficacy data on dapivirine. That is a very difficult hill to climb. There would have to be an active control group [using oral PrEP or injectable cabotegravir], and it would be very difficult for the dapivirine ring to be able to go head-to-head for either noninferiority and certainly for superiority.”

The study would need to be quite large to get enough results to prove anything, and IPM is a research organization, not a large pharmaceutical company with deep enough pockets to fund that, she said. Raising those funds “would be difficult.”

In addition to NIAID discontinuing its funding for the Microbicides Trials Network, a new 5-year, $85 million research collaboration through USAID hasn’t slated any money to fund trials of the combination HIV prevention and contraceptive ring, according to Dr. Rosenberg.

But that doesn’t mean avenues for its development are closed. NIH’s Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) is currently funding a phase 1/2 trial of the combination ring, and IPM continues to receive funding from research agencies in Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Ireland. And this means, she said, that the E.U. – not the U.S. – is where they would seek approval for a combination ring first.

That leaves Ms. Rafael and Ms. Diallo debating how to work together to push the FDA – and maybe IPM – to reconsider the ring. For instance, Ms. Diallo suggested that instead of seeking an indication for all women, the FDA might consider the ring for women with very high risk of HIV, such as sex workers or women with HIV positive partners not on treatment. And she said that this has to be bigger than HIV prevention. It has to be about the ways in which women’s health issues in general lag at the FDA. For instance, she pointed to the movement to get contraceptive pills available over the counter, fights against FDA rulings on hormone replacement therapy, and fights for emergency contraception.

In the meantime, ob/gyn Dr. Rogers is expecting access to the ring to follow a similar path as the copper IUD, which migrated to the U.S. from Europe, where it has been among the most popular contraceptive methods for women.

“Contrary to what we may think, we are not innovators, especially for something like this,” she said. “Once we see it is working and doing a good job – that women in Europe love it – then someone here is going to pick it up and make it as if it’s the greatest thing. But for now, I think we’re going to have to take a back seat to Europe.”

Ms. Diallo reports receiving fees from Johnson & Johnson, ViiV Healthcare, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Rosenberg and Dr. Rogers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Tosha Rogers, MD, is a one-woman HIV prevention evangelist. For nearly a decade now, the Atlanta-based ob/gyn has been on a mission to increase her gynecological colleagues’ awareness and prescribing of the oral HIV prevention pill. At the same time, she’s been tracking the development of a flexible vaginal ring loaded with a month’s worth of the HIV prevention medication dapivirine. That, she thought, would fit easily into women’s lives and into the toolbox of methods women already use to prevent pregnancy.

But now she’s not sure when – or if – the ring will find its way to her patients. In December, the ring’s maker, the International Partnership for Microbicides (IPM), pulled its application for FDA approval for the pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) ring. Now, one year after the World Health Organization recommended the ring for member nations, there appears to be no path forward in the United States for either the dapivirine-only ring or an approach Dr. Rogers said would change the game: a vaginal ring that supplies both contraception and HIV prevention.

“It would take things to a whole other level,” she said. “It sucks that this happened, and I do think it was not anything medical. I think it was everything political.”

That leaves cisgender women – especially the Black and Latinx women who make up the vast majority of women who acquire HIV every year – with two HIV prevention options. One is the daily pill, first approved in 2012. It’s now generic but previously sold as Truvada by Gilead Sciences. The other is monthly injectable cabotegravir long-acting (Apretude). Another HIV prevention pill, tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (Descovy), is approved for gay men and transgender women but not cisgender women.
 

Vagina-specific protection from HIV

The WHO recommendation for the vaginal ring was followed last July by a positive opinion from the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for women in low- and middle-income countries outside the European Union.

The flexible silicone ring, similar to the hormonal NuvaRing contraceptive, works by slowly releasing the antiretroviral dapivirine directly into the vaginal canal, thereby protecting women who might be exposed to the virus through vaginal sex only. Because the medicine stays where it’s delivered and doesn’t circulate through the body, it has been found to be extremely safe with few adverse events.

