Health Policy

The Florida Department of Health will investigate the state’s 16,000 coronavirus deaths due to questions about the integrity of the data, according to an announcement issued Wednesday.

State health department officials said the “fatality data reported to the state consistently presents confusion and warrants a rigorous review.” The review is meant to “ensure data integrity.”

“During a pandemic, the public must be able to rely on accurate public health data to make informed decisions,” Scott Rivkees, the surgeon general for Florida, said in the statement.

Among the 95 deaths reported Wednesday for instance, 16 had more than a 2-month separation between the time of testing positive for COVID-19 and passing away, and 5 cases had a 3-month gap. In addition, 11 of the deaths occurred more than a month ago.

The health department then listed data for all 95 cases, including the age, gender, county and the dates of test positivity and death. Palm Beach County had 50 of the COVID-19 deaths.

“To ensure the accuracy of COVID-19 related deaths, the department will be performing additional reviews of all deaths,” Rivkees said. “Timely and accurate data remains a top priority of the Department of Health.”

Last week, Jose Oliva, speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, said medical examiner reports were “often lacking in rigor.” House Democrats then said Republicans were trying to “downplay the death toll,” according to the South Florida Sun Sentinel .

Fred Piccolo Jr., a spokesman for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, told the newspaper Wednesday that officials have struggled to obtain timely data. Labs sometimes report test results from weeks before, he added.

“It’s really one of those things that you gotta know if someone is dying of COVID or if they’re not,” Piccolo said. “Then you can legitimately say, here are the numbers.”

Sources

Florida Department of Health, “Florida Surgeon General Implements Additional Review Process for Fatalities Attributed to COVID-19 to Ensure Data Integrity.”

South Florida Sun Sentinel, “Florida to investigate all COVID-19 deaths after questions about ‘integrity’ of data.”

WebMD Health News © 2020 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Florida Department of Health will investigate the state’s 16,000 coronavirus deaths due to questions about the integrity of the data, according to an announcement issued Wednesday.

State health department officials said the “fatality data reported to the state consistently presents confusion and warrants a rigorous review.” The review is meant to “ensure data integrity.”

“During a pandemic, the public must be able to rely on accurate public health data to make informed decisions,” Scott Rivkees, the surgeon general for Florida, said in the statement.

Among the 95 deaths reported Wednesday for instance, 16 had more than a 2-month separation between the time of testing positive for COVID-19 and passing away, and 5 cases had a 3-month gap. In addition, 11 of the deaths occurred more than a month ago.

The health department then listed data for all 95 cases, including the age, gender, county and the dates of test positivity and death. Palm Beach County had 50 of the COVID-19 deaths.

“To ensure the accuracy of COVID-19 related deaths, the department will be performing additional reviews of all deaths,” Rivkees said. “Timely and accurate data remains a top priority of the Department of Health.”

Last week, Jose Oliva, speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, said medical examiner reports were “often lacking in rigor.” House Democrats then said Republicans were trying to “downplay the death toll,” according to the South Florida Sun Sentinel .

Fred Piccolo Jr., a spokesman for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, told the newspaper Wednesday that officials have struggled to obtain timely data. Labs sometimes report test results from weeks before, he added.

“It’s really one of those things that you gotta know if someone is dying of COVID or if they’re not,” Piccolo said. “Then you can legitimately say, here are the numbers.”

Sources

Florida Department of Health, “Florida Surgeon General Implements Additional Review Process for Fatalities Attributed to COVID-19 to Ensure Data Integrity.”

South Florida Sun Sentinel, “Florida to investigate all COVID-19 deaths after questions about ‘integrity’ of data.”

WebMD Health News © 2020 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Florida Department of Health will investigate the state’s 16,000 coronavirus deaths due to questions about the integrity of the data, according to an announcement issued Wednesday.

State health department officials said the “fatality data reported to the state consistently presents confusion and warrants a rigorous review.” The review is meant to “ensure data integrity.”

“During a pandemic, the public must be able to rely on accurate public health data to make informed decisions,” Scott Rivkees, the surgeon general for Florida, said in the statement.

Among the 95 deaths reported Wednesday for instance, 16 had more than a 2-month separation between the time of testing positive for COVID-19 and passing away, and 5 cases had a 3-month gap. In addition, 11 of the deaths occurred more than a month ago.

The health department then listed data for all 95 cases, including the age, gender, county and the dates of test positivity and death. Palm Beach County had 50 of the COVID-19 deaths.

“To ensure the accuracy of COVID-19 related deaths, the department will be performing additional reviews of all deaths,” Rivkees said. “Timely and accurate data remains a top priority of the Department of Health.”

Last week, Jose Oliva, speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, said medical examiner reports were “often lacking in rigor.” House Democrats then said Republicans were trying to “downplay the death toll,” according to the South Florida Sun Sentinel .

Fred Piccolo Jr., a spokesman for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, told the newspaper Wednesday that officials have struggled to obtain timely data. Labs sometimes report test results from weeks before, he added.

“It’s really one of those things that you gotta know if someone is dying of COVID or if they’re not,” Piccolo said. “Then you can legitimately say, here are the numbers.”

Sources

Florida Department of Health, “Florida Surgeon General Implements Additional Review Process for Fatalities Attributed to COVID-19 to Ensure Data Integrity.”

South Florida Sun Sentinel, “Florida to investigate all COVID-19 deaths after questions about ‘integrity’ of data.”

WebMD Health News © 2020 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers and several medical groups on Oct. 23 pressed for changes to the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) current plans for deciding how to eventually clear vaccines for COVID-19, arguing tougher standards would help bolster confidence in these critical medicines.

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee met for a wide-ranging discussion beginning around 10 am. The FDA did not ask the panel to weigh in on any particular vaccine. Instead, the FDA asked for the panel’s feedback on a series of questions, including considerations for continuing phase 3 trials if a product were to get an interim clearance known as an emergency use authorization (EUA).

Speakers at the hearing made a variety of requests, including asking for data showing COVID-19 vaccines can prevent serious illness and urging transparency about the agency’s deliberations for each product to be considered.

FDA staff are closely tracking the crop of experimental vaccines that have made it into advanced stages of testing, including products from Pfizer Inc, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, and Moderna.
 

‘Time for a reset’

Among the speakers at the public hearing was Peter Lurie, MD, who served as an FDA associate commissioner from 2014 to 2017. Now the president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Lurie was among the speakers who asked the agency to make its independence clear.

President Donald Trump has for months been making predictions about COVID-19 vaccine approvals that have been overly optimistic. In one example, the president, who is seeking re-election on November 3, last month spoke about being able to begin distributing a vaccine in October.

“Until now the process of developing candidate vaccines has been inappropriately politicized with an eye on the election calendar, rather than the deliberate timeframe science requires,” Lurie told the FDA advisory panel. “Now is the time for a reset. This committee has a unique opportunity to set a new tone for vaccine deliberations going forward.”

Lurie asked the panel to press the FDA to commit to hold an advisory committee meeting on requests by drugmakers for EUAs. He also asked the panel to demand that informed consent forms and minutes from institutional review board (IRB) discussions of COVID-19 vaccines trials be made public.

Also among the speakers at the public hearing was Peter Doshi, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, who argued that the current trials won’t answer the right questions about the COVID-19 vaccines.

“We could end up with approved vaccines that reduce the risk of mild infection, but do not decrease the risk of hospitalization, ICU use, or death — either at all or by a clinically relevant amount,” Doshi told the panel.

In his presentation, he reiterated points he had made previously, including in an October 21 article in the BMJ, for which he is an associate editor. Doshi also raised these concerns in a September opinion article in The New York Times, co-authored with Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape.
 

Risks of a ‘rushed vaccine’

Other complaints about the FDA’s approach included criticism of a 2-month follow-up time after vaccination, which was seen as too short. ECRI, a nonprofit organization that seeks to improve the safety, quality, and cost-effectiveness of medicines, has argued that approving a weak COVID-19 vaccine might worsen the pandemic.

In an October 21 statement, ECRI noted the risk of a partially effective vaccine, which could be welcomed as a means of slowing transmission of the virus. But public response and attitudes over the past 9 months in the United States suggest that people would relax their precautions as soon as a vaccine is available.

“Resulting infections may offset the vaccine’s impact and end up increasing the mortality and morbidity burden,” ECRI said in the brief.

“The risks and consequences of a rushed vaccine could be very severe if the review is anything shy of thorough,” ECRI Chief Executive Officer Marcus Schabacker, MD, PhD, said in a statement prepared for the hearing.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers and several medical groups on Oct. 23 pressed for changes to the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) current plans for deciding how to eventually clear vaccines for COVID-19, arguing tougher standards would help bolster confidence in these critical medicines.

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee met for a wide-ranging discussion beginning around 10 am. The FDA did not ask the panel to weigh in on any particular vaccine. Instead, the FDA asked for the panel’s feedback on a series of questions, including considerations for continuing phase 3 trials if a product were to get an interim clearance known as an emergency use authorization (EUA).

Speakers at the hearing made a variety of requests, including asking for data showing COVID-19 vaccines can prevent serious illness and urging transparency about the agency’s deliberations for each product to be considered.

FDA staff are closely tracking the crop of experimental vaccines that have made it into advanced stages of testing, including products from Pfizer Inc, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, and Moderna.
 

‘Time for a reset’

Among the speakers at the public hearing was Peter Lurie, MD, who served as an FDA associate commissioner from 2014 to 2017. Now the president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Lurie was among the speakers who asked the agency to make its independence clear.

President Donald Trump has for months been making predictions about COVID-19 vaccine approvals that have been overly optimistic. In one example, the president, who is seeking re-election on November 3, last month spoke about being able to begin distributing a vaccine in October.

“Until now the process of developing candidate vaccines has been inappropriately politicized with an eye on the election calendar, rather than the deliberate timeframe science requires,” Lurie told the FDA advisory panel. “Now is the time for a reset. This committee has a unique opportunity to set a new tone for vaccine deliberations going forward.”

Lurie asked the panel to press the FDA to commit to hold an advisory committee meeting on requests by drugmakers for EUAs. He also asked the panel to demand that informed consent forms and minutes from institutional review board (IRB) discussions of COVID-19 vaccines trials be made public.

Also among the speakers at the public hearing was Peter Doshi, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, who argued that the current trials won’t answer the right questions about the COVID-19 vaccines.

“We could end up with approved vaccines that reduce the risk of mild infection, but do not decrease the risk of hospitalization, ICU use, or death — either at all or by a clinically relevant amount,” Doshi told the panel.

In his presentation, he reiterated points he had made previously, including in an October 21 article in the BMJ, for which he is an associate editor. Doshi also raised these concerns in a September opinion article in The New York Times, co-authored with Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape.
 

Risks of a ‘rushed vaccine’

Other complaints about the FDA’s approach included criticism of a 2-month follow-up time after vaccination, which was seen as too short. ECRI, a nonprofit organization that seeks to improve the safety, quality, and cost-effectiveness of medicines, has argued that approving a weak COVID-19 vaccine might worsen the pandemic.

In an October 21 statement, ECRI noted the risk of a partially effective vaccine, which could be welcomed as a means of slowing transmission of the virus. But public response and attitudes over the past 9 months in the United States suggest that people would relax their precautions as soon as a vaccine is available.

“Resulting infections may offset the vaccine’s impact and end up increasing the mortality and morbidity burden,” ECRI said in the brief.

“The risks and consequences of a rushed vaccine could be very severe if the review is anything shy of thorough,” ECRI Chief Executive Officer Marcus Schabacker, MD, PhD, said in a statement prepared for the hearing.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers and several medical groups on Oct. 23 pressed for changes to the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) current plans for deciding how to eventually clear vaccines for COVID-19, arguing tougher standards would help bolster confidence in these critical medicines.

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee met for a wide-ranging discussion beginning around 10 am. The FDA did not ask the panel to weigh in on any particular vaccine. Instead, the FDA asked for the panel’s feedback on a series of questions, including considerations for continuing phase 3 trials if a product were to get an interim clearance known as an emergency use authorization (EUA).

Speakers at the hearing made a variety of requests, including asking for data showing COVID-19 vaccines can prevent serious illness and urging transparency about the agency’s deliberations for each product to be considered.

FDA staff are closely tracking the crop of experimental vaccines that have made it into advanced stages of testing, including products from Pfizer Inc, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, and Moderna.
 

‘Time for a reset’

Among the speakers at the public hearing was Peter Lurie, MD, who served as an FDA associate commissioner from 2014 to 2017. Now the president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Lurie was among the speakers who asked the agency to make its independence clear.

President Donald Trump has for months been making predictions about COVID-19 vaccine approvals that have been overly optimistic. In one example, the president, who is seeking re-election on November 3, last month spoke about being able to begin distributing a vaccine in October.

“Until now the process of developing candidate vaccines has been inappropriately politicized with an eye on the election calendar, rather than the deliberate timeframe science requires,” Lurie told the FDA advisory panel. “Now is the time for a reset. This committee has a unique opportunity to set a new tone for vaccine deliberations going forward.”

Lurie asked the panel to press the FDA to commit to hold an advisory committee meeting on requests by drugmakers for EUAs. He also asked the panel to demand that informed consent forms and minutes from institutional review board (IRB) discussions of COVID-19 vaccines trials be made public.

Also among the speakers at the public hearing was Peter Doshi, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, who argued that the current trials won’t answer the right questions about the COVID-19 vaccines.

“We could end up with approved vaccines that reduce the risk of mild infection, but do not decrease the risk of hospitalization, ICU use, or death — either at all or by a clinically relevant amount,” Doshi told the panel.

In his presentation, he reiterated points he had made previously, including in an October 21 article in the BMJ, for which he is an associate editor. Doshi also raised these concerns in a September opinion article in The New York Times, co-authored with Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape.
 

Risks of a ‘rushed vaccine’

Other complaints about the FDA’s approach included criticism of a 2-month follow-up time after vaccination, which was seen as too short. ECRI, a nonprofit organization that seeks to improve the safety, quality, and cost-effectiveness of medicines, has argued that approving a weak COVID-19 vaccine might worsen the pandemic.

In an October 21 statement, ECRI noted the risk of a partially effective vaccine, which could be welcomed as a means of slowing transmission of the virus. But public response and attitudes over the past 9 months in the United States suggest that people would relax their precautions as soon as a vaccine is available.

“Resulting infections may offset the vaccine’s impact and end up increasing the mortality and morbidity burden,” ECRI said in the brief.

“The risks and consequences of a rushed vaccine could be very severe if the review is anything shy of thorough,” ECRI Chief Executive Officer Marcus Schabacker, MD, PhD, said in a statement prepared for the hearing.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections in the United States. It is the causative agent of genital warts, as well as cervical, anal, penile, vulvar, vaginal, and some head and neck cancers.¹ Development of the HPV vaccine and its introduction into the scheduled vaccine series recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) represented a major public health milestone. The CDC recommends the HPV vaccine for all children beginning at 11 or 12 years of age, even as early as 9 years, regardless of gender identity or sexuality. As of late 2016, the 9-valent formulation (Gardasil 9 [Merck]) is the only HPV vaccine distributed in the United States, and the vaccination schedule depends specifically on age. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the CDC revised its recommendations in 2019 to include “shared clinical decision-making regarding HPV vaccination . . . for some adults aged 27 through 45 years.”² This change in policy has notable implications for sexual and gender minority populations, such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning (LGBTQ) patients, especially in the context of dermatologic care. Herein, we discuss HPV-related conditions for LGBTQ patients, barriers to vaccine administration, and the role of dermatologists in promoting an increased vaccination rate in the LGBTQ community.

HPV-Related Conditions

A 2019 review of dermatologic care for LGBTQ patients identified many specific health disparities of HPV.³ Specifically, men who have sex with men (MSM) are more likely than heterosexual men to have oral, anal, and penile HPV infections, including high-risk HPV types.³ From 2011 to 2014, 18% and 13% of MSM had oral HPV infection and high-risk oral HPV infection, respectively, compared to only 11% and 7%, respectively, of men who reported never having had a same-sex sexual partner.⁴

Similarly, despite the CDC’s position that patients with perianal warts might benefit from digital anal examination or referral for standard or high-resolution anoscopy to detect intra-anal warts, improvements in morbidity have not yet been realized. In 2017, anal cancer incidence was 45.9 cases for every 100,000 person-years among human immunodeficiency (HIV)–positive MSM and 5.1 cases for every 100,000 person-years among HIV-negative MSM vs only 1.5 cases for every 100,000 person-years among men in the United States overall.³ Yet the CDC states that there is insufficient evidence to recommend routine anal cancer screening among MSM, even when a patient is HIV positive. Therefore, current screening practices and treatments are insufficient as MSM continue to have a disproportionately higher rate of HPV-associated disease compared to other populations.

Barriers to HPV Vaccine Administration

The HPV vaccination rate among MSM in adolescent populations varies across reports.^5-7 Interestingly, a 2016 survey study found that MSM had approximately 2-times greater odds of initiating the HPV vaccine than heterosexual men.⁸ However, a study specifically sampling young gay and bisexual men (N=428) found that only 13% had received any doses of the HPV vaccine.⁶

Regardless, HPV vaccination is much less common among all males than it is among all females, and the low rate of vaccination among sexual minority men has a disproportionate impact, given their higher risk for HPV infection.⁴ Although the HPV vaccination rate increased from 2014 to 2017, the HPV vaccination rate in MSM overall is less than half of the Healthy People 2020 goal of 80%.⁹ A 2018 review determined that HPV vaccination is a cost-effective strategy for preventing anal cancer in MSM¹⁰; yet male patients might still view the HPV vaccine as a “women’s issue” and are less likely to be vaccinated if they are not prompted by health care providers. Additionally, HPV vaccination is remarkably less likely in MSM when patients are older, uninsured, of lower socioeconomic status, or have not disclosed their sexual identity to their health care provider.⁹ Dermatologists should be mindful of these barriers to promote HPV vaccination in MSM before, or soon after, sexual debut.

Other members of the LGBTQ community, such as women who have sex with women, face notable HPV-related health disparities and would benefit from increased vaccination efforts by dermatologists. Adolescent and young adult women who have sex with women are less likely than heterosexual adolescent and young adult women to receive routine Papanicolaou tests and initiate HPV vaccination, despite having a higher number of lifetime sexual partners and a higher risk for HPV exposure.¹¹ A 2015 survey study (N=3253) found that after adjusting for covariates, only 8.5% of lesbians and 33.2% of bisexual women and girls who had heard of the HPV vaccine had initiated vaccination compared to 28.4% of their heterosexual counterparts.¹¹ The HPV vaccine is an effective public health tool for the prevention of cervical cancer in these populations. A study of women aged 15 to 19 years in the HPV vaccination era (2007-2014) found significant (P<.05) observed population-level decreases in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia incidence across all grades.¹²

Transgender women also face a high rate of HPV infection, HIV infection, and other structural and financial disparities, such as low insurance coverage, that can limit their access to vaccination. Transgender men have a higher rate of HPV infection than cisgender men, and those with female internal reproductive organs are less likely to receive routine Papanicolaou tests. A 2018 survey study found that approximately one-third of transgender men and women reported initiating the HPV vaccination series,¹³ but further investigation is required to make balanced comparisons to cisgender patients.