However, in initial studies, the ring was found to be just 27% effective overall. Later studies, where scientists divided women by how much drug was missing from the ring – a proxy for use – found that higher use was associated with higher protection (as much as 54%). By comparison, Truvada has been found to be up to 99% effective when used daily, though it can take up to 21 days to be available in the vagina in high enough concentrations to protect women from vaginal exposure. And the HIV prevention shot was found to be 90% more effective than that in a recent trial of the two methods conducted by the HIV Prevention Trials Network.

This, and an orientation away from topical HIV prevention drugs and toward systemic options, led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to discontinue funding for such projects under its Microbicide Trials Network.

“Clearly you want to counsel women to use the highest efficacy method, and that is part of our label,” Zeda Rosenberg, ScD, IPM’s founder and chief executive officer, told this news organization. “Women should not choose the ring if they can and will use oral PrEP, and I would argue it should be the same thing for [cabotegravir shots]. But if they can’t or don’t want to – and we know that especially many young women don’t want to use systemic methods – then the dapivirine ring is a great option.”

Still, Dr. Rosenberg said that the gap in efficacy, the relatively small number of women affected by HIV in the U.S. compared with gay and bisexual men, and the emergence of products like the HIV prevention shot cabotegravir, made it “very unlikely” that FDA regulators would approve the ring. And rather than be “distracted” by the FDA process, Dr. Rosenberg said IPM chose to concentrate on the countries where the ring has already been approved or where women make up the vast majority of people affected by HIV.

Zimbabwe publicly announced it has approved the ring, and three other countries may have approved it, according to Dr. Rosenberg. She declined to name them, saying they had requested silence while they formulate their new HIV prevention guidelines. Aside from Zimbabwe, the other countries where women participated in the ring clinical trials were South Africa, Malawi, and Uganda.

“The U.S. population ... has widespread access to oral PrEP, which is unlike countries in Africa, and which would have widespread access to injectable cabotegravir,” she said. “The U.S. FDA may not see choice in the same way that African women and African activists and advocates see the need for choice.”

But women’s rates of accessing HIV prevention medications in the U.S. continues to be frustratingly low. At the end of 2018, just 7% of women who could benefit from HIV prevention drugs were taking them, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.

New CDC guidelines recommend clinicians talk to every sexually active adult and adolescent about HIV prevention medications at least once and prescribe it to anyone who asks for it, whether or not they understand their patients’ HIV risks. However, research continues to show that clinicians struggle with willingness to prescribe PrEP to Black women, and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology’s committee opinion on managing women using HIV prevention drugs has not been updated to reflect the new guidelines. And while the HIV prevention shot is approved for women and its maker ViiV Healthcare is already initiating postmarket studies of the ring in key populations including women, there are lots of things that need to line up in order for clinicians to be willing to stock it and prescribe it to women.

From where Dázon Dixon Diallo, executive director of the nonprofit SisterLove, sits, the decision to withdraw the ring from FDA consideration and the FDA’s seeming argument that the epidemiology in the U.S. doesn’t warrant the ring’s approval is a slap in the face to the Black women who have led the movement to end HIV in the U.S. for decades.

“No matter how you slice it, we’re talking about Black women, and then we’re talking about brown women,” said Ms. Diallo. “The value [they place on us] from a government standpoint, from a political standpoint, from a public health standpoint is just woeful. It’s woeful and it’s disrespectful and it’s insulting and I’m sick of it.”
 

‘America sneezes and Africa catches a cold’

When she first heard the decision to pull the ring from FDA consideration, Yvette Raphael, the South Africa-based executive director of Advocates for the Prevention of HIV in Africa, started asking, “What can we do to help our sisters in America get this ring?” And then she started worrying about other women in her own country and those nearby.

“The FDA plays a big role,” she said. “You know, America sneezes and Africa catches a cold.”

She worries that IPM’s decision to withdraw the ring from FDA consideration will signal to regulators in other countries either (a) that they should not approve it or (b) in countries where it’s already been approved but guidelines have not been issued, that they won’t invest money in rolling it out to women in those countries – especially now with the U.S. approval of the prevention shot. In much of Africa, ministries of health prefer to provide injectable contraception, often giving women few or no other options. But women, she said, think about more than administration of the drug. They look at if it’s an easier option for them to manage.

“This is a long journey, an emotional one too, for women in South Africa, because the idea of a microbicide is one of the ideas that came directly from women in South Africa,” she said. “[The jab] can be seen as a solution to all. We can just give jabs to all the women. And after all, we know that women don’t adhere, so we can just grab them.”

Dr. Rosenberg pointed to the positive opinion from the EMA as another “rigorous review” process that she said ought to equally influence ministries of health in countries where women tested the ring. And she pointed to the WHO statement released last month, the same day as IPM’s announcement that it was withdrawing the ring from FDA considerations, recommitting the ring as a good option in sub-Saharan Africa: “The U.S. FDA decision is not based on any new or additional data on efficacy and safety,” it stated. “WHO will continue to support countries as they consider whether to include the [dapivirine vaginal ring]. WHO recognizes that country decisionmaking will vary based on their context and that women’s voices remain central to discussions about their prevention choices.”
 

Dual action ring on the horizon, but not in U.S.

What this means, though, is that the next step in the ring’s development – the combination dapivirine ring with contraceptive levonorgestrel (used in the Mirena intrauterine device) – may not come to the U.S., at least for a long while.

“It’s not out of the question,” Dr. Rosenberg said of conducting HIV/pregnancy prevention ring trials in the U.S. “But without the approval of the dapivirine-only ring by FDA, I imagine they would want to see new efficacy data on dapivirine. That is a very difficult hill to climb. There would have to be an active control group [using oral PrEP or injectable cabotegravir], and it would be very difficult for the dapivirine ring to be able to go head-to-head for either noninferiority and certainly for superiority.”

The study would need to be quite large to get enough results to prove anything, and IPM is a research organization, not a large pharmaceutical company with deep enough pockets to fund that, she said. Raising those funds “would be difficult.”

In addition to NIAID discontinuing its funding for the Microbicides Trials Network, a new 5-year, $85 million research collaboration through USAID hasn’t slated any money to fund trials of the combination HIV prevention and contraceptive ring, according to Dr. Rosenberg.

But that doesn’t mean avenues for its development are closed. NIH’s Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) is currently funding a phase 1/2 trial of the combination ring, and IPM continues to receive funding from research agencies in Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Ireland. And this means, she said, that the E.U. – not the U.S. – is where they would seek approval for a combination ring first.

That leaves Ms. Rafael and Ms. Diallo debating how to work together to push the FDA – and maybe IPM – to reconsider the ring. For instance, Ms. Diallo suggested that instead of seeking an indication for all women, the FDA might consider the ring for women with very high risk of HIV, such as sex workers or women with HIV positive partners not on treatment. And she said that this has to be bigger than HIV prevention. It has to be about the ways in which women’s health issues in general lag at the FDA. For instance, she pointed to the movement to get contraceptive pills available over the counter, fights against FDA rulings on hormone replacement therapy, and fights for emergency contraception.

In the meantime, ob/gyn Dr. Rogers is expecting access to the ring to follow a similar path as the copper IUD, which migrated to the U.S. from Europe, where it has been among the most popular contraceptive methods for women.

“Contrary to what we may think, we are not innovators, especially for something like this,” she said. “Once we see it is working and doing a good job – that women in Europe love it – then someone here is going to pick it up and make it as if it’s the greatest thing. But for now, I think we’re going to have to take a back seat to Europe.”

Ms. Diallo reports receiving fees from Johnson & Johnson, ViiV Healthcare, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Rosenberg and Dr. Rogers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Tosha Rogers, MD, is a one-woman HIV prevention evangelist. For nearly a decade now, the Atlanta-based ob/gyn has been on a mission to increase her gynecological colleagues’ awareness and prescribing of the oral HIV prevention pill. At the same time, she’s been tracking the development of a flexible vaginal ring loaded with a month’s worth of the HIV prevention medication dapivirine. That, she thought, would fit easily into women’s lives and into the toolbox of methods women already use to prevent pregnancy.