The Role of the Dermatologist

Collectively, these disparities emphasize the need for increased involvement by dermatologists in HPV vaccination efforts for all LGBTQ patients. Adult patients may have concerns about ties of the HPV vaccine to drug manufacturers and the general safety of vaccination. For pediatric patients, parents/guardians also may be concerned about an assumed but not evidence-based increase in sexual promiscuity following HPV vaccination.¹⁴ These topics can be challenging to discuss, but dermatologists have the duty to be proactive and initiate conversation about HPV vaccination, as opposed to waiting for patients to express interest. Dermatologists should stress the safety of the vaccine as well as its potential to protect against multiple, even life-threatening diseases. Providers also can explain that the ACIP recommends catch-up vaccination for all individuals through 26 years of age, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

With the ACIP having recently expanded the appropriate age range for HPV vaccination, we encourage dermatologists to engage in education and shared decision-making to ensure that adult patients with specific risk factors receive the HPV vaccine. Because the expanded ACIP recommendations are aimed at vaccination before HPV exposure, vaccination might not be appropriate for all LGBTQ patients. However, eliciting a sexual history with routine patient intake forms or during the clinical encounter ensures equal access to the HPV vaccine.

Greater awareness of HPV-related disparities and barriers to vaccination in LGBTQ populations has the potential to notably decrease HPV-associated mortality and morbidity. Increased involvement by dermatologists contributes to the efforts of other specialties in universal HPV vaccination, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity—ideally in younger age groups, such that patients receive the vaccine prior to coitarche.

There are many ways that dermatologists can advocate for HPV vaccination. Those in a multispecialty or academic practice can readily refer patients to an associated internist, primary care physician, or vaccination clinic in the same building or institution. Dermatologists in private practice might be able to administer the HPV vaccine themselves or can advocate for patients to receive the vaccine at a local facility of the Department of Health or at a nonprofit organization, such as a Planned Parenthood center. Although pediatricians and family physicians remain front-line providers of these services, dermatologists represent an additional member of a patient’s care team, capable of advocating for this important intervention.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections in the United States. It is the causative agent of genital warts, as well as cervical, anal, penile, vulvar, vaginal, and some head and neck cancers.¹ Development of the HPV vaccine and its introduction into the scheduled vaccine series recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) represented a major public health milestone. The CDC recommends the HPV vaccine for all children beginning at 11 or 12 years of age, even as early as 9 years, regardless of gender identity or sexuality. As of late 2016, the 9-valent formulation (Gardasil 9 [Merck]) is the only HPV vaccine distributed in the United States, and the vaccination schedule depends specifically on age. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the CDC revised its recommendations in 2019 to include “shared clinical decision-making regarding HPV vaccination . . . for some adults aged 27 through 45 years.”² This change in policy has notable implications for sexual and gender minority populations, such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning (LGBTQ) patients, especially in the context of dermatologic care. Herein, we discuss HPV-related conditions for LGBTQ patients, barriers to vaccine administration, and the role of dermatologists in promoting an increased vaccination rate in the LGBTQ community.

HPV-Related Conditions

A 2019 review of dermatologic care for LGBTQ patients identified many specific health disparities of HPV.³ Specifically, men who have sex with men (MSM) are more likely than heterosexual men to have oral, anal, and penile HPV infections, including high-risk HPV types.³ From 2011 to 2014, 18% and 13% of MSM had oral HPV infection and high-risk oral HPV infection, respectively, compared to only 11% and 7%, respectively, of men who reported never having had a same-sex sexual partner.⁴

Similarly, despite the CDC’s position that patients with perianal warts might benefit from digital anal examination or referral for standard or high-resolution anoscopy to detect intra-anal warts, improvements in morbidity have not yet been realized. In 2017, anal cancer incidence was 45.9 cases for every 100,000 person-years among human immunodeficiency (HIV)–positive MSM and 5.1 cases for every 100,000 person-years among HIV-negative MSM vs only 1.5 cases for every 100,000 person-years among men in the United States overall.³ Yet the CDC states that there is insufficient evidence to recommend routine anal cancer screening among MSM, even when a patient is HIV positive. Therefore, current screening practices and treatments are insufficient as MSM continue to have a disproportionately higher rate of HPV-associated disease compared to other populations.

Barriers to HPV Vaccine Administration

The HPV vaccination rate among MSM in adolescent populations varies across reports.^5-7 Interestingly, a 2016 survey study found that MSM had approximately 2-times greater odds of initiating the HPV vaccine than heterosexual men.⁸ However, a study specifically sampling young gay and bisexual men (N=428) found that only 13% had received any doses of the HPV vaccine.⁶

Regardless, HPV vaccination is much less common among all males than it is among all females, and the low rate of vaccination among sexual minority men has a disproportionate impact, given their higher risk for HPV infection.⁴ Although the HPV vaccination rate increased from 2014 to 2017, the HPV vaccination rate in MSM overall is less than half of the Healthy People 2020 goal of 80%.⁹ A 2018 review determined that HPV vaccination is a cost-effective strategy for preventing anal cancer in MSM¹⁰; yet male patients might still view the HPV vaccine as a “women’s issue” and are less likely to be vaccinated if they are not prompted by health care providers. Additionally, HPV vaccination is remarkably less likely in MSM when patients are older, uninsured, of lower socioeconomic status, or have not disclosed their sexual identity to their health care provider.⁹ Dermatologists should be mindful of these barriers to promote HPV vaccination in MSM before, or soon after, sexual debut.

Other members of the LGBTQ community, such as women who have sex with women, face notable HPV-related health disparities and would benefit from increased vaccination efforts by dermatologists. Adolescent and young adult women who have sex with women are less likely than heterosexual adolescent and young adult women to receive routine Papanicolaou tests and initiate HPV vaccination, despite having a higher number of lifetime sexual partners and a higher risk for HPV exposure.¹¹ A 2015 survey study (N=3253) found that after adjusting for covariates, only 8.5% of lesbians and 33.2% of bisexual women and girls who had heard of the HPV vaccine had initiated vaccination compared to 28.4% of their heterosexual counterparts.¹¹ The HPV vaccine is an effective public health tool for the prevention of cervical cancer in these populations. A study of women aged 15 to 19 years in the HPV vaccination era (2007-2014) found significant (P<.05) observed population-level decreases in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia incidence across all grades.¹²

Transgender women also face a high rate of HPV infection, HIV infection, and other structural and financial disparities, such as low insurance coverage, that can limit their access to vaccination. Transgender men have a higher rate of HPV infection than cisgender men, and those with female internal reproductive organs are less likely to receive routine Papanicolaou tests. A 2018 survey study found that approximately one-third of transgender men and women reported initiating the HPV vaccination series,¹³ but further investigation is required to make balanced comparisons to cisgender patients.

The Role of the Dermatologist

Collectively, these disparities emphasize the need for increased involvement by dermatologists in HPV vaccination efforts for all LGBTQ patients. Adult patients may have concerns about ties of the HPV vaccine to drug manufacturers and the general safety of vaccination. For pediatric patients, parents/guardians also may be concerned about an assumed but not evidence-based increase in sexual promiscuity following HPV vaccination.¹⁴ These topics can be challenging to discuss, but dermatologists have the duty to be proactive and initiate conversation about HPV vaccination, as opposed to waiting for patients to express interest. Dermatologists should stress the safety of the vaccine as well as its potential to protect against multiple, even life-threatening diseases. Providers also can explain that the ACIP recommends catch-up vaccination for all individuals through 26 years of age, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

With the ACIP having recently expanded the appropriate age range for HPV vaccination, we encourage dermatologists to engage in education and shared decision-making to ensure that adult patients with specific risk factors receive the HPV vaccine. Because the expanded ACIP recommendations are aimed at vaccination before HPV exposure, vaccination might not be appropriate for all LGBTQ patients. However, eliciting a sexual history with routine patient intake forms or during the clinical encounter ensures equal access to the HPV vaccine.

Greater awareness of HPV-related disparities and barriers to vaccination in LGBTQ populations has the potential to notably decrease HPV-associated mortality and morbidity. Increased involvement by dermatologists contributes to the efforts of other specialties in universal HPV vaccination, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity—ideally in younger age groups, such that patients receive the vaccine prior to coitarche.

There are many ways that dermatologists can advocate for HPV vaccination. Those in a multispecialty or academic practice can readily refer patients to an associated internist, primary care physician, or vaccination clinic in the same building or institution. Dermatologists in private practice might be able to administer the HPV vaccine themselves or can advocate for patients to receive the vaccine at a local facility of the Department of Health or at a nonprofit organization, such as a Planned Parenthood center. Although pediatricians and family physicians remain front-line providers of these services, dermatologists represent an additional member of a patient’s care team, capable of advocating for this important intervention.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections in the United States. It is the causative agent of genital warts, as well as cervical, anal, penile, vulvar, vaginal, and some head and neck cancers.¹ Development of the HPV vaccine and its introduction into the scheduled vaccine series recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) represented a major public health milestone. The CDC recommends the HPV vaccine for all children beginning at 11 or 12 years of age, even as early as 9 years, regardless of gender identity or sexuality. As of late 2016, the 9-valent formulation (Gardasil 9 [Merck]) is the only HPV vaccine distributed in the United States, and the vaccination schedule depends specifically on age. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the CDC revised its recommendations in 2019 to include “shared clinical decision-making regarding HPV vaccination . . . for some adults aged 27 through 45 years.”² This change in policy has notable implications for sexual and gender minority populations, such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning (LGBTQ) patients, especially in the context of dermatologic care. Herein, we discuss HPV-related conditions for LGBTQ patients, barriers to vaccine administration, and the role of dermatologists in promoting an increased vaccination rate in the LGBTQ community.

HPV-Related Conditions

A 2019 review of dermatologic care for LGBTQ patients identified many specific health disparities of HPV.³ Specifically, men who have sex with men (MSM) are more likely than heterosexual men to have oral, anal, and penile HPV infections, including high-risk HPV types.³ From 2011 to 2014, 18% and 13% of MSM had oral HPV infection and high-risk oral HPV infection, respectively, compared to only 11% and 7%, respectively, of men who reported never having had a same-sex sexual partner.⁴

Similarly, despite the CDC’s position that patients with perianal warts might benefit from digital anal examination or referral for standard or high-resolution anoscopy to detect intra-anal warts, improvements in morbidity have not yet been realized. In 2017, anal cancer incidence was 45.9 cases for every 100,000 person-years among human immunodeficiency (HIV)–positive MSM and 5.1 cases for every 100,000 person-years among HIV-negative MSM vs only 1.5 cases for every 100,000 person-years among men in the United States overall.³ Yet the CDC states that there is insufficient evidence to recommend routine anal cancer screening among MSM, even when a patient is HIV positive. Therefore, current screening practices and treatments are insufficient as MSM continue to have a disproportionately higher rate of HPV-associated disease compared to other populations.

Barriers to HPV Vaccine Administration

The HPV vaccination rate among MSM in adolescent populations varies across reports.^5-7 Interestingly, a 2016 survey study found that MSM had approximately 2-times greater odds of initiating the HPV vaccine than heterosexual men.⁸ However, a study specifically sampling young gay and bisexual men (N=428) found that only 13% had received any doses of the HPV vaccine.⁶

Regardless, HPV vaccination is much less common among all males than it is among all females, and the low rate of vaccination among sexual minority men has a disproportionate impact, given their higher risk for HPV infection.⁴ Although the HPV vaccination rate increased from 2014 to 2017, the HPV vaccination rate in MSM overall is less than half of the Healthy People 2020 goal of 80%.⁹ A 2018 review determined that HPV vaccination is a cost-effective strategy for preventing anal cancer in MSM¹⁰; yet male patients might still view the HPV vaccine as a “women’s issue” and are less likely to be vaccinated if they are not prompted by health care providers. Additionally, HPV vaccination is remarkably less likely in MSM when patients are older, uninsured, of lower socioeconomic status, or have not disclosed their sexual identity to their health care provider.⁹ Dermatologists should be mindful of these barriers to promote HPV vaccination in MSM before, or soon after, sexual debut.

Other members of the LGBTQ community, such as women who have sex with women, face notable HPV-related health disparities and would benefit from increased vaccination efforts by dermatologists. Adolescent and young adult women who have sex with women are less likely than heterosexual adolescent and young adult women to receive routine Papanicolaou tests and initiate HPV vaccination, despite having a higher number of lifetime sexual partners and a higher risk for HPV exposure.¹¹ A 2015 survey study (N=3253) found that after adjusting for covariates, only 8.5% of lesbians and 33.2% of bisexual women and girls who had heard of the HPV vaccine had initiated vaccination compared to 28.4% of their heterosexual counterparts.¹¹ The HPV vaccine is an effective public health tool for the prevention of cervical cancer in these populations. A study of women aged 15 to 19 years in the HPV vaccination era (2007-2014) found significant (P<.05) observed population-level decreases in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia incidence across all grades.¹²

Transgender women also face a high rate of HPV infection, HIV infection, and other structural and financial disparities, such as low insurance coverage, that can limit their access to vaccination. Transgender men have a higher rate of HPV infection than cisgender men, and those with female internal reproductive organs are less likely to receive routine Papanicolaou tests. A 2018 survey study found that approximately one-third of transgender men and women reported initiating the HPV vaccination series,¹³ but further investigation is required to make balanced comparisons to cisgender patients.

The Role of the Dermatologist

Collectively, these disparities emphasize the need for increased involvement by dermatologists in HPV vaccination efforts for all LGBTQ patients. Adult patients may have concerns about ties of the HPV vaccine to drug manufacturers and the general safety of vaccination. For pediatric patients, parents/guardians also may be concerned about an assumed but not evidence-based increase in sexual promiscuity following HPV vaccination.¹⁴ These topics can be challenging to discuss, but dermatologists have the duty to be proactive and initiate conversation about HPV vaccination, as opposed to waiting for patients to express interest. Dermatologists should stress the safety of the vaccine as well as its potential to protect against multiple, even life-threatening diseases. Providers also can explain that the ACIP recommends catch-up vaccination for all individuals through 26 years of age, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

With the ACIP having recently expanded the appropriate age range for HPV vaccination, we encourage dermatologists to engage in education and shared decision-making to ensure that adult patients with specific risk factors receive the HPV vaccine. Because the expanded ACIP recommendations are aimed at vaccination before HPV exposure, vaccination might not be appropriate for all LGBTQ patients. However, eliciting a sexual history with routine patient intake forms or during the clinical encounter ensures equal access to the HPV vaccine.

Greater awareness of HPV-related disparities and barriers to vaccination in LGBTQ populations has the potential to notably decrease HPV-associated mortality and morbidity. Increased involvement by dermatologists contributes to the efforts of other specialties in universal HPV vaccination, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity—ideally in younger age groups, such that patients receive the vaccine prior to coitarche.

There are many ways that dermatologists can advocate for HPV vaccination. Those in a multispecialty or academic practice can readily refer patients to an associated internist, primary care physician, or vaccination clinic in the same building or institution. Dermatologists in private practice might be able to administer the HPV vaccine themselves or can advocate for patients to receive the vaccine at a local facility of the Department of Health or at a nonprofit organization, such as a Planned Parenthood center. Although pediatricians and family physicians remain front-line providers of these services, dermatologists represent an additional member of a patient’s care team, capable of advocating for this important intervention.

Since joining the Food and Drug Administration in 1986, Janet Woodcock, MD, has built a reputation as a stalwart champion of patients and consumers, from helping to usher the approval of the first treatments for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis during her tenure as director of the Office of Therapeutics Research and Review, to introducing the concept of risk management in the agency’s analysis of drug safety during her role as acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

During an online event on Oct. 9, Dr. Woodcock, who became CDER’s director in 2008, will receive a lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders*. In this interview, she reflects on the CDER’s accomplishments in the field of rare diseases, from which she draws inspiration, and what it’s like to be overseeing the therapeutics component of Operation Warp Speed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Q: In what practical ways can physicians become advocates for patients and their families who are navigating life with a rare disease?

Dr. Woodcock: I advise people to get involved in the association or advocacy group for their rare disease. It’s empowering. They can share stories and information with others who have been suffering from the disease. Also, they would get information about what trials might be available. As for physicians themselves, they have a bewildering variety of jobs they’re supposed to do, so it’s hard to be good in any one of them. People with rare disease often suffer terribly because they don’t get diagnosed for 10 years even though they have classic symptoms of a particular disorder. If physicians have never seen it or never heard of it, they may not know how to treat it. It’s a huge problem.



Q: Who inspires you most in your work today?

Dr. Woodcock: The dedication of the staff at the FDA is unbelievable. When you look at responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management, FDA workers consistently express a strong sense of mission and dedication. It’s out of the park, really. They have worked night and day during this pandemic. I’m inspired by everyone who works at the FDA and their incredible dedication to their work.

Q: In what ways do you cope with the pressure that comes with your line of work? Do you have a favorite hobby or that activity that helps keep you grounded?

Dr. Woodcock: I’m an avid gardener, so I have a garden with vegetables, fruits, and flowers, including a large orchid collection. I’m also a hiker and a physical fitness buff, so I feel like there isn’t enough time in the day for all of my hobbies. Formal hiking trails near me are very crowded now, so I’ve been hiking around my neighborhood, taking long walks and going up and down hills quickly. Last November, I went hiking in New Zealand with my daughter. We hiked the Milford Track, which is about 33 miles long. It goes from an inland lake, over a mountain pass, and to the Pacific Ocean. It was fun, with unbelievable scenery.



Q: What novel treatment developments in rare disorders are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dr. Woodcock: I think gene therapy will come into its own. I think that could be a game-changer for people with genetic mutations causing rare diseases, and even cancer. We’ll see. It takes the technology a long time to mature. There are also gene-directed therapies such as RNA inhibition. We’ve already approved a couple of products like that for rare diseases, including treatments for the cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with ATTR amyloidosis. As our knowledge of biology continues to grow, I think more of these diseases will be amenable to interventions.



Q: In May of 2020 you were asked to temporarily step aside from your post as director of CDER to work on Operation Warp Speed. Please describe what your role is in this effort to accelerate COVID-19 treatments.

Dr. Woodcock: I’m the lead on therapeutics. Operation Warp Speed is mainly focused on developing vaccines for COVID-19. In the meantime, people who don’t respond to vaccines are going to need therapeutics, such as the elderly, or those who refuse to take vaccines, or those who are immunosuppressed and can’t mount a response to a vaccine. If we can develop those therapeutics now, that would be good to get that populous vaccinated. The team identified what we thought were the five highest priority agents to work on, and we’re testing them. We have identified many more in a priority list. We have five master protocols running for different times in the disease, such as when you’re an outpatient, when you’re an inpatient, or when you’re in the ICU. The work is stressful, because we need these treatments as soon as possible, but we have a great team working on this. I feel like I’m making a contribution in this role, because I know people in industry and in the National Institutes of Health. I try to bring everyone together and get things done.

*Correction, 10/22/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

[email protected]

Since joining the Food and Drug Administration in 1986, Janet Woodcock, MD, has built a reputation as a stalwart champion of patients and consumers, from helping to usher the approval of the first treatments for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis during her tenure as director of the Office of Therapeutics Research and Review, to introducing the concept of risk management in the agency’s analysis of drug safety during her role as acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

During an online event on Oct. 9, Dr. Woodcock, who became CDER’s director in 2008, will receive a lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders*. In this interview, she reflects on the CDER’s accomplishments in the field of rare diseases, from which she draws inspiration, and what it’s like to be overseeing the therapeutics component of Operation Warp Speed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Q: In what practical ways can physicians become advocates for patients and their families who are navigating life with a rare disease?

Dr. Woodcock: I advise people to get involved in the association or advocacy group for their rare disease. It’s empowering. They can share stories and information with others who have been suffering from the disease. Also, they would get information about what trials might be available. As for physicians themselves, they have a bewildering variety of jobs they’re supposed to do, so it’s hard to be good in any one of them. People with rare disease often suffer terribly because they don’t get diagnosed for 10 years even though they have classic symptoms of a particular disorder. If physicians have never seen it or never heard of it, they may not know how to treat it. It’s a huge problem.



Q: Who inspires you most in your work today?

Dr. Woodcock: The dedication of the staff at the FDA is unbelievable. When you look at responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management, FDA workers consistently express a strong sense of mission and dedication. It’s out of the park, really. They have worked night and day during this pandemic. I’m inspired by everyone who works at the FDA and their incredible dedication to their work.

Q: In what ways do you cope with the pressure that comes with your line of work? Do you have a favorite hobby or that activity that helps keep you grounded?

Dr. Woodcock: I’m an avid gardener, so I have a garden with vegetables, fruits, and flowers, including a large orchid collection. I’m also a hiker and a physical fitness buff, so I feel like there isn’t enough time in the day for all of my hobbies. Formal hiking trails near me are very crowded now, so I’ve been hiking around my neighborhood, taking long walks and going up and down hills quickly. Last November, I went hiking in New Zealand with my daughter. We hiked the Milford Track, which is about 33 miles long. It goes from an inland lake, over a mountain pass, and to the Pacific Ocean. It was fun, with unbelievable scenery.



Q: What novel treatment developments in rare disorders are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dr. Woodcock: I think gene therapy will come into its own. I think that could be a game-changer for people with genetic mutations causing rare diseases, and even cancer. We’ll see. It takes the technology a long time to mature. There are also gene-directed therapies such as RNA inhibition. We’ve already approved a couple of products like that for rare diseases, including treatments for the cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with ATTR amyloidosis. As our knowledge of biology continues to grow, I think more of these diseases will be amenable to interventions.



Q: In May of 2020 you were asked to temporarily step aside from your post as director of CDER to work on Operation Warp Speed. Please describe what your role is in this effort to accelerate COVID-19 treatments.

Dr. Woodcock: I’m the lead on therapeutics. Operation Warp Speed is mainly focused on developing vaccines for COVID-19. In the meantime, people who don’t respond to vaccines are going to need therapeutics, such as the elderly, or those who refuse to take vaccines, or those who are immunosuppressed and can’t mount a response to a vaccine. If we can develop those therapeutics now, that would be good to get that populous vaccinated. The team identified what we thought were the five highest priority agents to work on, and we’re testing them. We have identified many more in a priority list. We have five master protocols running for different times in the disease, such as when you’re an outpatient, when you’re an inpatient, or when you’re in the ICU. The work is stressful, because we need these treatments as soon as possible, but we have a great team working on this. I feel like I’m making a contribution in this role, because I know people in industry and in the National Institutes of Health. I try to bring everyone together and get things done.

*Correction, 10/22/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

[email protected]

Since joining the Food and Drug Administration in 1986, Janet Woodcock, MD, has built a reputation as a stalwart champion of patients and consumers, from helping to usher the approval of the first treatments for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis during her tenure as director of the Office of Therapeutics Research and Review, to introducing the concept of risk management in the agency’s analysis of drug safety during her role as acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

During an online event on Oct. 9, Dr. Woodcock, who became CDER’s director in 2008, will receive a lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders*. In this interview, she reflects on the CDER’s accomplishments in the field of rare diseases, from which she draws inspiration, and what it’s like to be overseeing the therapeutics component of Operation Warp Speed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Q: In what practical ways can physicians become advocates for patients and their families who are navigating life with a rare disease?

Dr. Woodcock: I advise people to get involved in the association or advocacy group for their rare disease. It’s empowering. They can share stories and information with others who have been suffering from the disease. Also, they would get information about what trials might be available. As for physicians themselves, they have a bewildering variety of jobs they’re supposed to do, so it’s hard to be good in any one of them. People with rare disease often suffer terribly because they don’t get diagnosed for 10 years even though they have classic symptoms of a particular disorder. If physicians have never seen it or never heard of it, they may not know how to treat it. It’s a huge problem.



Q: Who inspires you most in your work today?

Dr. Woodcock: The dedication of the staff at the FDA is unbelievable. When you look at responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management, FDA workers consistently express a strong sense of mission and dedication. It’s out of the park, really. They have worked night and day during this pandemic. I’m inspired by everyone who works at the FDA and their incredible dedication to their work.

Q: In what ways do you cope with the pressure that comes with your line of work? Do you have a favorite hobby or that activity that helps keep you grounded?

Dr. Woodcock: I’m an avid gardener, so I have a garden with vegetables, fruits, and flowers, including a large orchid collection. I’m also a hiker and a physical fitness buff, so I feel like there isn’t enough time in the day for all of my hobbies. Formal hiking trails near me are very crowded now, so I’ve been hiking around my neighborhood, taking long walks and going up and down hills quickly. Last November, I went hiking in New Zealand with my daughter. We hiked the Milford Track, which is about 33 miles long. It goes from an inland lake, over a mountain pass, and to the Pacific Ocean. It was fun, with unbelievable scenery.



Q: What novel treatment developments in rare disorders are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dr. Woodcock: I think gene therapy will come into its own. I think that could be a game-changer for people with genetic mutations causing rare diseases, and even cancer. We’ll see. It takes the technology a long time to mature. There are also gene-directed therapies such as RNA inhibition. We’ve already approved a couple of products like that for rare diseases, including treatments for the cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with ATTR amyloidosis. As our knowledge of biology continues to grow, I think more of these diseases will be amenable to interventions.



Q: In May of 2020 you were asked to temporarily step aside from your post as director of CDER to work on Operation Warp Speed. Please describe what your role is in this effort to accelerate COVID-19 treatments.

Dr. Woodcock: I’m the lead on therapeutics. Operation Warp Speed is mainly focused on developing vaccines for COVID-19. In the meantime, people who don’t respond to vaccines are going to need therapeutics, such as the elderly, or those who refuse to take vaccines, or those who are immunosuppressed and can’t mount a response to a vaccine. If we can develop those therapeutics now, that would be good to get that populous vaccinated. The team identified what we thought were the five highest priority agents to work on, and we’re testing them. We have identified many more in a priority list. We have five master protocols running for different times in the disease, such as when you’re an outpatient, when you’re an inpatient, or when you’re in the ICU. The work is stressful, because we need these treatments as soon as possible, but we have a great team working on this. I feel like I’m making a contribution in this role, because I know people in industry and in the National Institutes of Health. I try to bring everyone together and get things done.

*Correction, 10/22/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

[email protected]

Roughly half of American adults have hypertension, and about 71% of these cases are uncontrolled, according to data from the American Heart Association.

If left uncontrolled, hypertension can increase risk for conditions including heart disease, stroke, kidney disease, pregnancy complications, and cognitive decline, surgeon general Vice Adm. Jerome M. Adams, MD, said in a teleconference on Oct. 7. Hispanic and Black individuals are disproportionately affected, he added.

“We cannot wait to deal with this epidemic of uncontrolled high blood pressure,” even in the midst of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, said Dr. Adams. “We know what works” to help control hypertension, he added, citing his own use of a blood pressure monitoring device at home.

The Department of Health & Human Services has issued a Call to Action to Control Hypertension based on the latest science and research.

Dr. Adams outlined three goals to improve hypertension control, starting with making it a national priority. The Call to Action supports increasing awareness of the health risks associated with hypertension, recognizing the economic impact, overcoming barriers to controlling hypertension, and promoting health equity.

“In 2020, disparities in the burden of disease – especially among minority populations – have been recognized during the COVID-19 pandemic. A growing body of evidence has shown that people with underlying health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, are at increased risk of worse outcomes related to COVID-19 infection,” according to the Call to Action.

A second goal is to build and sustain communities that support individuals in taking responsibility for their health and blood pressure control, Dr. Adams said. He cited the need to create places for safe physical activity, access to healthy food, and opportunities to connect to resources to support lifestyle changes.

Finally, clinicians should continue to use standardized treatment approaches and promote team-based care to maximize outcomes for patients, Dr. Adams said.

Success starts with making hypertension control a priority across the leadership team, regardless of the size, location, or demographic population at a health care setting, he said. Dr. Adams cited the Million Hearts 2022 program, an ongoing initiative to prevent 1 million heart attacks in the United States over 5 years, as a way that HHS is recognizing and rewarding success stories in hypertension control from across the country.

Empowering patients and equipping them to take charge of their hypertension essential to reducing the epidemic of high blood pressure, especially during the ongoing pandemic, Dr. Adams said. His message to clinicians to extend to patients is that it is safe to visit their doctors. Hospitals have worked to create a safe environment, however, patients can and should monitor their blood pressure regularly at home, using a self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SMBP) device, which may be covered by some insurers.

“I would encourage people to know their numbers,” and that 130/80 mm Hg is considered high and a risk factor for poor health outcomes, Dr. Adams said. Clinicians also should continue to support patients in lifestyle changes such as healthy eating and exercising regularly to help control high blood pressure.

The AHA expressed support for the surgeon general’s Call to Action. “Today’s call to action references updated hypertension guidelines the AHA and the American College of Cardiology issued in 2017 that apply the latest science to help clinicians work with patients to control their blood pressure,” the AHA said in a statement. The AHA also called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other insurance providers “to include coverage of SMBP devices for treatment and management of hypertension.”

The Call to Action was accompanied by a Viewpoint from Dr. Adams and Janet S. Wright, MD, also of the HHS, published in JAMA. Dr. Adams and Dr. Wright emphasized that the timing of the Call to Action recognizes that many of the same social factors that support or impede successful high blood pressure control are factors in worse outcomes from COVID-19 infections as well.

“When coupled with widespread implementation of best practices in clinical settings and empowering individuals to actively manage their blood pressure, acknowledging and addressing a community’s social conditions may generate sustained improvements in control of both hypertension and COVID-19,” they said.

Read and download the full Call to Action here, and read the Executive Summary at hhs.gov.

Roughly half of American adults have hypertension, and about 71% of these cases are uncontrolled, according to data from the American Heart Association.

If left uncontrolled, hypertension can increase risk for conditions including heart disease, stroke, kidney disease, pregnancy complications, and cognitive decline, surgeon general Vice Adm. Jerome M. Adams, MD, said in a teleconference on Oct. 7. Hispanic and Black individuals are disproportionately affected, he added.

“We cannot wait to deal with this epidemic of uncontrolled high blood pressure,” even in the midst of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, said Dr. Adams. “We know what works” to help control hypertension, he added, citing his own use of a blood pressure monitoring device at home.

The Department of Health & Human Services has issued a Call to Action to Control Hypertension based on the latest science and research.

Dr. Adams outlined three goals to improve hypertension control, starting with making it a national priority. The Call to Action supports increasing awareness of the health risks associated with hypertension, recognizing the economic impact, overcoming barriers to controlling hypertension, and promoting health equity.

“In 2020, disparities in the burden of disease – especially among minority populations – have been recognized during the COVID-19 pandemic. A growing body of evidence has shown that people with underlying health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, are at increased risk of worse outcomes related to COVID-19 infection,” according to the Call to Action.

A second goal is to build and sustain communities that support individuals in taking responsibility for their health and blood pressure control, Dr. Adams said. He cited the need to create places for safe physical activity, access to healthy food, and opportunities to connect to resources to support lifestyle changes.

Finally, clinicians should continue to use standardized treatment approaches and promote team-based care to maximize outcomes for patients, Dr. Adams said.

Success starts with making hypertension control a priority across the leadership team, regardless of the size, location, or demographic population at a health care setting, he said. Dr. Adams cited the Million Hearts 2022 program, an ongoing initiative to prevent 1 million heart attacks in the United States over 5 years, as a way that HHS is recognizing and rewarding success stories in hypertension control from across the country.

Empowering patients and equipping them to take charge of their hypertension essential to reducing the epidemic of high blood pressure, especially during the ongoing pandemic, Dr. Adams said. His message to clinicians to extend to patients is that it is safe to visit their doctors. Hospitals have worked to create a safe environment, however, patients can and should monitor their blood pressure regularly at home, using a self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SMBP) device, which may be covered by some insurers.

“I would encourage people to know their numbers,” and that 130/80 mm Hg is considered high and a risk factor for poor health outcomes, Dr. Adams said. Clinicians also should continue to support patients in lifestyle changes such as healthy eating and exercising regularly to help control high blood pressure.

The AHA expressed support for the surgeon general’s Call to Action. “Today’s call to action references updated hypertension guidelines the AHA and the American College of Cardiology issued in 2017 that apply the latest science to help clinicians work with patients to control their blood pressure,” the AHA said in a statement. The AHA also called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other insurance providers “to include coverage of SMBP devices for treatment and management of hypertension.”

The Call to Action was accompanied by a Viewpoint from Dr. Adams and Janet S. Wright, MD, also of the HHS, published in JAMA. Dr. Adams and Dr. Wright emphasized that the timing of the Call to Action recognizes that many of the same social factors that support or impede successful high blood pressure control are factors in worse outcomes from COVID-19 infections as well.

“When coupled with widespread implementation of best practices in clinical settings and empowering individuals to actively manage their blood pressure, acknowledging and addressing a community’s social conditions may generate sustained improvements in control of both hypertension and COVID-19,” they said.

Read and download the full Call to Action here, and read the Executive Summary at hhs.gov.

Roughly half of American adults have hypertension, and about 71% of these cases are uncontrolled, according to data from the American Heart Association.

If left uncontrolled, hypertension can increase risk for conditions including heart disease, stroke, kidney disease, pregnancy complications, and cognitive decline, surgeon general Vice Adm. Jerome M. Adams, MD, said in a teleconference on Oct. 7. Hispanic and Black individuals are disproportionately affected, he added.

“We cannot wait to deal with this epidemic of uncontrolled high blood pressure,” even in the midst of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, said Dr. Adams. “We know what works” to help control hypertension, he added, citing his own use of a blood pressure monitoring device at home.

The Department of Health & Human Services has issued a Call to Action to Control Hypertension based on the latest science and research.

Dr. Adams outlined three goals to improve hypertension control, starting with making it a national priority. The Call to Action supports increasing awareness of the health risks associated with hypertension, recognizing the economic impact, overcoming barriers to controlling hypertension, and promoting health equity.

“In 2020, disparities in the burden of disease – especially among minority populations – have been recognized during the COVID-19 pandemic. A growing body of evidence has shown that people with underlying health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, are at increased risk of worse outcomes related to COVID-19 infection,” according to the Call to Action.

A second goal is to build and sustain communities that support individuals in taking responsibility for their health and blood pressure control, Dr. Adams said. He cited the need to create places for safe physical activity, access to healthy food, and opportunities to connect to resources to support lifestyle changes.

Finally, clinicians should continue to use standardized treatment approaches and promote team-based care to maximize outcomes for patients, Dr. Adams said.

Success starts with making hypertension control a priority across the leadership team, regardless of the size, location, or demographic population at a health care setting, he said. Dr. Adams cited the Million Hearts 2022 program, an ongoing initiative to prevent 1 million heart attacks in the United States over 5 years, as a way that HHS is recognizing and rewarding success stories in hypertension control from across the country.

Empowering patients and equipping them to take charge of their hypertension essential to reducing the epidemic of high blood pressure, especially during the ongoing pandemic, Dr. Adams said. His message to clinicians to extend to patients is that it is safe to visit their doctors. Hospitals have worked to create a safe environment, however, patients can and should monitor their blood pressure regularly at home, using a self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SMBP) device, which may be covered by some insurers.

“I would encourage people to know their numbers,” and that 130/80 mm Hg is considered high and a risk factor for poor health outcomes, Dr. Adams said. Clinicians also should continue to support patients in lifestyle changes such as healthy eating and exercising regularly to help control high blood pressure.

The AHA expressed support for the surgeon general’s Call to Action. “Today’s call to action references updated hypertension guidelines the AHA and the American College of Cardiology issued in 2017 that apply the latest science to help clinicians work with patients to control their blood pressure,” the AHA said in a statement. The AHA also called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other insurance providers “to include coverage of SMBP devices for treatment and management of hypertension.”

The Call to Action was accompanied by a Viewpoint from Dr. Adams and Janet S. Wright, MD, also of the HHS, published in JAMA. Dr. Adams and Dr. Wright emphasized that the timing of the Call to Action recognizes that many of the same social factors that support or impede successful high blood pressure control are factors in worse outcomes from COVID-19 infections as well.

“When coupled with widespread implementation of best practices in clinical settings and empowering individuals to actively manage their blood pressure, acknowledging and addressing a community’s social conditions may generate sustained improvements in control of both hypertension and COVID-19,” they said.

Read and download the full Call to Action here, and read the Executive Summary at hhs.gov.

If your ObGyn practices are anything like ours, every time there is news coverage of a study regarding mammography or about efforts to pass a breast density inform law, your phone rings with patient calls. In fact, every density inform law enacted in the United States, except for in Illinois, directs patients to their referring provider—generally their ObGyn—to discuss the screening and risk implications of dense breast tissue.

The steady increased awareness of breast density means that we, as ObGyns and other primary care providers (PCPs), have additional responsibilities in managing the breast health of our patients. This includes guiding discussions with patients about what breast density means and whether supplemental screening beyond mammography might be beneficial.

As members of the Medical Advisory Board for DenseBreast-info.org (an online educational resource dedicated to providing breast density information to patients and health care professionals), we are aware of the growing body of evidence demonstrating improved detection of early breast cancer using supplemental screening in dense breasts. However, we know that there is confusion among clinicians about how and when to facilitate tailored screening for women with dense breasts or other breast cancer risk factors. Here we answer 6 questions focusing on how to navigate patient discussions around the topic and the best way to collaborate with radiologists to improve breast care for patients.

Play an active role

1. What role should ObGyns and PCPs play in women’s breast health?

Elizabeth Etkin-Kramer, MD: I am a firm believer that ObGyns and all women’s health providers should be able to assess their patients’ risk of breast cancer and explain the process for managing this risk with their patients. This explanation includes the clinical implications of breast density and when supplemental screening should be employed. It is also important for providers to know when to offer genetic testing and when a patient’s personal or family history indicates supplemental screening with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

DaCarla M. Albright, MD: I absolutely agree that PCPs, ObGyns, and family practitioners should spend the time to be educated about breast density and supplemental screening options. While the exact role providers play in managing patients’ breast health may vary depending on the practice type or location, the need for knowledge and comfort when talking with patients to help them make informed decisions is critical. Breast health and screening, including the importance of breast density, happen to be a particular interest of mine. I have participated in educational webinars, invited lectures, and breast cancer awareness media events on this topic in the past.

Continue to: Join forces with imaging centers...

Join forces with imaging centers

2. How can ObGyns and radiologists collaborate most effectively to use screening results to personalize breast care for patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important to have a close relationship with the radiologists that read our patients’ mammograms. We need to be able to easily contact the radiologist and quickly get clarification on a patient’s report or discuss next steps. Imaging centers should consider running outreach programs to educate their referring providers on how to risk assess, with this assessment inclusive of breast density. Dinner lectures or grand round meetings are effective to facilitate communication between the radiology community and the ObGyn community. Finally, as we all know, supplemental screening is often subject to copays and deductibles per insurance coverage. If advocacy groups, who are working to eliminate these types of costs, cannot get insurers to waive these payments, we need a less expensive self-pay option.

Dr. Albright: I definitely have and encourage an open line of communication between my practice and breast radiology, as well as our breast surgeons and cancer center to set up consultations as needed. We also invite our radiologists as guests to monthly practice meetings or grand rounds within our department to further improve access and open communication, as this environment is one in which greater provider education on density and adjunctive screening can be achieved.

Know when to refer a high-risk patient

3. Most ObGyns routinely collect family history and perform formal risk assessment. What do you need to know about referring patients to a high-risk program?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important as ObGyns to be knowledgeable about breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment and genetic testing for cancer susceptibility genes. Our patients expect that of us. I am comfortable doing risk assessment in my office, but I sometimes refer to other specialists in the community if the patient needs additional counseling. For risk assessment, I look at family and personal history, breast density, and other factors that might lead me to believe the patient might carry a hereditary cancer susceptibility gene, including Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.¹ When indicated, I check lifetime as well as short-term (5- to 10-year) risk, usually using Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) or Tyrer-Cuzick/International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) models, as these include breast density.