But now she’s not sure when – or if – the ring will find its way to her patients. In December, the ring’s maker, the International Partnership for Microbicides (IPM), pulled its application for FDA approval for the pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) ring. Now, one year after the World Health Organization recommended the ring for member nations, there appears to be no path forward in the United States for either the dapivirine-only ring or an approach Dr. Rogers said would change the game: a vaginal ring that supplies both contraception and HIV prevention.

“It would take things to a whole other level,” she said. “It sucks that this happened, and I do think it was not anything medical. I think it was everything political.”

That leaves cisgender women – especially the Black and Latinx women who make up the vast majority of women who acquire HIV every year – with two HIV prevention options. One is the daily pill, first approved in 2012. It’s now generic but previously sold as Truvada by Gilead Sciences. The other is monthly injectable cabotegravir long-acting (Apretude). Another HIV prevention pill, tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (Descovy), is approved for gay men and transgender women but not cisgender women.
 

Vagina-specific protection from HIV

The WHO recommendation for the vaginal ring was followed last July by a positive opinion from the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for women in low- and middle-income countries outside the European Union.

The flexible silicone ring, similar to the hormonal NuvaRing contraceptive, works by slowly releasing the antiretroviral dapivirine directly into the vaginal canal, thereby protecting women who might be exposed to the virus through vaginal sex only. Because the medicine stays where it’s delivered and doesn’t circulate through the body, it has been found to be extremely safe with few adverse events.

However, in initial studies, the ring was found to be just 27% effective overall. Later studies, where scientists divided women by how much drug was missing from the ring – a proxy for use – found that higher use was associated with higher protection (as much as 54%). By comparison, Truvada has been found to be up to 99% effective when used daily, though it can take up to 21 days to be available in the vagina in high enough concentrations to protect women from vaginal exposure. And the HIV prevention shot was found to be 90% more effective than that in a recent trial of the two methods conducted by the HIV Prevention Trials Network.

This, and an orientation away from topical HIV prevention drugs and toward systemic options, led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to discontinue funding for such projects under its Microbicide Trials Network.

“Clearly you want to counsel women to use the highest efficacy method, and that is part of our label,” Zeda Rosenberg, ScD, IPM’s founder and chief executive officer, told this news organization. “Women should not choose the ring if they can and will use oral PrEP, and I would argue it should be the same thing for [cabotegravir shots]. But if they can’t or don’t want to – and we know that especially many young women don’t want to use systemic methods – then the dapivirine ring is a great option.”

Still, Dr. Rosenberg said that the gap in efficacy, the relatively small number of women affected by HIV in the U.S. compared with gay and bisexual men, and the emergence of products like the HIV prevention shot cabotegravir, made it “very unlikely” that FDA regulators would approve the ring. And rather than be “distracted” by the FDA process, Dr. Rosenberg said IPM chose to concentrate on the countries where the ring has already been approved or where women make up the vast majority of people affected by HIV.

Zimbabwe publicly announced it has approved the ring, and three other countries may have approved it, according to Dr. Rosenberg. She declined to name them, saying they had requested silence while they formulate their new HIV prevention guidelines. Aside from Zimbabwe, the other countries where women participated in the ring clinical trials were South Africa, Malawi, and Uganda.

“The U.S. population ... has widespread access to oral PrEP, which is unlike countries in Africa, and which would have widespread access to injectable cabotegravir,” she said. “The U.S. FDA may not see choice in the same way that African women and African activists and advocates see the need for choice.”

But women’s rates of accessing HIV prevention medications in the U.S. continues to be frustratingly low. At the end of 2018, just 7% of women who could benefit from HIV prevention drugs were taking them, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.

New CDC guidelines recommend clinicians talk to every sexually active adult and adolescent about HIV prevention medications at least once and prescribe it to anyone who asks for it, whether or not they understand their patients’ HIV risks. However, research continues to show that clinicians struggle with willingness to prescribe PrEP to Black women, and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology’s committee opinion on managing women using HIV prevention drugs has not been updated to reflect the new guidelines. And while the HIV prevention shot is approved for women and its maker ViiV Healthcare is already initiating postmarket studies of the ring in key populations including women, there are lots of things that need to line up in order for clinicians to be willing to stock it and prescribe it to women.