I discuss risk-reducing medications. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends these agents if my patient’s 5-year risk of breast cancer is 1.67% or greater, and I strongly recommend chemoprevention when the patient’s 5-year BCSC risk exceeds 3%, provided likely benefits exceed risks.^2,3 I discuss adding screening breast MRI if lifetime risk by Tyrer-Cuzick exceeds 20%. (Note that Gail and BCSC models are not recommended to be used to determine risk for purposes of supplemental screening with MRI as they do not consider paternal family history nor age of relatives at diagnosis.)

Dr. Albright: ObGyns should be able to ascertain a pertinent history and identify patients at risk for breast cancer based on their personal history, family history, and breast imaging/biopsy history, if relevant. We also need to improve our discussions of supplemental screening for patients who have heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breast tissue. I sense that some ObGyns may rely heavily on the radiologist to suggest supplemental screening, but patients actually look to Ob­Gyns as their providers to have this knowledge and give them direction.

Since I practice at a large academic medical center, I have the opportunity to refer patients to our Breast Cancer Genetics Program because I may be limited on time for counseling in the office and do not want to miss salient details. With all of the information I have ascertained about the patient, I am able to determine and encourage appropriate screening and assure insurance coverage for adjunctive breast MRI when appropriate.

Continue to: Consider how you order patients’ screening to reduce barriers and cost...

4. How would you suggest reducing barriers when referring patients for supplemental screening, such as MRI for high-risk women or ultrasound for those with dense breasts? Would you prefer it if such screening could be performed without additional script/referral? How does insurance coverage factor in?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I would love for a screening mammogram with possible ultrasound, on one script, to be the norm. One of the centers that I work with accepts a script written this way. Further, when a patient receives screening at a freestanding facility as opposed to a hospital, the fee for the supplemental screening may be lower because they do not add on a facility fee.

Dr. Albright: We have an order in our electronic health record that allows for screening mammography but adds on diagnostic mammography/bilateral ultrasonography, if indicated by imaging. I am mostly ordering that option now for all of my screening patients; rarely have I had issues with insurance accepting that script. As for when ordering an MRI, I always try to ensure that I have done the patient’s personal risk assessment and included that lifetime breast cancer risk on the order. If the risk is 20% or higher, I typically do not have any insurance coverage issues. If I am ordering MRI as supplemental screening, I typically order the “Fast MRI” protocol that our center offers. This order incurs a $299 out-of-pocket cost for the patient. Any patient with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts on mammography should have this option, but it requires patient education, discussion with the provider, and an additional cost. I definitely think that insurers need to consider covering supplemental screening, since breast density is reportable in a majority of the US states and will soon be the national standard.

Pearls for guiding patients

5. How do you discuss breast density and the need for supplemental screening with your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I strongly feel that my patients need to know when a screening test has limited ability to do its job. This is the case with dense breasts. Visuals help; when discussing breast density, I like the images supplied by DenseBreast-info.org (FIGURE). I explain the two implications of dense tissue:

• First, dense tissue makes it harder to visualize cancers in the breast—the denser the breasts, the less likely the radiologist can pick up a cancer, so mammographic sensitivity for extremely dense breasts can be as low as 25% to 50%.
• Second, high breast density adds to the risk of developing breast cancer. I explain that supplemental screening will pick up additional cancers in women with dense breasts. For example, breast ultrasound will pick up about 2-3/1000 additional breast cancers per year and MRI or molecular breast imaging (MBI) will pick up much more, perhaps 10/1000.

MRI is more invasive than an ultrasound and uses gadolinium, and MBI has more radiation. Supplemental screening is not endorsed by ACOG’s most recent Committee Opinion from 2017; ⁴ however, patients may choose to have it done. This is where shared-decision making is important.

I strongly recommend that all women’s health care providers complete the CME course on the DenseBreast-info.org website. “ Breast Density: Why It Matters ” is a certified educational program for referring physicians that helps health care professionals learn about breast density, its associated risks, and how best to guide patients regarding breast cancer screening.

Continue to: Dr. Albright...

Dr. Albright: When I discuss breast density, I make sure that patients understand that their mammogram determines the density of their breast tissue. I review that in the higher density categories (heterogeneously dense or extremely dense), there is a higher risk of missing cancer, and that these categories are also associated with a higher risk of breast cancer. I also discuss the potential need for supplemental screening, for which my institution primarily offers Fast MRI. However, we can offer breast ultrasonography instead as an option, especially for those concerned about gadolinium exposure. Our center offers either of these supplemental screenings at a cost of $299. I also review the lack of coverage for supplemental screening by some insurance carriers, as both providers and patients may need to advocate for insurer coverage of adjunct studies.

Educational resources

6. What reference materials, illustrations, or other tools do you use to educate your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I frequently use handouts printed from the DenseBreast-info.org website, and there is now a brand new patient fact sheet that I have just started using. I also have an example of breast density categories from fatty replaced to extremely dense on my computer, and I am putting it on a new smart board.

Dr. Albright: The extensive resources available at DenseBreast-info.org can improve both patient and provider knowledge of these important issues, so I suggest patients visit that website, and I use many of the images and visuals to help explain breast density. I even use the materials from the website for educating my resident trainees on breast health and screening. ●

If your ObGyn practices are anything like ours, every time there is news coverage of a study regarding mammography or about efforts to pass a breast density inform law, your phone rings with patient calls. In fact, every density inform law enacted in the United States, except for in Illinois, directs patients to their referring provider—generally their ObGyn—to discuss the screening and risk implications of dense breast tissue.

The steady increased awareness of breast density means that we, as ObGyns and other primary care providers (PCPs), have additional responsibilities in managing the breast health of our patients. This includes guiding discussions with patients about what breast density means and whether supplemental screening beyond mammography might be beneficial.

As members of the Medical Advisory Board for DenseBreast-info.org (an online educational resource dedicated to providing breast density information to patients and health care professionals), we are aware of the growing body of evidence demonstrating improved detection of early breast cancer using supplemental screening in dense breasts. However, we know that there is confusion among clinicians about how and when to facilitate tailored screening for women with dense breasts or other breast cancer risk factors. Here we answer 6 questions focusing on how to navigate patient discussions around the topic and the best way to collaborate with radiologists to improve breast care for patients.

Play an active role

1. What role should ObGyns and PCPs play in women’s breast health?

Elizabeth Etkin-Kramer, MD: I am a firm believer that ObGyns and all women’s health providers should be able to assess their patients’ risk of breast cancer and explain the process for managing this risk with their patients. This explanation includes the clinical implications of breast density and when supplemental screening should be employed. It is also important for providers to know when to offer genetic testing and when a patient’s personal or family history indicates supplemental screening with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

DaCarla M. Albright, MD: I absolutely agree that PCPs, ObGyns, and family practitioners should spend the time to be educated about breast density and supplemental screening options. While the exact role providers play in managing patients’ breast health may vary depending on the practice type or location, the need for knowledge and comfort when talking with patients to help them make informed decisions is critical. Breast health and screening, including the importance of breast density, happen to be a particular interest of mine. I have participated in educational webinars, invited lectures, and breast cancer awareness media events on this topic in the past.

Continue to: Join forces with imaging centers...

Join forces with imaging centers

2. How can ObGyns and radiologists collaborate most effectively to use screening results to personalize breast care for patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important to have a close relationship with the radiologists that read our patients’ mammograms. We need to be able to easily contact the radiologist and quickly get clarification on a patient’s report or discuss next steps. Imaging centers should consider running outreach programs to educate their referring providers on how to risk assess, with this assessment inclusive of breast density. Dinner lectures or grand round meetings are effective to facilitate communication between the radiology community and the ObGyn community. Finally, as we all know, supplemental screening is often subject to copays and deductibles per insurance coverage. If advocacy groups, who are working to eliminate these types of costs, cannot get insurers to waive these payments, we need a less expensive self-pay option.

Dr. Albright: I definitely have and encourage an open line of communication between my practice and breast radiology, as well as our breast surgeons and cancer center to set up consultations as needed. We also invite our radiologists as guests to monthly practice meetings or grand rounds within our department to further improve access and open communication, as this environment is one in which greater provider education on density and adjunctive screening can be achieved.

Know when to refer a high-risk patient

3. Most ObGyns routinely collect family history and perform formal risk assessment. What do you need to know about referring patients to a high-risk program?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important as ObGyns to be knowledgeable about breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment and genetic testing for cancer susceptibility genes. Our patients expect that of us. I am comfortable doing risk assessment in my office, but I sometimes refer to other specialists in the community if the patient needs additional counseling. For risk assessment, I look at family and personal history, breast density, and other factors that might lead me to believe the patient might carry a hereditary cancer susceptibility gene, including Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.¹ When indicated, I check lifetime as well as short-term (5- to 10-year) risk, usually using Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) or Tyrer-Cuzick/International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) models, as these include breast density.

I discuss risk-reducing medications. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends these agents if my patient’s 5-year risk of breast cancer is 1.67% or greater, and I strongly recommend chemoprevention when the patient’s 5-year BCSC risk exceeds 3%, provided likely benefits exceed risks.^2,3 I discuss adding screening breast MRI if lifetime risk by Tyrer-Cuzick exceeds 20%. (Note that Gail and BCSC models are not recommended to be used to determine risk for purposes of supplemental screening with MRI as they do not consider paternal family history nor age of relatives at diagnosis.)

Dr. Albright: ObGyns should be able to ascertain a pertinent history and identify patients at risk for breast cancer based on their personal history, family history, and breast imaging/biopsy history, if relevant. We also need to improve our discussions of supplemental screening for patients who have heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breast tissue. I sense that some ObGyns may rely heavily on the radiologist to suggest supplemental screening, but patients actually look to Ob­Gyns as their providers to have this knowledge and give them direction.

Since I practice at a large academic medical center, I have the opportunity to refer patients to our Breast Cancer Genetics Program because I may be limited on time for counseling in the office and do not want to miss salient details. With all of the information I have ascertained about the patient, I am able to determine and encourage appropriate screening and assure insurance coverage for adjunctive breast MRI when appropriate.

Continue to: Consider how you order patients’ screening to reduce barriers and cost...

4. How would you suggest reducing barriers when referring patients for supplemental screening, such as MRI for high-risk women or ultrasound for those with dense breasts? Would you prefer it if such screening could be performed without additional script/referral? How does insurance coverage factor in?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I would love for a screening mammogram with possible ultrasound, on one script, to be the norm. One of the centers that I work with accepts a script written this way. Further, when a patient receives screening at a freestanding facility as opposed to a hospital, the fee for the supplemental screening may be lower because they do not add on a facility fee.

Dr. Albright: We have an order in our electronic health record that allows for screening mammography but adds on diagnostic mammography/bilateral ultrasonography, if indicated by imaging. I am mostly ordering that option now for all of my screening patients; rarely have I had issues with insurance accepting that script. As for when ordering an MRI, I always try to ensure that I have done the patient’s personal risk assessment and included that lifetime breast cancer risk on the order. If the risk is 20% or higher, I typically do not have any insurance coverage issues. If I am ordering MRI as supplemental screening, I typically order the “Fast MRI” protocol that our center offers. This order incurs a $299 out-of-pocket cost for the patient. Any patient with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts on mammography should have this option, but it requires patient education, discussion with the provider, and an additional cost. I definitely think that insurers need to consider covering supplemental screening, since breast density is reportable in a majority of the US states and will soon be the national standard.

Pearls for guiding patients

5. How do you discuss breast density and the need for supplemental screening with your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I strongly feel that my patients need to know when a screening test has limited ability to do its job. This is the case with dense breasts. Visuals help; when discussing breast density, I like the images supplied by DenseBreast-info.org (FIGURE). I explain the two implications of dense tissue:

• First, dense tissue makes it harder to visualize cancers in the breast—the denser the breasts, the less likely the radiologist can pick up a cancer, so mammographic sensitivity for extremely dense breasts can be as low as 25% to 50%.
• Second, high breast density adds to the risk of developing breast cancer. I explain that supplemental screening will pick up additional cancers in women with dense breasts. For example, breast ultrasound will pick up about 2-3/1000 additional breast cancers per year and MRI or molecular breast imaging (MBI) will pick up much more, perhaps 10/1000.

MRI is more invasive than an ultrasound and uses gadolinium, and MBI has more radiation. Supplemental screening is not endorsed by ACOG’s most recent Committee Opinion from 2017; ⁴ however, patients may choose to have it done. This is where shared-decision making is important.

I strongly recommend that all women’s health care providers complete the CME course on the DenseBreast-info.org website. “ Breast Density: Why It Matters ” is a certified educational program for referring physicians that helps health care professionals learn about breast density, its associated risks, and how best to guide patients regarding breast cancer screening.

Continue to: Dr. Albright...

Dr. Albright: When I discuss breast density, I make sure that patients understand that their mammogram determines the density of their breast tissue. I review that in the higher density categories (heterogeneously dense or extremely dense), there is a higher risk of missing cancer, and that these categories are also associated with a higher risk of breast cancer. I also discuss the potential need for supplemental screening, for which my institution primarily offers Fast MRI. However, we can offer breast ultrasonography instead as an option, especially for those concerned about gadolinium exposure. Our center offers either of these supplemental screenings at a cost of $299. I also review the lack of coverage for supplemental screening by some insurance carriers, as both providers and patients may need to advocate for insurer coverage of adjunct studies.

Educational resources

6. What reference materials, illustrations, or other tools do you use to educate your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I frequently use handouts printed from the DenseBreast-info.org website, and there is now a brand new patient fact sheet that I have just started using. I also have an example of breast density categories from fatty replaced to extremely dense on my computer, and I am putting it on a new smart board.

Dr. Albright: The extensive resources available at DenseBreast-info.org can improve both patient and provider knowledge of these important issues, so I suggest patients visit that website, and I use many of the images and visuals to help explain breast density. I even use the materials from the website for educating my resident trainees on breast health and screening. ●

If your ObGyn practices are anything like ours, every time there is news coverage of a study regarding mammography or about efforts to pass a breast density inform law, your phone rings with patient calls. In fact, every density inform law enacted in the United States, except for in Illinois, directs patients to their referring provider—generally their ObGyn—to discuss the screening and risk implications of dense breast tissue.

The steady increased awareness of breast density means that we, as ObGyns and other primary care providers (PCPs), have additional responsibilities in managing the breast health of our patients. This includes guiding discussions with patients about what breast density means and whether supplemental screening beyond mammography might be beneficial.

As members of the Medical Advisory Board for DenseBreast-info.org (an online educational resource dedicated to providing breast density information to patients and health care professionals), we are aware of the growing body of evidence demonstrating improved detection of early breast cancer using supplemental screening in dense breasts. However, we know that there is confusion among clinicians about how and when to facilitate tailored screening for women with dense breasts or other breast cancer risk factors. Here we answer 6 questions focusing on how to navigate patient discussions around the topic and the best way to collaborate with radiologists to improve breast care for patients.

Play an active role

1. What role should ObGyns and PCPs play in women’s breast health?

Elizabeth Etkin-Kramer, MD: I am a firm believer that ObGyns and all women’s health providers should be able to assess their patients’ risk of breast cancer and explain the process for managing this risk with their patients. This explanation includes the clinical implications of breast density and when supplemental screening should be employed. It is also important for providers to know when to offer genetic testing and when a patient’s personal or family history indicates supplemental screening with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

DaCarla M. Albright, MD: I absolutely agree that PCPs, ObGyns, and family practitioners should spend the time to be educated about breast density and supplemental screening options. While the exact role providers play in managing patients’ breast health may vary depending on the practice type or location, the need for knowledge and comfort when talking with patients to help them make informed decisions is critical. Breast health and screening, including the importance of breast density, happen to be a particular interest of mine. I have participated in educational webinars, invited lectures, and breast cancer awareness media events on this topic in the past.

Continue to: Join forces with imaging centers...

Join forces with imaging centers

2. How can ObGyns and radiologists collaborate most effectively to use screening results to personalize breast care for patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important to have a close relationship with the radiologists that read our patients’ mammograms. We need to be able to easily contact the radiologist and quickly get clarification on a patient’s report or discuss next steps. Imaging centers should consider running outreach programs to educate their referring providers on how to risk assess, with this assessment inclusive of breast density. Dinner lectures or grand round meetings are effective to facilitate communication between the radiology community and the ObGyn community. Finally, as we all know, supplemental screening is often subject to copays and deductibles per insurance coverage. If advocacy groups, who are working to eliminate these types of costs, cannot get insurers to waive these payments, we need a less expensive self-pay option.

Dr. Albright: I definitely have and encourage an open line of communication between my practice and breast radiology, as well as our breast surgeons and cancer center to set up consultations as needed. We also invite our radiologists as guests to monthly practice meetings or grand rounds within our department to further improve access and open communication, as this environment is one in which greater provider education on density and adjunctive screening can be achieved.

Know when to refer a high-risk patient

3. Most ObGyns routinely collect family history and perform formal risk assessment. What do you need to know about referring patients to a high-risk program?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: It is important as ObGyns to be knowledgeable about breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment and genetic testing for cancer susceptibility genes. Our patients expect that of us. I am comfortable doing risk assessment in my office, but I sometimes refer to other specialists in the community if the patient needs additional counseling. For risk assessment, I look at family and personal history, breast density, and other factors that might lead me to believe the patient might carry a hereditary cancer susceptibility gene, including Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.¹ When indicated, I check lifetime as well as short-term (5- to 10-year) risk, usually using Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) or Tyrer-Cuzick/International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) models, as these include breast density.

I discuss risk-reducing medications. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends these agents if my patient’s 5-year risk of breast cancer is 1.67% or greater, and I strongly recommend chemoprevention when the patient’s 5-year BCSC risk exceeds 3%, provided likely benefits exceed risks.^2,3 I discuss adding screening breast MRI if lifetime risk by Tyrer-Cuzick exceeds 20%. (Note that Gail and BCSC models are not recommended to be used to determine risk for purposes of supplemental screening with MRI as they do not consider paternal family history nor age of relatives at diagnosis.)

Dr. Albright: ObGyns should be able to ascertain a pertinent history and identify patients at risk for breast cancer based on their personal history, family history, and breast imaging/biopsy history, if relevant. We also need to improve our discussions of supplemental screening for patients who have heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breast tissue. I sense that some ObGyns may rely heavily on the radiologist to suggest supplemental screening, but patients actually look to Ob­Gyns as their providers to have this knowledge and give them direction.

Since I practice at a large academic medical center, I have the opportunity to refer patients to our Breast Cancer Genetics Program because I may be limited on time for counseling in the office and do not want to miss salient details. With all of the information I have ascertained about the patient, I am able to determine and encourage appropriate screening and assure insurance coverage for adjunctive breast MRI when appropriate.

Continue to: Consider how you order patients’ screening to reduce barriers and cost...

4. How would you suggest reducing barriers when referring patients for supplemental screening, such as MRI for high-risk women or ultrasound for those with dense breasts? Would you prefer it if such screening could be performed without additional script/referral? How does insurance coverage factor in?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I would love for a screening mammogram with possible ultrasound, on one script, to be the norm. One of the centers that I work with accepts a script written this way. Further, when a patient receives screening at a freestanding facility as opposed to a hospital, the fee for the supplemental screening may be lower because they do not add on a facility fee.