From where Dázon Dixon Diallo, executive director of the nonprofit SisterLove, sits, the decision to withdraw the ring from FDA consideration and the FDA’s seeming argument that the epidemiology in the U.S. doesn’t warrant the ring’s approval is a slap in the face to the Black women who have led the movement to end HIV in the U.S. for decades.

“No matter how you slice it, we’re talking about Black women, and then we’re talking about brown women,” said Ms. Diallo. “The value [they place on us] from a government standpoint, from a political standpoint, from a public health standpoint is just woeful. It’s woeful and it’s disrespectful and it’s insulting and I’m sick of it.”
 

‘America sneezes and Africa catches a cold’

When she first heard the decision to pull the ring from FDA consideration, Yvette Raphael, the South Africa-based executive director of Advocates for the Prevention of HIV in Africa, started asking, “What can we do to help our sisters in America get this ring?” And then she started worrying about other women in her own country and those nearby.

“The FDA plays a big role,” she said. “You know, America sneezes and Africa catches a cold.”

She worries that IPM’s decision to withdraw the ring from FDA consideration will signal to regulators in other countries either (a) that they should not approve it or (b) in countries where it’s already been approved but guidelines have not been issued, that they won’t invest money in rolling it out to women in those countries – especially now with the U.S. approval of the prevention shot. In much of Africa, ministries of health prefer to provide injectable contraception, often giving women few or no other options. But women, she said, think about more than administration of the drug. They look at if it’s an easier option for them to manage.

“This is a long journey, an emotional one too, for women in South Africa, because the idea of a microbicide is one of the ideas that came directly from women in South Africa,” she said. “[The jab] can be seen as a solution to all. We can just give jabs to all the women. And after all, we know that women don’t adhere, so we can just grab them.”

Dr. Rosenberg pointed to the positive opinion from the EMA as another “rigorous review” process that she said ought to equally influence ministries of health in countries where women tested the ring. And she pointed to the WHO statement released last month, the same day as IPM’s announcement that it was withdrawing the ring from FDA considerations, recommitting the ring as a good option in sub-Saharan Africa: “The U.S. FDA decision is not based on any new or additional data on efficacy and safety,” it stated. “WHO will continue to support countries as they consider whether to include the [dapivirine vaginal ring]. WHO recognizes that country decisionmaking will vary based on their context and that women’s voices remain central to discussions about their prevention choices.”
 

Dual action ring on the horizon, but not in U.S.

What this means, though, is that the next step in the ring’s development – the combination dapivirine ring with contraceptive levonorgestrel (used in the Mirena intrauterine device) – may not come to the U.S., at least for a long while.

“It’s not out of the question,” Dr. Rosenberg said of conducting HIV/pregnancy prevention ring trials in the U.S. “But without the approval of the dapivirine-only ring by FDA, I imagine they would want to see new efficacy data on dapivirine. That is a very difficult hill to climb. There would have to be an active control group [using oral PrEP or injectable cabotegravir], and it would be very difficult for the dapivirine ring to be able to go head-to-head for either noninferiority and certainly for superiority.”

The study would need to be quite large to get enough results to prove anything, and IPM is a research organization, not a large pharmaceutical company with deep enough pockets to fund that, she said. Raising those funds “would be difficult.”

In addition to NIAID discontinuing its funding for the Microbicides Trials Network, a new 5-year, $85 million research collaboration through USAID hasn’t slated any money to fund trials of the combination HIV prevention and contraceptive ring, according to Dr. Rosenberg.

But that doesn’t mean avenues for its development are closed. NIH’s Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) is currently funding a phase 1/2 trial of the combination ring, and IPM continues to receive funding from research agencies in Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Ireland. And this means, she said, that the E.U. – not the U.S. – is where they would seek approval for a combination ring first.