Dr. Albright: We have an order in our electronic health record that allows for screening mammography but adds on diagnostic mammography/bilateral ultrasonography, if indicated by imaging. I am mostly ordering that option now for all of my screening patients; rarely have I had issues with insurance accepting that script. As for when ordering an MRI, I always try to ensure that I have done the patient’s personal risk assessment and included that lifetime breast cancer risk on the order. If the risk is 20% or higher, I typically do not have any insurance coverage issues. If I am ordering MRI as supplemental screening, I typically order the “Fast MRI” protocol that our center offers. This order incurs a $299 out-of-pocket cost for the patient. Any patient with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts on mammography should have this option, but it requires patient education, discussion with the provider, and an additional cost. I definitely think that insurers need to consider covering supplemental screening, since breast density is reportable in a majority of the US states and will soon be the national standard.

Pearls for guiding patients

5. How do you discuss breast density and the need for supplemental screening with your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I strongly feel that my patients need to know when a screening test has limited ability to do its job. This is the case with dense breasts. Visuals help; when discussing breast density, I like the images supplied by DenseBreast-info.org (FIGURE). I explain the two implications of dense tissue:

• First, dense tissue makes it harder to visualize cancers in the breast—the denser the breasts, the less likely the radiologist can pick up a cancer, so mammographic sensitivity for extremely dense breasts can be as low as 25% to 50%.
• Second, high breast density adds to the risk of developing breast cancer. I explain that supplemental screening will pick up additional cancers in women with dense breasts. For example, breast ultrasound will pick up about 2-3/1000 additional breast cancers per year and MRI or molecular breast imaging (MBI) will pick up much more, perhaps 10/1000.

MRI is more invasive than an ultrasound and uses gadolinium, and MBI has more radiation. Supplemental screening is not endorsed by ACOG’s most recent Committee Opinion from 2017; ⁴ however, patients may choose to have it done. This is where shared-decision making is important.

I strongly recommend that all women’s health care providers complete the CME course on the DenseBreast-info.org website. “ Breast Density: Why It Matters ” is a certified educational program for referring physicians that helps health care professionals learn about breast density, its associated risks, and how best to guide patients regarding breast cancer screening.

Continue to: Dr. Albright...

Dr. Albright: When I discuss breast density, I make sure that patients understand that their mammogram determines the density of their breast tissue. I review that in the higher density categories (heterogeneously dense or extremely dense), there is a higher risk of missing cancer, and that these categories are also associated with a higher risk of breast cancer. I also discuss the potential need for supplemental screening, for which my institution primarily offers Fast MRI. However, we can offer breast ultrasonography instead as an option, especially for those concerned about gadolinium exposure. Our center offers either of these supplemental screenings at a cost of $299. I also review the lack of coverage for supplemental screening by some insurance carriers, as both providers and patients may need to advocate for insurer coverage of adjunct studies.

Educational resources

6. What reference materials, illustrations, or other tools do you use to educate your patients?

Dr. Etkin-Kramer: I frequently use handouts printed from the DenseBreast-info.org website, and there is now a brand new patient fact sheet that I have just started using. I also have an example of breast density categories from fatty replaced to extremely dense on my computer, and I am putting it on a new smart board.

Dr. Albright: The extensive resources available at DenseBreast-info.org can improve both patient and provider knowledge of these important issues, so I suggest patients visit that website, and I use many of the images and visuals to help explain breast density. I even use the materials from the website for educating my resident trainees on breast health and screening. ●

During the April 2020 peak of patient admissions to our hospital caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we severely limited the number of surgical procedures performed to conserve health system resources. During this stressful time, some administrators and physicians began categorizing operations for cancer as "elective" procedures that could be postponed for months. Personally, I think the use of elective to describe cancer surgery is not optimal, even during a pandemic. In reality, the surgeries for patients with cancer were being postponed to ensure that services were available for patients with severe and critical COVID-19 disease, not because the surgeries were "elective." The health system leaders were making the ra­tional decision to prioritize the needs of patients with COVID-19 infections over the needs of patients with cancer. However, they were using an inappropriate description of the rationale for postponing the surgery for patients with cancer—an intellectual short-cut.

This experience prompted me to explore all the medical interventions commonly described as elective. Surprisingly, among medical specialists, obstetricians excel in using the adjective elective to describe our important work. For example, in the medical record we commonly use terms such as “elective induction of labor,” “elective cesarean delivery” (CD) and “elective termination of pregnancy.” I believe it would advance our field if obstetricians stopped using the term elective to describe the important health services we provide.

Stop using the term “elective induction of labor”

Ghartey and Macones recently advocated for all obstetricians to stop using the term elective when describing induction of labor.¹ The ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction vs Expectant Management)² demonstrated that, among nulliparous women at 39 weeks’ gestation, induction of labor resulted in a lower CD rate than expectant management (18.6% vs 22.2%, respectively; relative risk, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.93). These findings indicate that induction of labor is not elective because it provides a clear health benefit over the alternative of expectant management. Given current expert guidance, induction of labor prior to 39 weeks’ gestation must be based on an accepted medical indication and provide a health benefit; hence, these inductions are medically indicated. Similarly, since induction of labor at 39 weeks’ gestation also provides a clear health benefit it is also medically indicated and not “elective.” Ghartey and Macones conclude¹:

"The words we choose to
describe medical interventions
matter. They send a message
to patients, physicians, nurses,
and hospital administrators.
When the term 'elective' is applied to a medical intervention,
it implies that it is not really
necessary. That is certainly not
the case when it comes to 39-
week nulliparous induction. The
ARRIVE trial provides grade A
(good and consistent) evidence
that labor induction provided
benefit with no harm to women
and their infants. These inductions are not 'elective'."

An alternative descriptor is “medically indicated” induction.

Continue to: Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”...

Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”

I recently searched PubMed for publications using the key words, “elective cesarean delivery,” and more than 7,000 publications were identified by the National Library of Medicine. “Elective cesarean delivery” is clearly an important term used by obstetrical authorities. What do we mean by elective CD?

At 39 weeks’ gestation, a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman has a limited number of options:

1. induction of labor
2. expectant management awaiting the onset of labor
3. scheduled CD before the onset of labor.

For a low-risk pregnant woman at 39 weeks’ gestation, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends vaginal delivery because it best balances the risks and benefits for the woman and newborn.³ When a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman asks a clinician about a scheduled CD, we are trained to thoroughly explore the reasons for the woman’s request, including her intellectual, fact-based, concerns about labor and vaginal birth and her emotional reaction to the thought of a vaginal or cesarean birth. In this situation the clinician will provide information about the risks and benefits of vaginal versus CD. In the vast majority of situations, the pregnant woman will agree to attempting vaginal delivery. In one study of 458,767 births, only 0.2% of women choose a “maternal request cesarean delivery.”⁴

After thorough counseling, if a woman and her clinician jointly agree to schedule a primary CD it will be the result of hours of intensive discussion, not an imprudent and hasty decision. In this case, the delivery is best characterized as a “maternal request cesarean delivery,” not an “elective” CD.

Stop using the terms “elective termination of pregnancy” and “elective abortion”

Janiak and Goldberg have advocated for the elimination of the phrase elective abortion.⁵ They write⁵:

"Support for abortion varies
depending on the reason for
the abortion—whether it is
'elective' or 'indicated.' In the
case of abortion, these terms
generally differentiate between
women seeking abortion for
reasons of maternal or fetal
health (an 'indicated abortion')
defined in contrast to women
seeking abortion for other
reasons (an 'elective abortion').
We argue that such a distinction is impossible to operationalize in a just manner. The use
of the phrase 'elective abortion'
promotes the institutionalization of a false hierarchy of need
among abortion patients."

My experience is that pregnant women never seek an abortion based on whimsy. Most pregnant women who consider an abortion struggle greatly with the choice, using reason and judgment to arrive at their final decision. The choice to seek an abortion is always a difficult one, influenced by a constellation of hard facts that impact the woman’s life. Using the term elective to describe an abortion implies a moral judgment and stigmatizes the choice to have an abortion. Janiak and Goldberg conclude by recommending the elimination of the phrase 'elective abortion' in favor of the phrase “induced abortion.”⁵

Continue to: Time for change...

Time for change

Shockingly, in searching the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD10), the word elective is most commonly used in the context of health services provided to pregnant women, including: elective induction of labor (Z34.90), elective cesarean delivery (O82), elective termination of pregnancy (Z33.2), and elective fetal reduction (Z031.30X0). In ICD10, other specialties do not describe the scope of their health services with the adjective elective.

There are many definitions and interpretations of elective. The most benign use of the word in the context of surgery is to contrast procedures that can be scheduled in the future with those that need to be performed urgently. In this context elective only refers to the timing, not the medical necessity, of the procedure. By contrast, describing a procedure as elective may signal that it is not medically necessary and is being performed based on the capricious preference of the patient or physician. Given the confusion and misunderstanding that may be caused by describing our important health services as “elective,” I hope that we can permanently sunset use of the term. ●

During the April 2020 peak of patient admissions to our hospital caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we severely limited the number of surgical procedures performed to conserve health system resources. During this stressful time, some administrators and physicians began categorizing operations for cancer as "elective" procedures that could be postponed for months. Personally, I think the use of elective to describe cancer surgery is not optimal, even during a pandemic. In reality, the surgeries for patients with cancer were being postponed to ensure that services were available for patients with severe and critical COVID-19 disease, not because the surgeries were "elective." The health system leaders were making the ra­tional decision to prioritize the needs of patients with COVID-19 infections over the needs of patients with cancer. However, they were using an inappropriate description of the rationale for postponing the surgery for patients with cancer—an intellectual short-cut.

This experience prompted me to explore all the medical interventions commonly described as elective. Surprisingly, among medical specialists, obstetricians excel in using the adjective elective to describe our important work. For example, in the medical record we commonly use terms such as “elective induction of labor,” “elective cesarean delivery” (CD) and “elective termination of pregnancy.” I believe it would advance our field if obstetricians stopped using the term elective to describe the important health services we provide.

Stop using the term “elective induction of labor”

Ghartey and Macones recently advocated for all obstetricians to stop using the term elective when describing induction of labor.¹ The ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction vs Expectant Management)² demonstrated that, among nulliparous women at 39 weeks’ gestation, induction of labor resulted in a lower CD rate than expectant management (18.6% vs 22.2%, respectively; relative risk, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.93). These findings indicate that induction of labor is not elective because it provides a clear health benefit over the alternative of expectant management. Given current expert guidance, induction of labor prior to 39 weeks’ gestation must be based on an accepted medical indication and provide a health benefit; hence, these inductions are medically indicated. Similarly, since induction of labor at 39 weeks’ gestation also provides a clear health benefit it is also medically indicated and not “elective.” Ghartey and Macones conclude¹:

"The words we choose to
describe medical interventions
matter. They send a message
to patients, physicians, nurses,
and hospital administrators.
When the term 'elective' is applied to a medical intervention,
it implies that it is not really
necessary. That is certainly not
the case when it comes to 39-
week nulliparous induction. The
ARRIVE trial provides grade A
(good and consistent) evidence
that labor induction provided
benefit with no harm to women
and their infants. These inductions are not 'elective'."

An alternative descriptor is “medically indicated” induction.

Continue to: Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”...

Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”

I recently searched PubMed for publications using the key words, “elective cesarean delivery,” and more than 7,000 publications were identified by the National Library of Medicine. “Elective cesarean delivery” is clearly an important term used by obstetrical authorities. What do we mean by elective CD?

At 39 weeks’ gestation, a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman has a limited number of options:

1. induction of labor
2. expectant management awaiting the onset of labor
3. scheduled CD before the onset of labor.

For a low-risk pregnant woman at 39 weeks’ gestation, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends vaginal delivery because it best balances the risks and benefits for the woman and newborn.³ When a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman asks a clinician about a scheduled CD, we are trained to thoroughly explore the reasons for the woman’s request, including her intellectual, fact-based, concerns about labor and vaginal birth and her emotional reaction to the thought of a vaginal or cesarean birth. In this situation the clinician will provide information about the risks and benefits of vaginal versus CD. In the vast majority of situations, the pregnant woman will agree to attempting vaginal delivery. In one study of 458,767 births, only 0.2% of women choose a “maternal request cesarean delivery.”⁴

After thorough counseling, if a woman and her clinician jointly agree to schedule a primary CD it will be the result of hours of intensive discussion, not an imprudent and hasty decision. In this case, the delivery is best characterized as a “maternal request cesarean delivery,” not an “elective” CD.

Stop using the terms “elective termination of pregnancy” and “elective abortion”

Janiak and Goldberg have advocated for the elimination of the phrase elective abortion.⁵ They write⁵:

"Support for abortion varies
depending on the reason for
the abortion—whether it is
'elective' or 'indicated.' In the
case of abortion, these terms
generally differentiate between
women seeking abortion for
reasons of maternal or fetal
health (an 'indicated abortion')
defined in contrast to women
seeking abortion for other
reasons (an 'elective abortion').
We argue that such a distinction is impossible to operationalize in a just manner. The use
of the phrase 'elective abortion'
promotes the institutionalization of a false hierarchy of need
among abortion patients."

My experience is that pregnant women never seek an abortion based on whimsy. Most pregnant women who consider an abortion struggle greatly with the choice, using reason and judgment to arrive at their final decision. The choice to seek an abortion is always a difficult one, influenced by a constellation of hard facts that impact the woman’s life. Using the term elective to describe an abortion implies a moral judgment and stigmatizes the choice to have an abortion. Janiak and Goldberg conclude by recommending the elimination of the phrase 'elective abortion' in favor of the phrase “induced abortion.”⁵

Continue to: Time for change...

Time for change

Shockingly, in searching the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD10), the word elective is most commonly used in the context of health services provided to pregnant women, including: elective induction of labor (Z34.90), elective cesarean delivery (O82), elective termination of pregnancy (Z33.2), and elective fetal reduction (Z031.30X0). In ICD10, other specialties do not describe the scope of their health services with the adjective elective.

There are many definitions and interpretations of elective. The most benign use of the word in the context of surgery is to contrast procedures that can be scheduled in the future with those that need to be performed urgently. In this context elective only refers to the timing, not the medical necessity, of the procedure. By contrast, describing a procedure as elective may signal that it is not medically necessary and is being performed based on the capricious preference of the patient or physician. Given the confusion and misunderstanding that may be caused by describing our important health services as “elective,” I hope that we can permanently sunset use of the term. ●

During the April 2020 peak of patient admissions to our hospital caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we severely limited the number of surgical procedures performed to conserve health system resources. During this stressful time, some administrators and physicians began categorizing operations for cancer as "elective" procedures that could be postponed for months. Personally, I think the use of elective to describe cancer surgery is not optimal, even during a pandemic. In reality, the surgeries for patients with cancer were being postponed to ensure that services were available for patients with severe and critical COVID-19 disease, not because the surgeries were "elective." The health system leaders were making the ra­tional decision to prioritize the needs of patients with COVID-19 infections over the needs of patients with cancer. However, they were using an inappropriate description of the rationale for postponing the surgery for patients with cancer—an intellectual short-cut.

This experience prompted me to explore all the medical interventions commonly described as elective. Surprisingly, among medical specialists, obstetricians excel in using the adjective elective to describe our important work. For example, in the medical record we commonly use terms such as “elective induction of labor,” “elective cesarean delivery” (CD) and “elective termination of pregnancy.” I believe it would advance our field if obstetricians stopped using the term elective to describe the important health services we provide.

Stop using the term “elective induction of labor”

Ghartey and Macones recently advocated for all obstetricians to stop using the term elective when describing induction of labor.¹ The ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction vs Expectant Management)² demonstrated that, among nulliparous women at 39 weeks’ gestation, induction of labor resulted in a lower CD rate than expectant management (18.6% vs 22.2%, respectively; relative risk, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.93). These findings indicate that induction of labor is not elective because it provides a clear health benefit over the alternative of expectant management. Given current expert guidance, induction of labor prior to 39 weeks’ gestation must be based on an accepted medical indication and provide a health benefit; hence, these inductions are medically indicated. Similarly, since induction of labor at 39 weeks’ gestation also provides a clear health benefit it is also medically indicated and not “elective.” Ghartey and Macones conclude¹:

"The words we choose to
describe medical interventions
matter. They send a message
to patients, physicians, nurses,
and hospital administrators.
When the term 'elective' is applied to a medical intervention,
it implies that it is not really
necessary. That is certainly not
the case when it comes to 39-
week nulliparous induction. The
ARRIVE trial provides grade A
(good and consistent) evidence
that labor induction provided
benefit with no harm to women
and their infants. These inductions are not 'elective'."

An alternative descriptor is “medically indicated” induction.

Continue to: Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”...

Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”

I recently searched PubMed for publications using the key words, “elective cesarean delivery,” and more than 7,000 publications were identified by the National Library of Medicine. “Elective cesarean delivery” is clearly an important term used by obstetrical authorities. What do we mean by elective CD?

At 39 weeks’ gestation, a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman has a limited number of options:

1. induction of labor
2. expectant management awaiting the onset of labor
3. scheduled CD before the onset of labor.

For a low-risk pregnant woman at 39 weeks’ gestation, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends vaginal delivery because it best balances the risks and benefits for the woman and newborn.³ When a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman asks a clinician about a scheduled CD, we are trained to thoroughly explore the reasons for the woman’s request, including her intellectual, fact-based, concerns about labor and vaginal birth and her emotional reaction to the thought of a vaginal or cesarean birth. In this situation the clinician will provide information about the risks and benefits of vaginal versus CD. In the vast majority of situations, the pregnant woman will agree to attempting vaginal delivery. In one study of 458,767 births, only 0.2% of women choose a “maternal request cesarean delivery.”⁴

After thorough counseling, if a woman and her clinician jointly agree to schedule a primary CD it will be the result of hours of intensive discussion, not an imprudent and hasty decision. In this case, the delivery is best characterized as a “maternal request cesarean delivery,” not an “elective” CD.

Stop using the terms “elective termination of pregnancy” and “elective abortion”

Janiak and Goldberg have advocated for the elimination of the phrase elective abortion.⁵ They write⁵:

"Support for abortion varies
depending on the reason for
the abortion—whether it is
'elective' or 'indicated.' In the
case of abortion, these terms
generally differentiate between
women seeking abortion for
reasons of maternal or fetal
health (an 'indicated abortion')
defined in contrast to women
seeking abortion for other
reasons (an 'elective abortion').
We argue that such a distinction is impossible to operationalize in a just manner. The use
of the phrase 'elective abortion'
promotes the institutionalization of a false hierarchy of need
among abortion patients."

My experience is that pregnant women never seek an abortion based on whimsy. Most pregnant women who consider an abortion struggle greatly with the choice, using reason and judgment to arrive at their final decision. The choice to seek an abortion is always a difficult one, influenced by a constellation of hard facts that impact the woman’s life. Using the term elective to describe an abortion implies a moral judgment and stigmatizes the choice to have an abortion. Janiak and Goldberg conclude by recommending the elimination of the phrase 'elective abortion' in favor of the phrase “induced abortion.”⁵

Continue to: Time for change...

Time for change

Shockingly, in searching the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD10), the word elective is most commonly used in the context of health services provided to pregnant women, including: elective induction of labor (Z34.90), elective cesarean delivery (O82), elective termination of pregnancy (Z33.2), and elective fetal reduction (Z031.30X0). In ICD10, other specialties do not describe the scope of their health services with the adjective elective.