That leaves Ms. Rafael and Ms. Diallo debating how to work together to push the FDA – and maybe IPM – to reconsider the ring. For instance, Ms. Diallo suggested that instead of seeking an indication for all women, the FDA might consider the ring for women with very high risk of HIV, such as sex workers or women with HIV positive partners not on treatment. And she said that this has to be bigger than HIV prevention. It has to be about the ways in which women’s health issues in general lag at the FDA. For instance, she pointed to the movement to get contraceptive pills available over the counter, fights against FDA rulings on hormone replacement therapy, and fights for emergency contraception.

In the meantime, ob/gyn Dr. Rogers is expecting access to the ring to follow a similar path as the copper IUD, which migrated to the U.S. from Europe, where it has been among the most popular contraceptive methods for women.

“Contrary to what we may think, we are not innovators, especially for something like this,” she said. “Once we see it is working and doing a good job – that women in Europe love it – then someone here is going to pick it up and make it as if it’s the greatest thing. But for now, I think we’re going to have to take a back seat to Europe.”

Ms. Diallo reports receiving fees from Johnson & Johnson, ViiV Healthcare, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Rosenberg and Dr. Rogers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new, highly contagious subvariant of Omicron has emerged, which some have begun calling “son of Omicron,” but public health officials say it’s too soon to tell what kind of real threat, if any, this new strain will present.

In the meantime, it’s worth watching BA.2, the World Health Organization said. The subvariant has been identified across at least 40 countries, including three cases reported in Houston and several in Washington state.

BA.2 accounts for only a small minority of reported cases so far, including 5% in India, 4% of those in the United Kingdom, and 2% each of cases in Sweden and Singapore.

The one exception is Denmark, a country with robust genetic sequencing abilities, where estimates range from 50% to 81% of cases.

The news throws a little more uncertainty into an already uncertain situation, including how close the world might be to a less life-altering infectious disease.

For example, the world is at an ideal point for a new variant to emerge, WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, said during a Jan. 24 meeting of the WHO executive board. He also said it’s too early to call an “end game” to the pandemic.

Similarly, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, said on Jan. 19 that it remained “an open question” whether the Omicron variant could hasten endemic COVID-19, a situation where the virus still circulates but is much less disruptive to everyday life.
 

No Pi for you

This could be the first time a coronavirus subvariant rises to the level of a household name, or – if previous variants of the moment have shown us – it could recede from the spotlight.

For example, a lot of focus on the potential of the Mu variant to wreak havoc fizzled out a few weeks after the WHO listed it as a variant of interest on Aug. 30.

Subvariants can feature mutations and other small differences but are not distinct enough from an existing strain to be called a variant on their own and be named after the next letter in the Greek alphabet. That’s why BA.2 is not called the “Pi variant.”

Predicting what’s next for the coronavirus has puzzled many experts throughout the pandemic. That is why many public health officials wait for the WHO to officially designate a strain as a variant of interest or variant of concern before taking action.

At the moment with BA.2, it seems close monitoring is warranted.

Because it’s too early to call, expert predictions about BA.2 vary widely, from worry to cautious optimism.

For example, early data indicates that BA.2 could be more worrisome than original Omicron, Eric Feigl-Ding, ScD, an epidemiologist and health economist, said on Twitter.

Information from Denmark seems to show BA.2 either has “much faster transmission or it evades immunity even more,” he said.

The same day, Jan. 23, Dr. Feigl-Ding tweeted that other data shows the subvariant can spread twice as fast as Omicron, which was already much more contagious than previous versions of the virus.

At the same time, other experts appear less concerned. Robert Garry, PhD, a virologist at Tulane University, New Orleans, told the Washington Post that there is no reason to think BA.2 will be any worse than the original Omicron strain.

So which expert predictions will come closer to BA.2’s potential? For now, it’s just a watch-and-see situation.

For updated information, the website outbreak.info tracks BA.2’s average daily and cumulative prevalence in the United States and in other locations.

Also, if and when WHO experts decide to elevate BA.2 to a variant of interest or a variant of concern, it will be noted on its coronavirus variant tracking website.

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