There are many definitions and interpretations of elective. The most benign use of the word in the context of surgery is to contrast procedures that can be scheduled in the future with those that need to be performed urgently. In this context elective only refers to the timing, not the medical necessity, of the procedure. By contrast, describing a procedure as elective may signal that it is not medically necessary and is being performed based on the capricious preference of the patient or physician. Given the confusion and misunderstanding that may be caused by describing our important health services as “elective,” I hope that we can permanently sunset use of the term. ●

Antibiotics are one of the most frequently prescribed medications in both inpatient and outpatient settings.^1,2 More than 266 million courses of antibiotics are prescribed annually in the outpatient setting; 49.9% of hospitalized patients were prescribed ≥ 1 antibiotic during their hospitalization.^1,2 Among all classes of antibiotics, penicillins are prescribed due to their clinical efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and general safety for all ages. Unfortunately, penicillins also are the most common drug allergy listed in medical records. Patients with this allergy are consistently treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics, have more antibiotic resistant infections, incur higher health care costs, and experience more adverse effects (AEs).^3,4

Drug allergies are distinguished by different immune mechanisms, including IgE-mediated reaction, T-lymphocyte-mediated mild skin reactions, and severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCAR), or other systemic immune syndromes, such as hemolytic anemia, nephritis, and rash with eosinophilia.³ Although drug allergies should be a concern, compelling evidence shows that > 90% of patients labeled with a penicillin allergy are not allergic to penicillins (and associated β-lactams).^3,4 Although this evidence is growing, clinicians still hesitate to prescribe penicillin, and patients are similarly anxious to take them. This article reviews the health care consequences of penicillin allergy and the application of this information to military medicine and readiness.

Penicillin Allergy Prevalence

Since their approval for public use in 1945, penicillins have been one of the most often prescribed antibiotics due to their clinical efficacy for many types of infections.³ However, 8 to 10% of the US population and up to 15% of hospitalized patients have a documented penicillin allergy, which limits the ability to use these effective antibiotics.^3,4 Once a patient is labeled with a penicillin allergy, many clinicians avoid prescribing all β-lactam antibiotics to patients. Clinicians also avoid prescribing cephalosporins due to the concern for potential cross-reactivity (at a rate of about 2%, which is lower than previously reported).³ These reported allergies are often not clear and range from patients avoiding penicillins because their parents exhibited allergies, they had a symptom that was not likely allergic (ie, nausea, headache, itching with no rash), being told by their parents that they had a rash as a child, or experiencing severe anaphylaxis or other systemic reaction.^3,4 Despite the high rates of documented penicillin allergy, studies now show that most patients do not have a serious allergy; < 1% of the population has a true immune-mediated penicillin allergy.^3,4

Broad-Spectrum Antibiotic Risks

Even though penicillin allergies are often not confirmed, many patients are treated with alternative antibiotics. Unfortunately, most alternative antibiotics are not as effective or as safe as penicillin.^3,4 Twenty percent of hospitalized patients will experience an AE related to their antibiotic; 19.3% of emergency department visits for adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are from antibiotics.^5,6 Sulfonamides, clindamycin, and quinolones were the antibiotics most commonly associated with AEs.⁶

In a large database study over a 3-year period, > 400,000 hospitalizations were analyzed in patients matched for admission type, with and without a penicillin allergy in their medical record.⁷ Those with a documented penicillin allergy had longer hospitalizations; were treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics; and had increased rates of Clostridium difficile (C difficile), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE).^7,8 In addition to being first-line treatment for many common infections, penicillins often are used for dental, perinatal, and perioperative prophylaxis.^1,3 Nearly 25 million antibiotics are prescribed annually by dentists.¹ If a patient has a penicillin allergy listed in their medical record, they will inevitably receive a second- or third-line treatment that is less effective and has higher risks. Common alternative antibiotics include clindamycin, fluoroquinolones, macrolides, and vancomycin.^3,7,8

Clindamycin and fluoroquinolones are associated with C difficile infections.^9,10 Fluoroquinolones come with a boxed warning for known serious ADRs, including tendon rupture, peripheral neuropathy, central nervous system effects, and are known for causing cardiac reactions such as QT prolongation, life-threatening arrhythmias, and cardiovascular death.^11,12 Fluoroquinolones are associated with an increased risk for VRE and MRSA, in more than any other antibiotic classes.^3,7,12,13

Macrolides, such as azithromycin and clarithromycin, are another common class of antibiotics used as an alternative for penicillins. Both are used frequently for upper respiratory infections. Known ADRs to macrolides include gastrointestinal adverse effects (AEs) (ie, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain), liver toxicity (ie, abnormal liver function tests, hepatitis, and liver failure), and cardiac risks (ie, QT prolongation and sudden death). When compared with amoxicillin, there was an increased risk for cardiovascular mortality in those patients receiving macrolides.^14,15

Vancomycin is known for its potential to cause “red man syndrome,” an infusion-related reaction causing redness and itching as well as nephrotoxic and hematologic effects requiring close monitoring.³ Vancomycin is less effective than methicillin in clearing MRSA or other sensitive pathogens; however, vancomycin is used in patients with a penicillin allergy label.^16-18 Intrapartum antibiotic use of vancomycin for group B streptococcus infection was associated with clinically significant morbidity and ADRs.^19,20 Perioperatively, patients with penicillin allergies developed more surgical site infections due to the use of second-line antibiotics, such as vancomycin or others.²¹

Cost of Penicillin Allergies

Penicillin allergy plays an important role in rising health care costs. In 2017, health care spending reached 17.9% of the gross domestic product.²² Macy and Contreras demonstrated the significantly higher costs associated with having a reported (and unverified) penicillin allergy in a matched cohort study. Inferred for the extra hospital use, the penicillin allergy group cost the health care system $64,626,630 more than for the group who did not have a penicillin allergy label.⁷ A subsequent study by Macy and Contreras of both inpatient and outpatient settings showed a potential savings of $2,000 per patient per year in health care expenses with the testing and delabeling of penicillin allergies.²³ Use of newer and broad-spectrum antibiotics also are more costly and contribute to higher health care costs.²⁴

When these potential savings are applied to the military insurance population of 9.4 million beneficiaries (TRICARE, including active duty, their dependents, and all retirees participating in the program), the results showed that this could impart a savings of nearly $1.7 billion annually, using the model by Macy and Contreras.^23,25,26

Previously with colleagues, I reviewed penicillin’s role in military history, compiled data from relevant studies from military penicillin allergy rates and delabeling efforts, and calculated the potential economic impact of penicillin allergies along with the benefits of testing.²⁶ Calculations were estimated using the TRICARE beneficiary population (9.4 million) × the estimated prevalence (10%) to get an estimate of 940,000 TRICARE patients with penicillin allergy in their medical record.²⁵ If 90% of those patients were delabeled, this would equal 846,000 TRICARE patients. When multiplied by the potential savings of $2,000 per patient per year, the estimated savings would be $1,692,000,000 annually.^23,26

Current literature provides compelling evidence that all health care plans should use penicillin allergy testing and delabeling programs.^3,23,26 As most patients with a history of penicillin allergy in their medical records do not have a verified allergy, delabeling those who do not have a true allergy will have individual, public health, and cost benefits.^3,7,23,26

Antibiotic Stewardship

Antibiotic stewardship programs are now mandated to combat antibiotic resistance.^3,27 This program is supported by major medical organizations, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, Infectious Disease Society of America, and the American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology.³ Given the role of broad-spectrum antibiotics in antibiotic resistance, penicillin allergy testing and delabeling is an important component of these programs.³

In the US, > 2 million people acquire antibiotic resistant infections annually; 23,000 people die of these infections.²⁷ More than 250,000 illnesses and 14,000 deaths annually are due to C difficile.²⁷ There are many factors contributing to the increase in antibiotic resistance; however, one established and consistent factor is the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics. Further, broad-spectrum antibiotics are often used when first-line agents, such as penicillins, cannot be used due to a reported “allergy.” In addition, there are fewer novel antibiotics being developed, and as they are introduced, pathogens develop resistance to these new agents.²⁷

Military Relevance

Infectious diseases have always accompanied military activity.^28-30 Despite preventive programs such as vaccinations, hygiene measures, and prophylactic antibiotics, military personnel are at increased risk for infections due to the military’s mobile nature and crowded living situations.^28-30 This situation has operational relevance from basic training, deployments, and combat operations to peacetime activities.

Military recruits are treated routinely with penicillin G benzathine as standard prophylaxis against streptococcal infections.^26,30 A recent study by the Marine Corps Recruiting Depot in San Diego, California showed that in a cohort of 402 young healthy male recruits, only 5 (1.5%) had a positive reaction to penicillin testing and challenge over a 21-month period.³¹ The delabeled other 397 (98.5%) marine recruits were able to receive benzathine penicillin prophylaxis successfully.³¹ Recruits with a penicillin allergy who had a positive test or were not tested received azithromycin (or erythromycin at some recruit training locations).^26,31 Military members may need to operate in remote or austere locations; the ability to use penicillins is important for readiness.

Evaluation and Management of Reported Penicillin Allergy

Verifying penicillin allergies is an important first step in optimizing medical care and decreasing resistance and ADRs.^3,4,32,33 Although allergists can provide specialized evaluation, due to the high prevalence of penicillin allergy in the US, all health care team members, including clinicians and pharmacists, should be educated about penicillin allergies and be able to implement evaluations in both inpatient and outpatient settings. Reactions to any of the penicillins should be considered, including the natural penicillins (penicillin V, etc), antistaphylococcal penicillins (dicloxacillin), aminopenicillins (amoxicillin and ampicillin), and extended-spectrum penicillins (piperacillin).³ A thorough history, including the prior reaction (age, type of reaction) and subsequent tolerance are helpful in stratifying patients.^3,26

Patient Risk Levels

Based on the clinical history, patients would fall into 4 categories from low risk, medium risk, high risk, to do not test/use.^3,32,33 Low-risk patients are those who report mild or nonallergic symptoms (ie, gastrointestinal symptoms, headache, yeast infection, etc), remote cutaneous reactions (> 10 years), or in those with a family history of penicillin allergy.^3,32,33 Low-risk patients often can be safely tested with an oral challenge. Although there are different approaches to the oral challenge, a single amoxicillin dose of 250 mg followed by 1 hour of direct monitoring is usually sufficient.^3,32,33

Medium-risk patients have a more recent (< 1 year) history of pruritic rashes, urticaria, and/or angioedema without a history of severe or systemic reactions. These patients benefit from negative skin testing prior to an oral challenge, which can be performed by trained clinicians or pharmacists or an allergist. However, due to limited availability of skin testing and the potential for false positive testing with skin tests, a single dose or graded challenge would be a reasonable approach as well.^3,32,33

High-risk patients are those with severe symptoms (anaphylaxis), a history of reactions to other β-lactam antibiotics, and/or recurrent reactions to antibiotics. These patients benefit from a formal evaluation by an allergist and skin testing prior to challenge.^3,32,33 Testing and/or challenge should not be performed in patients who report a history of severe cutaneous reactions (blistering rash, such as Stevens Johnson syndrome), hemolytic anemia, serum sickness, drug fever, and other organ dysfunction.^3,4,31,32

Conclusions

Penicillin allergies are an important barrier to effective antibiotic treatments and are associated with worse outcomes and higher economic costs.^3,7,23,26,34 Therefore, in addition to vaccinations, infection control measures, and public health education, penicillin allergy verification and delabeling programs should be a proactive component of military medical readiness and all antibiotic stewardship initiatives in all health care settings.²⁹ Given the many issues and negative impact of having a penicillin allergy label, penicillin delabeling will allow service members to be treated with the necessary antibiotics with fewer adverse complications, and return them to health and readiness for operational duties. In the current standardization of the Defense Health Agency, implementing this program across all services would have significant clinical, public health, and cost benefits for patients, the health care team, taxpayers, and the community at large.

Many patients report an allergy to penicillin, but only a small portion have a current true immune-mediated allergy. Given the clinical, public health, and economic costs associated with a penicillin allergy label, evaluation and clearance of penicillin allergies is a simple method that would improve clinical outcomes, decrease AEs to high-risk alternative broad-spectrum antibiotics, and prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance. In the military, penicillin delabeling improves readiness with optimal antibiotic options and avoidance of unnecessary risks of using alternative antibiotics, expediting return to full duty for military personnel.

Antibiotics are one of the most frequently prescribed medications in both inpatient and outpatient settings.^1,2 More than 266 million courses of antibiotics are prescribed annually in the outpatient setting; 49.9% of hospitalized patients were prescribed ≥ 1 antibiotic during their hospitalization.^1,2 Among all classes of antibiotics, penicillins are prescribed due to their clinical efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and general safety for all ages. Unfortunately, penicillins also are the most common drug allergy listed in medical records. Patients with this allergy are consistently treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics, have more antibiotic resistant infections, incur higher health care costs, and experience more adverse effects (AEs).^3,4

Drug allergies are distinguished by different immune mechanisms, including IgE-mediated reaction, T-lymphocyte-mediated mild skin reactions, and severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCAR), or other systemic immune syndromes, such as hemolytic anemia, nephritis, and rash with eosinophilia.³ Although drug allergies should be a concern, compelling evidence shows that > 90% of patients labeled with a penicillin allergy are not allergic to penicillins (and associated β-lactams).^3,4 Although this evidence is growing, clinicians still hesitate to prescribe penicillin, and patients are similarly anxious to take them. This article reviews the health care consequences of penicillin allergy and the application of this information to military medicine and readiness.

Penicillin Allergy Prevalence

Since their approval for public use in 1945, penicillins have been one of the most often prescribed antibiotics due to their clinical efficacy for many types of infections.³ However, 8 to 10% of the US population and up to 15% of hospitalized patients have a documented penicillin allergy, which limits the ability to use these effective antibiotics.^3,4 Once a patient is labeled with a penicillin allergy, many clinicians avoid prescribing all β-lactam antibiotics to patients. Clinicians also avoid prescribing cephalosporins due to the concern for potential cross-reactivity (at a rate of about 2%, which is lower than previously reported).³ These reported allergies are often not clear and range from patients avoiding penicillins because their parents exhibited allergies, they had a symptom that was not likely allergic (ie, nausea, headache, itching with no rash), being told by their parents that they had a rash as a child, or experiencing severe anaphylaxis or other systemic reaction.^3,4 Despite the high rates of documented penicillin allergy, studies now show that most patients do not have a serious allergy; < 1% of the population has a true immune-mediated penicillin allergy.^3,4

Broad-Spectrum Antibiotic Risks

Even though penicillin allergies are often not confirmed, many patients are treated with alternative antibiotics. Unfortunately, most alternative antibiotics are not as effective or as safe as penicillin.^3,4 Twenty percent of hospitalized patients will experience an AE related to their antibiotic; 19.3% of emergency department visits for adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are from antibiotics.^5,6 Sulfonamides, clindamycin, and quinolones were the antibiotics most commonly associated with AEs.⁶

In a large database study over a 3-year period, > 400,000 hospitalizations were analyzed in patients matched for admission type, with and without a penicillin allergy in their medical record.⁷ Those with a documented penicillin allergy had longer hospitalizations; were treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics; and had increased rates of Clostridium difficile (C difficile), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE).^7,8 In addition to being first-line treatment for many common infections, penicillins often are used for dental, perinatal, and perioperative prophylaxis.^1,3 Nearly 25 million antibiotics are prescribed annually by dentists.¹ If a patient has a penicillin allergy listed in their medical record, they will inevitably receive a second- or third-line treatment that is less effective and has higher risks. Common alternative antibiotics include clindamycin, fluoroquinolones, macrolides, and vancomycin.^3,7,8

Clindamycin and fluoroquinolones are associated with C difficile infections.^9,10 Fluoroquinolones come with a boxed warning for known serious ADRs, including tendon rupture, peripheral neuropathy, central nervous system effects, and are known for causing cardiac reactions such as QT prolongation, life-threatening arrhythmias, and cardiovascular death.^11,12 Fluoroquinolones are associated with an increased risk for VRE and MRSA, in more than any other antibiotic classes.^3,7,12,13

Macrolides, such as azithromycin and clarithromycin, are another common class of antibiotics used as an alternative for penicillins. Both are used frequently for upper respiratory infections. Known ADRs to macrolides include gastrointestinal adverse effects (AEs) (ie, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain), liver toxicity (ie, abnormal liver function tests, hepatitis, and liver failure), and cardiac risks (ie, QT prolongation and sudden death). When compared with amoxicillin, there was an increased risk for cardiovascular mortality in those patients receiving macrolides.^14,15

Vancomycin is known for its potential to cause “red man syndrome,” an infusion-related reaction causing redness and itching as well as nephrotoxic and hematologic effects requiring close monitoring.³ Vancomycin is less effective than methicillin in clearing MRSA or other sensitive pathogens; however, vancomycin is used in patients with a penicillin allergy label.^16-18 Intrapartum antibiotic use of vancomycin for group B streptococcus infection was associated with clinically significant morbidity and ADRs.^19,20 Perioperatively, patients with penicillin allergies developed more surgical site infections due to the use of second-line antibiotics, such as vancomycin or others.²¹

Cost of Penicillin Allergies

Penicillin allergy plays an important role in rising health care costs. In 2017, health care spending reached 17.9% of the gross domestic product.²² Macy and Contreras demonstrated the significantly higher costs associated with having a reported (and unverified) penicillin allergy in a matched cohort study. Inferred for the extra hospital use, the penicillin allergy group cost the health care system $64,626,630 more than for the group who did not have a penicillin allergy label.⁷ A subsequent study by Macy and Contreras of both inpatient and outpatient settings showed a potential savings of $2,000 per patient per year in health care expenses with the testing and delabeling of penicillin allergies.²³ Use of newer and broad-spectrum antibiotics also are more costly and contribute to higher health care costs.²⁴

When these potential savings are applied to the military insurance population of 9.4 million beneficiaries (TRICARE, including active duty, their dependents, and all retirees participating in the program), the results showed that this could impart a savings of nearly $1.7 billion annually, using the model by Macy and Contreras.^23,25,26

Previously with colleagues, I reviewed penicillin’s role in military history, compiled data from relevant studies from military penicillin allergy rates and delabeling efforts, and calculated the potential economic impact of penicillin allergies along with the benefits of testing.²⁶ Calculations were estimated using the TRICARE beneficiary population (9.4 million) × the estimated prevalence (10%) to get an estimate of 940,000 TRICARE patients with penicillin allergy in their medical record.²⁵ If 90% of those patients were delabeled, this would equal 846,000 TRICARE patients. When multiplied by the potential savings of $2,000 per patient per year, the estimated savings would be $1,692,000,000 annually.^23,26

Current literature provides compelling evidence that all health care plans should use penicillin allergy testing and delabeling programs.^3,23,26 As most patients with a history of penicillin allergy in their medical records do not have a verified allergy, delabeling those who do not have a true allergy will have individual, public health, and cost benefits.^3,7,23,26

Antibiotic Stewardship

Antibiotic stewardship programs are now mandated to combat antibiotic resistance.^3,27 This program is supported by major medical organizations, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, Infectious Disease Society of America, and the American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology.³ Given the role of broad-spectrum antibiotics in antibiotic resistance, penicillin allergy testing and delabeling is an important component of these programs.³

In the US, > 2 million people acquire antibiotic resistant infections annually; 23,000 people die of these infections.²⁷ More than 250,000 illnesses and 14,000 deaths annually are due to C difficile.²⁷ There are many factors contributing to the increase in antibiotic resistance; however, one established and consistent factor is the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics. Further, broad-spectrum antibiotics are often used when first-line agents, such as penicillins, cannot be used due to a reported “allergy.” In addition, there are fewer novel antibiotics being developed, and as they are introduced, pathogens develop resistance to these new agents.²⁷

Military Relevance

Infectious diseases have always accompanied military activity.^28-30 Despite preventive programs such as vaccinations, hygiene measures, and prophylactic antibiotics, military personnel are at increased risk for infections due to the military’s mobile nature and crowded living situations.^28-30 This situation has operational relevance from basic training, deployments, and combat operations to peacetime activities.

Military recruits are treated routinely with penicillin G benzathine as standard prophylaxis against streptococcal infections.^26,30 A recent study by the Marine Corps Recruiting Depot in San Diego, California showed that in a cohort of 402 young healthy male recruits, only 5 (1.5%) had a positive reaction to penicillin testing and challenge over a 21-month period.³¹ The delabeled other 397 (98.5%) marine recruits were able to receive benzathine penicillin prophylaxis successfully.³¹ Recruits with a penicillin allergy who had a positive test or were not tested received azithromycin (or erythromycin at some recruit training locations).^26,31 Military members may need to operate in remote or austere locations; the ability to use penicillins is important for readiness.

Evaluation and Management of Reported Penicillin Allergy

Verifying penicillin allergies is an important first step in optimizing medical care and decreasing resistance and ADRs.^3,4,32,33 Although allergists can provide specialized evaluation, due to the high prevalence of penicillin allergy in the US, all health care team members, including clinicians and pharmacists, should be educated about penicillin allergies and be able to implement evaluations in both inpatient and outpatient settings. Reactions to any of the penicillins should be considered, including the natural penicillins (penicillin V, etc), antistaphylococcal penicillins (dicloxacillin), aminopenicillins (amoxicillin and ampicillin), and extended-spectrum penicillins (piperacillin).³ A thorough history, including the prior reaction (age, type of reaction) and subsequent tolerance are helpful in stratifying patients.^3,26

Patient Risk Levels

Based on the clinical history, patients would fall into 4 categories from low risk, medium risk, high risk, to do not test/use.^3,32,33 Low-risk patients are those who report mild or nonallergic symptoms (ie, gastrointestinal symptoms, headache, yeast infection, etc), remote cutaneous reactions (> 10 years), or in those with a family history of penicillin allergy.^3,32,33 Low-risk patients often can be safely tested with an oral challenge. Although there are different approaches to the oral challenge, a single amoxicillin dose of 250 mg followed by 1 hour of direct monitoring is usually sufficient.^3,32,33

Medium-risk patients have a more recent (< 1 year) history of pruritic rashes, urticaria, and/or angioedema without a history of severe or systemic reactions. These patients benefit from negative skin testing prior to an oral challenge, which can be performed by trained clinicians or pharmacists or an allergist. However, due to limited availability of skin testing and the potential for false positive testing with skin tests, a single dose or graded challenge would be a reasonable approach as well.^3,32,33

High-risk patients are those with severe symptoms (anaphylaxis), a history of reactions to other β-lactam antibiotics, and/or recurrent reactions to antibiotics. These patients benefit from a formal evaluation by an allergist and skin testing prior to challenge.^3,32,33 Testing and/or challenge should not be performed in patients who report a history of severe cutaneous reactions (blistering rash, such as Stevens Johnson syndrome), hemolytic anemia, serum sickness, drug fever, and other organ dysfunction.^3,4,31,32

Conclusions

Penicillin allergies are an important barrier to effective antibiotic treatments and are associated with worse outcomes and higher economic costs.^3,7,23,26,34 Therefore, in addition to vaccinations, infection control measures, and public health education, penicillin allergy verification and delabeling programs should be a proactive component of military medical readiness and all antibiotic stewardship initiatives in all health care settings.²⁹ Given the many issues and negative impact of having a penicillin allergy label, penicillin delabeling will allow service members to be treated with the necessary antibiotics with fewer adverse complications, and return them to health and readiness for operational duties. In the current standardization of the Defense Health Agency, implementing this program across all services would have significant clinical, public health, and cost benefits for patients, the health care team, taxpayers, and the community at large.

Many patients report an allergy to penicillin, but only a small portion have a current true immune-mediated allergy. Given the clinical, public health, and economic costs associated with a penicillin allergy label, evaluation and clearance of penicillin allergies is a simple method that would improve clinical outcomes, decrease AEs to high-risk alternative broad-spectrum antibiotics, and prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance. In the military, penicillin delabeling improves readiness with optimal antibiotic options and avoidance of unnecessary risks of using alternative antibiotics, expediting return to full duty for military personnel.

Antibiotics are one of the most frequently prescribed medications in both inpatient and outpatient settings.^1,2 More than 266 million courses of antibiotics are prescribed annually in the outpatient setting; 49.9% of hospitalized patients were prescribed ≥ 1 antibiotic during their hospitalization.^1,2 Among all classes of antibiotics, penicillins are prescribed due to their clinical efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and general safety for all ages. Unfortunately, penicillins also are the most common drug allergy listed in medical records. Patients with this allergy are consistently treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics, have more antibiotic resistant infections, incur higher health care costs, and experience more adverse effects (AEs).^3,4

Drug allergies are distinguished by different immune mechanisms, including IgE-mediated reaction, T-lymphocyte-mediated mild skin reactions, and severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCAR), or other systemic immune syndromes, such as hemolytic anemia, nephritis, and rash with eosinophilia.³ Although drug allergies should be a concern, compelling evidence shows that > 90% of patients labeled with a penicillin allergy are not allergic to penicillins (and associated β-lactams).^3,4 Although this evidence is growing, clinicians still hesitate to prescribe penicillin, and patients are similarly anxious to take them. This article reviews the health care consequences of penicillin allergy and the application of this information to military medicine and readiness.

Penicillin Allergy Prevalence

Since their approval for public use in 1945, penicillins have been one of the most often prescribed antibiotics due to their clinical efficacy for many types of infections.³ However, 8 to 10% of the US population and up to 15% of hospitalized patients have a documented penicillin allergy, which limits the ability to use these effective antibiotics.^3,4 Once a patient is labeled with a penicillin allergy, many clinicians avoid prescribing all β-lactam antibiotics to patients. Clinicians also avoid prescribing cephalosporins due to the concern for potential cross-reactivity (at a rate of about 2%, which is lower than previously reported).³ These reported allergies are often not clear and range from patients avoiding penicillins because their parents exhibited allergies, they had a symptom that was not likely allergic (ie, nausea, headache, itching with no rash), being told by their parents that they had a rash as a child, or experiencing severe anaphylaxis or other systemic reaction.^3,4 Despite the high rates of documented penicillin allergy, studies now show that most patients do not have a serious allergy; < 1% of the population has a true immune-mediated penicillin allergy.^3,4

Broad-Spectrum Antibiotic Risks

Even though penicillin allergies are often not confirmed, many patients are treated with alternative antibiotics. Unfortunately, most alternative antibiotics are not as effective or as safe as penicillin.^3,4 Twenty percent of hospitalized patients will experience an AE related to their antibiotic; 19.3% of emergency department visits for adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are from antibiotics.^5,6 Sulfonamides, clindamycin, and quinolones were the antibiotics most commonly associated with AEs.⁶

In a large database study over a 3-year period, > 400,000 hospitalizations were analyzed in patients matched for admission type, with and without a penicillin allergy in their medical record.⁷ Those with a documented penicillin allergy had longer hospitalizations; were treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics; and had increased rates of Clostridium difficile (C difficile), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE).^7,8 In addition to being first-line treatment for many common infections, penicillins often are used for dental, perinatal, and perioperative prophylaxis.^1,3 Nearly 25 million antibiotics are prescribed annually by dentists.¹ If a patient has a penicillin allergy listed in their medical record, they will inevitably receive a second- or third-line treatment that is less effective and has higher risks. Common alternative antibiotics include clindamycin, fluoroquinolones, macrolides, and vancomycin.^3,7,8

Clindamycin and fluoroquinolones are associated with C difficile infections.^9,10 Fluoroquinolones come with a boxed warning for known serious ADRs, including tendon rupture, peripheral neuropathy, central nervous system effects, and are known for causing cardiac reactions such as QT prolongation, life-threatening arrhythmias, and cardiovascular death.^11,12 Fluoroquinolones are associated with an increased risk for VRE and MRSA, in more than any other antibiotic classes.^3,7,12,13

Macrolides, such as azithromycin and clarithromycin, are another common class of antibiotics used as an alternative for penicillins. Both are used frequently for upper respiratory infections. Known ADRs to macrolides include gastrointestinal adverse effects (AEs) (ie, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain), liver toxicity (ie, abnormal liver function tests, hepatitis, and liver failure), and cardiac risks (ie, QT prolongation and sudden death). When compared with amoxicillin, there was an increased risk for cardiovascular mortality in those patients receiving macrolides.^14,15

Vancomycin is known for its potential to cause “red man syndrome,” an infusion-related reaction causing redness and itching as well as nephrotoxic and hematologic effects requiring close monitoring.³ Vancomycin is less effective than methicillin in clearing MRSA or other sensitive pathogens; however, vancomycin is used in patients with a penicillin allergy label.^16-18 Intrapartum antibiotic use of vancomycin for group B streptococcus infection was associated with clinically significant morbidity and ADRs.^19,20 Perioperatively, patients with penicillin allergies developed more surgical site infections due to the use of second-line antibiotics, such as vancomycin or others.²¹

Cost of Penicillin Allergies

Penicillin allergy plays an important role in rising health care costs. In 2017, health care spending reached 17.9% of the gross domestic product.²² Macy and Contreras demonstrated the significantly higher costs associated with having a reported (and unverified) penicillin allergy in a matched cohort study. Inferred for the extra hospital use, the penicillin allergy group cost the health care system $64,626,630 more than for the group who did not have a penicillin allergy label.⁷ A subsequent study by Macy and Contreras of both inpatient and outpatient settings showed a potential savings of $2,000 per patient per year in health care expenses with the testing and delabeling of penicillin allergies.²³ Use of newer and broad-spectrum antibiotics also are more costly and contribute to higher health care costs.²⁴

When these potential savings are applied to the military insurance population of 9.4 million beneficiaries (TRICARE, including active duty, their dependents, and all retirees participating in the program), the results showed that this could impart a savings of nearly $1.7 billion annually, using the model by Macy and Contreras.^23,25,26

Previously with colleagues, I reviewed penicillin’s role in military history, compiled data from relevant studies from military penicillin allergy rates and delabeling efforts, and calculated the potential economic impact of penicillin allergies along with the benefits of testing.²⁶ Calculations were estimated using the TRICARE beneficiary population (9.4 million) × the estimated prevalence (10%) to get an estimate of 940,000 TRICARE patients with penicillin allergy in their medical record.²⁵ If 90% of those patients were delabeled, this would equal 846,000 TRICARE patients. When multiplied by the potential savings of $2,000 per patient per year, the estimated savings would be $1,692,000,000 annually.^23,26

Current literature provides compelling evidence that all health care plans should use penicillin allergy testing and delabeling programs.^3,23,26 As most patients with a history of penicillin allergy in their medical records do not have a verified allergy, delabeling those who do not have a true allergy will have individual, public health, and cost benefits.^3,7,23,26

Antibiotic Stewardship

Antibiotic stewardship programs are now mandated to combat antibiotic resistance.^3,27 This program is supported by major medical organizations, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, Infectious Disease Society of America, and the American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology.³ Given the role of broad-spectrum antibiotics in antibiotic resistance, penicillin allergy testing and delabeling is an important component of these programs.³

In the US, > 2 million people acquire antibiotic resistant infections annually; 23,000 people die of these infections.²⁷ More than 250,000 illnesses and 14,000 deaths annually are due to C difficile.²⁷ There are many factors contributing to the increase in antibiotic resistance; however, one established and consistent factor is the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics. Further, broad-spectrum antibiotics are often used when first-line agents, such as penicillins, cannot be used due to a reported “allergy.” In addition, there are fewer novel antibiotics being developed, and as they are introduced, pathogens develop resistance to these new agents.²⁷

Military Relevance

Infectious diseases have always accompanied military activity.^28-30 Despite preventive programs such as vaccinations, hygiene measures, and prophylactic antibiotics, military personnel are at increased risk for infections due to the military’s mobile nature and crowded living situations.^28-30 This situation has operational relevance from basic training, deployments, and combat operations to peacetime activities.

Military recruits are treated routinely with penicillin G benzathine as standard prophylaxis against streptococcal infections.^26,30 A recent study by the Marine Corps Recruiting Depot in San Diego, California showed that in a cohort of 402 young healthy male recruits, only 5 (1.5%) had a positive reaction to penicillin testing and challenge over a 21-month period.³¹ The delabeled other 397 (98.5%) marine recruits were able to receive benzathine penicillin prophylaxis successfully.³¹ Recruits with a penicillin allergy who had a positive test or were not tested received azithromycin (or erythromycin at some recruit training locations).^26,31 Military members may need to operate in remote or austere locations; the ability to use penicillins is important for readiness.

Evaluation and Management of Reported Penicillin Allergy

Verifying penicillin allergies is an important first step in optimizing medical care and decreasing resistance and ADRs.^3,4,32,33 Although allergists can provide specialized evaluation, due to the high prevalence of penicillin allergy in the US, all health care team members, including clinicians and pharmacists, should be educated about penicillin allergies and be able to implement evaluations in both inpatient and outpatient settings. Reactions to any of the penicillins should be considered, including the natural penicillins (penicillin V, etc), antistaphylococcal penicillins (dicloxacillin), aminopenicillins (amoxicillin and ampicillin), and extended-spectrum penicillins (piperacillin).³ A thorough history, including the prior reaction (age, type of reaction) and subsequent tolerance are helpful in stratifying patients.^3,26

Patient Risk Levels

Based on the clinical history, patients would fall into 4 categories from low risk, medium risk, high risk, to do not test/use.^3,32,33 Low-risk patients are those who report mild or nonallergic symptoms (ie, gastrointestinal symptoms, headache, yeast infection, etc), remote cutaneous reactions (> 10 years), or in those with a family history of penicillin allergy.^3,32,33 Low-risk patients often can be safely tested with an oral challenge. Although there are different approaches to the oral challenge, a single amoxicillin dose of 250 mg followed by 1 hour of direct monitoring is usually sufficient.^3,32,33

Medium-risk patients have a more recent (< 1 year) history of pruritic rashes, urticaria, and/or angioedema without a history of severe or systemic reactions. These patients benefit from negative skin testing prior to an oral challenge, which can be performed by trained clinicians or pharmacists or an allergist. However, due to limited availability of skin testing and the potential for false positive testing with skin tests, a single dose or graded challenge would be a reasonable approach as well.^3,32,33

High-risk patients are those with severe symptoms (anaphylaxis), a history of reactions to other β-lactam antibiotics, and/or recurrent reactions to antibiotics. These patients benefit from a formal evaluation by an allergist and skin testing prior to challenge.^3,32,33 Testing and/or challenge should not be performed in patients who report a history of severe cutaneous reactions (blistering rash, such as Stevens Johnson syndrome), hemolytic anemia, serum sickness, drug fever, and other organ dysfunction.^3,4,31,32

Conclusions

Penicillin allergies are an important barrier to effective antibiotic treatments and are associated with worse outcomes and higher economic costs.^3,7,23,26,34 Therefore, in addition to vaccinations, infection control measures, and public health education, penicillin allergy verification and delabeling programs should be a proactive component of military medical readiness and all antibiotic stewardship initiatives in all health care settings.²⁹ Given the many issues and negative impact of having a penicillin allergy label, penicillin delabeling will allow service members to be treated with the necessary antibiotics with fewer adverse complications, and return them to health and readiness for operational duties. In the current standardization of the Defense Health Agency, implementing this program across all services would have significant clinical, public health, and cost benefits for patients, the health care team, taxpayers, and the community at large.

Many patients report an allergy to penicillin, but only a small portion have a current true immune-mediated allergy. Given the clinical, public health, and economic costs associated with a penicillin allergy label, evaluation and clearance of penicillin allergies is a simple method that would improve clinical outcomes, decrease AEs to high-risk alternative broad-spectrum antibiotics, and prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance. In the military, penicillin delabeling improves readiness with optimal antibiotic options and avoidance of unnecessary risks of using alternative antibiotics, expediting return to full duty for military personnel.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledged Oct. 5 in updated guidance that COVID-19 can sometimes be spread through the air, especially in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, when people are more than 6 feet apart.

The information reiterates, however, that “COVID-19 is thought to spread mainly through close contact from person to person, including between people who are physically near each other (within about 6 feet). People who are infected but do not show symptoms can also spread the virus to others.”

In a statement to the media, the CDC said, “Today’s update acknowledges the existence of some published reports showing limited, uncommon circumstances where people with COVID-19 infected others who were more than 6 feet away or shortly after the COVID-19–positive person left an area. In these instances, transmission occurred in poorly ventilated and enclosed spaces that often involved activities that caused heavier breathing, like singing or exercise. Such environments and activities may contribute to the buildup of virus-carrying particles.”

“This is HUGE and been long delayed. But glad it’s now CDC official,” tweeted Eric Feigl-Ding, MD, an epidemiologist and health economist at Harvard University, Boston on Oct. 5.

The CDC announcement follows an abrupt flip-flop on information last month surrounding the aerosol spread of the virus.
 

Information deleted from website last month

On September 18, the CDC had added to its existing guidance that the virus is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection.”

The CDC then deleted that guidance on Sept. 21, saying it was a draft update released in error.

A key element of the now-deleted guidance said, “this is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

The information updated today reverses the now-deleted guidance and says aerosol transmission is not the main way the virus spreads.

It states that people who are within 6 feet of a person with COVID-19 or have direct contact with that person have the greatest risk of infection.

The CDC reiterated in the statement to the media today, “People can protect themselves from the virus that causes COVID-19 by staying at least 6 feet away from others, wearing a mask that covers their nose and mouth, washing their hands frequently, cleaning touched surfaces often, and staying home when sick.”

Among the journals that have published evidence on aerosol spread is Clinical Infectious Diseases, which, on July 6, published the paper, “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors wrote, “there is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).”

Aerosols and airborne transmission “are the only way to explain super-spreader events we are seeing,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California at San Diego, in an interview Oct. 5 with the Washington Post.

Dr. Prather added that, once aerosolization is acknowledged, this becomes a “fixable” problem through proper ventilation.

“Wear masks at all times indoors when others are present,” Dr. Prather said. But when inside, she said, there’s no such thing as a completely safe social distance.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledged Oct. 5 in updated guidance that COVID-19 can sometimes be spread through the air, especially in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, when people are more than 6 feet apart.

The information reiterates, however, that “COVID-19 is thought to spread mainly through close contact from person to person, including between people who are physically near each other (within about 6 feet). People who are infected but do not show symptoms can also spread the virus to others.”

In a statement to the media, the CDC said, “Today’s update acknowledges the existence of some published reports showing limited, uncommon circumstances where people with COVID-19 infected others who were more than 6 feet away or shortly after the COVID-19–positive person left an area. In these instances, transmission occurred in poorly ventilated and enclosed spaces that often involved activities that caused heavier breathing, like singing or exercise. Such environments and activities may contribute to the buildup of virus-carrying particles.”

“This is HUGE and been long delayed. But glad it’s now CDC official,” tweeted Eric Feigl-Ding, MD, an epidemiologist and health economist at Harvard University, Boston on Oct. 5.

The CDC announcement follows an abrupt flip-flop on information last month surrounding the aerosol spread of the virus.
 

Information deleted from website last month

On September 18, the CDC had added to its existing guidance that the virus is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection.”

The CDC then deleted that guidance on Sept. 21, saying it was a draft update released in error.

A key element of the now-deleted guidance said, “this is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

The information updated today reverses the now-deleted guidance and says aerosol transmission is not the main way the virus spreads.

It states that people who are within 6 feet of a person with COVID-19 or have direct contact with that person have the greatest risk of infection.

The CDC reiterated in the statement to the media today, “People can protect themselves from the virus that causes COVID-19 by staying at least 6 feet away from others, wearing a mask that covers their nose and mouth, washing their hands frequently, cleaning touched surfaces often, and staying home when sick.”

Among the journals that have published evidence on aerosol spread is Clinical Infectious Diseases, which, on July 6, published the paper, “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors wrote, “there is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).”

Aerosols and airborne transmission “are the only way to explain super-spreader events we are seeing,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California at San Diego, in an interview Oct. 5 with the Washington Post.

Dr. Prather added that, once aerosolization is acknowledged, this becomes a “fixable” problem through proper ventilation.

“Wear masks at all times indoors when others are present,” Dr. Prather said. But when inside, she said, there’s no such thing as a completely safe social distance.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledged Oct. 5 in updated guidance that COVID-19 can sometimes be spread through the air, especially in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, when people are more than 6 feet apart.

The information reiterates, however, that “COVID-19 is thought to spread mainly through close contact from person to person, including between people who are physically near each other (within about 6 feet). People who are infected but do not show symptoms can also spread the virus to others.”

In a statement to the media, the CDC said, “Today’s update acknowledges the existence of some published reports showing limited, uncommon circumstances where people with COVID-19 infected others who were more than 6 feet away or shortly after the COVID-19–positive person left an area. In these instances, transmission occurred in poorly ventilated and enclosed spaces that often involved activities that caused heavier breathing, like singing or exercise. Such environments and activities may contribute to the buildup of virus-carrying particles.”

“This is HUGE and been long delayed. But glad it’s now CDC official,” tweeted Eric Feigl-Ding, MD, an epidemiologist and health economist at Harvard University, Boston on Oct. 5.

The CDC announcement follows an abrupt flip-flop on information last month surrounding the aerosol spread of the virus.
 

Information deleted from website last month

On September 18, the CDC had added to its existing guidance that the virus is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection.”

The CDC then deleted that guidance on Sept. 21, saying it was a draft update released in error.

A key element of the now-deleted guidance said, “this is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

The information updated today reverses the now-deleted guidance and says aerosol transmission is not the main way the virus spreads.

It states that people who are within 6 feet of a person with COVID-19 or have direct contact with that person have the greatest risk of infection.

The CDC reiterated in the statement to the media today, “People can protect themselves from the virus that causes COVID-19 by staying at least 6 feet away from others, wearing a mask that covers their nose and mouth, washing their hands frequently, cleaning touched surfaces often, and staying home when sick.”

Among the journals that have published evidence on aerosol spread is Clinical Infectious Diseases, which, on July 6, published the paper, “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors wrote, “there is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).”

Aerosols and airborne transmission “are the only way to explain super-spreader events we are seeing,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California at San Diego, in an interview Oct. 5 with the Washington Post.

Dr. Prather added that, once aerosolization is acknowledged, this becomes a “fixable” problem through proper ventilation.

“Wear masks at all times indoors when others are present,” Dr. Prather said. But when inside, she said, there’s no such thing as a completely safe social distance.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

President Donald Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis is raising fresh questions about the White House’s strategy for testing and containing the virus for a president whose cavalier attitude about the coronavirus has persisted since it landed on American shores.

The president has said others are tested before getting close to him, appearing to hold it as an iron shield of safety. He has largely eschewed mask-wearing and social distancing in meetings, travel and public events, while holding rallies for thousands of often maskless supporters.

The Trump administration has increasingly pinned its coronavirus testing strategy for the nation on antigen tests, which do not need a traditional lab for processing and quickly return results to patients. But the results are less accurate than those of the slower PCR tests. 

An early antigen test used by the White House was woefully inaccurate. But the new antigen test the White House is using has not been independently evaluated for accuracy and reliability. Moreover, this is the kit the Trump administration is pushing out to thousands of nursing homes to test residents and staff.

Testing “isn’t a ‘get out of jail free card,’” said Dr. Alan Wells, medical director of clinical labs at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and creator of its test for the novel coronavirus. In general, antigen tests can miss up to half the cases that are detected by polymerase chain reaction tests, depending on the population of patients tested, he said.

The White House said the president’s diagnosis was confirmed with a PCR test but declined to say which test delivered his initial result. The White House has been using a new antigen test from Abbott Laboratories to screen its staff for COVID-19, according to two administration officials. 

The test, known as BinaxNOW, received an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration in August. It produces results in 15 minutes. Yet little is independently known about how effective it is. According to the company, the test is 97% accurate in detecting positives and 98.5% accurate in identifying those without disease. Abbott’s stated performance of its antigen test was based on examining people within 7 days of COVID symptoms appearing.

The president and first lady have both had symptoms, according to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and the first lady’s Twitter account. The president was admitted to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on Friday evening “out of an abundance of caution,” White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in a statement.

Vice President Mike Pence is also tested daily for the virus and tested negative, spokesperson Devin O’Malley said Friday, but he did not respond to a follow-up question about which test was used.

Trump heavily promoted another Abbott rapid testing device, the ID NOW, earlier this year. But that test relies on different technology than the newer Abbott antigen test.

“I have not seen any independent evaluation of the Binax assay in the literature or in the blogs,” Wells said. “It is an unknown.”

The Department of Health and Human Services announced in August that it had signed a $760 million contract with Abbott for 150 million BinaxNOW antigen tests, which are now being distributed to nursing homes and historically black colleges and universities, as well as to governors to help inform decisions about opening and closing schools. The Big Ten football conference has also pinned playing hopes on the deployment of antigen tests following Trump’s political pressure.

However, even senior federal officials concede that a test alone isn’t likely to stop the spread of a virus that has sickened more than 7 million Americans.

“Testing does not substitute for avoiding crowded indoor spaces, washing hands, or wearing a mask when you can’t physically distance; further, a negative test today does not mean that you won’t be positive tomorrow,” Adm. Brett Giroir, the senior HHS official helming the administration’s testing effort, said in a statement at the time.

Trump could be part of a “super-spreading event,” said Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Given the timing of Trump’s positive test — which he announced on Twitter early Friday – his infection “likely happened 5 or more days ago,” Osterholm said. “If so, then he was widely infectious as early as Tuesday,” the day of the first presidential debate in Cleveland.

At least seven people who attended a Rose Garden announcement last Saturday, when Trump announced his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, have since tested positive for the coronavirus. They include Trump’s former adviser Kellyanne Conway, Republican Sens. Mike Lee and Thom Tillis, and the president of the University of Notre Dame, the Rev. John Jenkins.

“Having that many infected people there all at one time, we’re still going to see transmission coming off that event for a couple days,” Osterholm said.

Osterholm notes that about 20% of infected people lead to 80% of COVID-19 cases, because “super spreaders” can infect so many people at once.

He notes that participants and audience members at Tuesday’s debate were separated by at least 6 feet. But 6 feet isn’t always enough to prevent infection, he said.

While many COVID-19 infections appear to be spread by respiratory droplets, which usually fall to the ground within 6 feet, people who are singing or speaking loudly can project virus much further. Evidence also suggests that the novel coronavirus can spread through aerosols, floating in the air like a speck of dust.

“I wonder how much virus was floating in that room that night,” Osterholm said.

Other experts say it’s too soon to say whether Trump was infected in a super-spreader event. “The president and his wife have had many exposures to many people in enclosed venues without protection,” so they could have been infected at any number of places, said Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. 

Although Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden tested negative for the virus with a PCR test Friday, experts note that false-negative results are common in the first few days after infection. Test results over the next several days will yield more useful information.

It can take more than a week for the virus to reproduce enough to be detected, Wells said: “You are probably not detectable for 3, 5, 7, even 10 days after you’re exposed.”

In Minnesota, where Trump held an outdoor campaign rally in Duluth with hundreds of attendees Wednesday, health officials warned that a 14-day quarantine is necessary, regardless of test results.

“Anyone who was a direct contact of President Trump or known COVID-19 cases needs to quarantine and should get tested,” the Minnesota Department of Health said.

Ongoing lapses in test result reporting could hamper efforts to track and isolate sick people. As of Sept. 10, 21 states and the District of Columbia were not reporting all antigen test results, according to a KHN investigation, a lapse in reporting that officials say leaves them blind to disease spread. Since then, public health departments in Arizona, North Carolina and South Dakota all have announced plans to add antigen testing to their case reporting.

Requests for comment to the D.C. Department of Health were referred to Mayor Muriel Bowser’s office, which did not respond. District health officials told KHN in early September that the White House does not report antigen test results to them – a potential violation of federal law under the CARES Act, which says any institution performing tests to diagnose COVID-19 must report all results to local or state public health departments.

Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, said it’s not surprising that Trump tested positive, given that so many of his close associates – including his national security adviser and Secret Service officers – have also been infected by the virus.

“When you look at the number of social contacts and travel schedules, it’s not surprising,” Adalja said.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

President Donald Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis is raising fresh questions about the White House’s strategy for testing and containing the virus for a president whose cavalier attitude about the coronavirus has persisted since it landed on American shores.

The president has said others are tested before getting close to him, appearing to hold it as an iron shield of safety. He has largely eschewed mask-wearing and social distancing in meetings, travel and public events, while holding rallies for thousands of often maskless supporters.

The Trump administration has increasingly pinned its coronavirus testing strategy for the nation on antigen tests, which do not need a traditional lab for processing and quickly return results to patients. But the results are less accurate than those of the slower PCR tests. 

An early antigen test used by the White House was woefully inaccurate. But the new antigen test the White House is using has not been independently evaluated for accuracy and reliability. Moreover, this is the kit the Trump administration is pushing out to thousands of nursing homes to test residents and staff.

Testing “isn’t a ‘get out of jail free card,’” said Dr. Alan Wells, medical director of clinical labs at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and creator of its test for the novel coronavirus. In general, antigen tests can miss up to half the cases that are detected by polymerase chain reaction tests, depending on the population of patients tested, he said.

The White House said the president’s diagnosis was confirmed with a PCR test but declined to say which test delivered his initial result. The White House has been using a new antigen test from Abbott Laboratories to screen its staff for COVID-19, according to two administration officials. 

The test, known as BinaxNOW, received an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration in August. It produces results in 15 minutes. Yet little is independently known about how effective it is. According to the company, the test is 97% accurate in detecting positives and 98.5% accurate in identifying those without disease. Abbott’s stated performance of its antigen test was based on examining people within 7 days of COVID symptoms appearing.

The president and first lady have both had symptoms, according to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and the first lady’s Twitter account. The president was admitted to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on Friday evening “out of an abundance of caution,” White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in a statement.

Vice President Mike Pence is also tested daily for the virus and tested negative, spokesperson Devin O’Malley said Friday, but he did not respond to a follow-up question about which test was used.

Trump heavily promoted another Abbott rapid testing device, the ID NOW, earlier this year. But that test relies on different technology than the newer Abbott antigen test.

“I have not seen any independent evaluation of the Binax assay in the literature or in the blogs,” Wells said. “It is an unknown.”

The Department of Health and Human Services announced in August that it had signed a $760 million contract with Abbott for 150 million BinaxNOW antigen tests, which are now being distributed to nursing homes and historically black colleges and universities, as well as to governors to help inform decisions about opening and closing schools. The Big Ten football conference has also pinned playing hopes on the deployment of antigen tests following Trump’s political pressure.

However, even senior federal officials concede that a test alone isn’t likely to stop the spread of a virus that has sickened more than 7 million Americans.

“Testing does not substitute for avoiding crowded indoor spaces, washing hands, or wearing a mask when you can’t physically distance; further, a negative test today does not mean that you won’t be positive tomorrow,” Adm. Brett Giroir, the senior HHS official helming the administration’s testing effort, said in a statement at the time.

Trump could be part of a “super-spreading event,” said Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Given the timing of Trump’s positive test — which he announced on Twitter early Friday – his infection “likely happened 5 or more days ago,” Osterholm said. “If so, then he was widely infectious as early as Tuesday,” the day of the first presidential debate in Cleveland.

At least seven people who attended a Rose Garden announcement last Saturday, when Trump announced his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, have since tested positive for the coronavirus. They include Trump’s former adviser Kellyanne Conway, Republican Sens. Mike Lee and Thom Tillis, and the president of the University of Notre Dame, the Rev. John Jenkins.

“Having that many infected people there all at one time, we’re still going to see transmission coming off that event for a couple days,” Osterholm said.

Osterholm notes that about 20% of infected people lead to 80% of COVID-19 cases, because “super spreaders” can infect so many people at once.

He notes that participants and audience members at Tuesday’s debate were separated by at least 6 feet. But 6 feet isn’t always enough to prevent infection, he said.

While many COVID-19 infections appear to be spread by respiratory droplets, which usually fall to the ground within 6 feet, people who are singing or speaking loudly can project virus much further. Evidence also suggests that the novel coronavirus can spread through aerosols, floating in the air like a speck of dust.

“I wonder how much virus was floating in that room that night,” Osterholm said.

Other experts say it’s too soon to say whether Trump was infected in a super-spreader event. “The president and his wife have had many exposures to many people in enclosed venues without protection,” so they could have been infected at any number of places, said Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. 

Although Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden tested negative for the virus with a PCR test Friday, experts note that false-negative results are common in the first few days after infection. Test results over the next several days will yield more useful information.

It can take more than a week for the virus to reproduce enough to be detected, Wells said: “You are probably not detectable for 3, 5, 7, even 10 days after you’re exposed.”

In Minnesota, where Trump held an outdoor campaign rally in Duluth with hundreds of attendees Wednesday, health officials warned that a 14-day quarantine is necessary, regardless of test results.

“Anyone who was a direct contact of President Trump or known COVID-19 cases needs to quarantine and should get tested,” the Minnesota Department of Health said.

Ongoing lapses in test result reporting could hamper efforts to track and isolate sick people. As of Sept. 10, 21 states and the District of Columbia were not reporting all antigen test results, according to a KHN investigation, a lapse in reporting that officials say leaves them blind to disease spread. Since then, public health departments in Arizona, North Carolina and South Dakota all have announced plans to add antigen testing to their case reporting.

Requests for comment to the D.C. Department of Health were referred to Mayor Muriel Bowser’s office, which did not respond. District health officials told KHN in early September that the White House does not report antigen test results to them – a potential violation of federal law under the CARES Act, which says any institution performing tests to diagnose COVID-19 must report all results to local or state public health departments.

Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, said it’s not surprising that Trump tested positive, given that so many of his close associates – including his national security adviser and Secret Service officers – have also been infected by the virus.

“When you look at the number of social contacts and travel schedules, it’s not surprising,” Adalja said.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

President Donald Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis is raising fresh questions about the White House’s strategy for testing and containing the virus for a president whose cavalier attitude about the coronavirus has persisted since it landed on American shores.

The president has said others are tested before getting close to him, appearing to hold it as an iron shield of safety. He has largely eschewed mask-wearing and social distancing in meetings, travel and public events, while holding rallies for thousands of often maskless supporters.

The Trump administration has increasingly pinned its coronavirus testing strategy for the nation on antigen tests, which do not need a traditional lab for processing and quickly return results to patients. But the results are less accurate than those of the slower PCR tests. 

An early antigen test used by the White House was woefully inaccurate. But the new antigen test the White House is using has not been independently evaluated for accuracy and reliability. Moreover, this is the kit the Trump administration is pushing out to thousands of nursing homes to test residents and staff.

Testing “isn’t a ‘get out of jail free card,’” said Dr. Alan Wells, medical director of clinical labs at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and creator of its test for the novel coronavirus. In general, antigen tests can miss up to half the cases that are detected by polymerase chain reaction tests, depending on the population of patients tested, he said.

The White House said the president’s diagnosis was confirmed with a PCR test but declined to say which test delivered his initial result. The White House has been using a new antigen test from Abbott Laboratories to screen its staff for COVID-19, according to two administration officials. 

The test, known as BinaxNOW, received an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration in August. It produces results in 15 minutes. Yet little is independently known about how effective it is. According to the company, the test is 97% accurate in detecting positives and 98.5% accurate in identifying those without disease. Abbott’s stated performance of its antigen test was based on examining people within 7 days of COVID symptoms appearing.

The president and first lady have both had symptoms, according to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and the first lady’s Twitter account. The president was admitted to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on Friday evening “out of an abundance of caution,” White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in a statement.

Vice President Mike Pence is also tested daily for the virus and tested negative, spokesperson Devin O’Malley said Friday, but he did not respond to a follow-up question about which test was used.

Trump heavily promoted another Abbott rapid testing device, the ID NOW, earlier this year. But that test relies on different technology than the newer Abbott antigen test.

“I have not seen any independent evaluation of the Binax assay in the literature or in the blogs,” Wells said. “It is an unknown.”

The Department of Health and Human Services announced in August that it had signed a $760 million contract with Abbott for 150 million BinaxNOW antigen tests, which are now being distributed to nursing homes and historically black colleges and universities, as well as to governors to help inform decisions about opening and closing schools. The Big Ten football conference has also pinned playing hopes on the deployment of antigen tests following Trump’s political pressure.

However, even senior federal officials concede that a test alone isn’t likely to stop the spread of a virus that has sickened more than 7 million Americans.

“Testing does not substitute for avoiding crowded indoor spaces, washing hands, or wearing a mask when you can’t physically distance; further, a negative test today does not mean that you won’t be positive tomorrow,” Adm. Brett Giroir, the senior HHS official helming the administration’s testing effort, said in a statement at the time.

Trump could be part of a “super-spreading event,” said Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

Given the timing of Trump’s positive test — which he announced on Twitter early Friday – his infection “likely happened 5 or more days ago,” Osterholm said. “If so, then he was widely infectious as early as Tuesday,” the day of the first presidential debate in Cleveland.

At least seven people who attended a Rose Garden announcement last Saturday, when Trump announced his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, have since tested positive for the coronavirus. They include Trump’s former adviser Kellyanne Conway, Republican Sens. Mike Lee and Thom Tillis, and the president of the University of Notre Dame, the Rev. John Jenkins.

“Having that many infected people there all at one time, we’re still going to see transmission coming off that event for a couple days,” Osterholm said.

Osterholm notes that about 20% of infected people lead to 80% of COVID-19 cases, because “super spreaders” can infect so many people at once.

He notes that participants and audience members at Tuesday’s debate were separated by at least 6 feet. But 6 feet isn’t always enough to prevent infection, he said.

While many COVID-19 infections appear to be spread by respiratory droplets, which usually fall to the ground within 6 feet, people who are singing or speaking loudly can project virus much further. Evidence also suggests that the novel coronavirus can spread through aerosols, floating in the air like a speck of dust.

“I wonder how much virus was floating in that room that night,” Osterholm said.

Other experts say it’s too soon to say whether Trump was infected in a super-spreader event. “The president and his wife have had many exposures to many people in enclosed venues without protection,” so they could have been infected at any number of places, said Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. 

Although Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden tested negative for the virus with a PCR test Friday, experts note that false-negative results are common in the first few days after infection. Test results over the next several days will yield more useful information.

It can take more than a week for the virus to reproduce enough to be detected, Wells said: “You are probably not detectable for 3, 5, 7, even 10 days after you’re exposed.”

In Minnesota, where Trump held an outdoor campaign rally in Duluth with hundreds of attendees Wednesday, health officials warned that a 14-day quarantine is necessary, regardless of test results.

“Anyone who was a direct contact of President Trump or known COVID-19 cases needs to quarantine and should get tested,” the Minnesota Department of Health said.

Ongoing lapses in test result reporting could hamper efforts to track and isolate sick people. As of Sept. 10, 21 states and the District of Columbia were not reporting all antigen test results, according to a KHN investigation, a lapse in reporting that officials say leaves them blind to disease spread. Since then, public health departments in Arizona, North Carolina and South Dakota all have announced plans to add antigen testing to their case reporting.

Requests for comment to the D.C. Department of Health were referred to Mayor Muriel Bowser’s office, which did not respond. District health officials told KHN in early September that the White House does not report antigen test results to them – a potential violation of federal law under the CARES Act, which says any institution performing tests to diagnose COVID-19 must report all results to local or state public health departments.

Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, said it’s not surprising that Trump tested positive, given that so many of his close associates – including his national security adviser and Secret Service officers – have also been infected by the virus.

“When you look at the number of social contacts and travel schedules, it’s not surprising,” Adalja said.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.