STIs

Results of a new study indicate that opt-out HIV testing, in particular “notional consent testing” where a patient is not asked or counseled before conducting the test, is an effective tool for identifying undiagnosed HIV cases in populations with an HIV positivity rate greater than 0.2%.

On implementation of opt-out testing of patients aged 18-59 years admitted to the ED at St. George’s University Hospital in London, the proportion of tests performed increased from 57.9% to 69%. Upon increasing the age range to those 16 and older and implementing notional consent, overall testing coverage improved to 74.2%.

“An opt-out HIV testing program in the emergency department provides an excellent opportunity to diagnose patients who do not perceive themselves to be at risk or who have never tested before,” lead author Rebecca Marchant, MBBS, of St. George’s Hospital, said in an interview.

The study was published online in HIV Medicine.

She continued, “I think this take-away message would be applicable to other countries with prevalence of HIV greater than 2 per 1,000 people, as routine HIV testing in areas of high prevalence removes the need to target testing of specific populations, potentially preventing stigmatization.”

Despite excellent uptake of HIV testing in antenatal and sexual health services, 6% of people living in the United Kingdom are unaware of their status, and up to 42% of people living with HIV are diagnosed at a late stage of infection. Because blood is routinely drawn in EDs, it’s an excellent opportunity for increased testing. Late-stage diagnosis carries an increased risk of developing an AIDS-related illness, a sevenfold increase in risk for death in the first year after diagnosis, and increased rates of HIV transmission and health care costs.

The study was conducted in a region of London that has an HIV prevalence of 5.4 cases per 1,000 residents aged 15-59 years. Opt-out HIV testing was implemented in February 2019 for people aged 18-59, and in March 2021, this was changed to include those aged 16-plus years along with a move to notional consent.

Out of 78,333 HIV tests, there were 1054 reactive results. Of these, 728 (69%) were known people living with HIV, 8 (0.8%) were not contactable, 2 (0.2%) retested elsewhere and 3 (0.3%) declined a retest. A total of 259 false positives were determined by follow-up testing.

Of those who received a confirmed HIV diagnosis, 50 (4.8%) were newly diagnosed. HIV was suspected in only 22% of these people, and 48% had never previously tested for the virus. New diagnoses were 80% male with a median age of 42 years. CD4 counts varied widely (3 cells/mcL to 1,344 cells/mcL), with 60% diagnosed at a late stage (CD4 < 350 cells/mcL) and 40% with advanced immunosuppression (CD4 < 200 cells/mcL).

“It did not surprise me that heterosexuals made up 62% of all new diagnoses,” Dr. Marchant noted. “This is because routine opt-out testing in the ED offers the opportunity to test people who don’t perceive themselves to be at risk or who have never tested before, and I believe heterosexual people are more likely to fit into those categories. In London, new HIV diagnoses amongst men who have sex with men have fallen year on year likely due to pre-exposure prophylaxis being more readily available and a generally good awareness of HIV and testing amongst MSM.”

Michael D. Levine, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, agreed with its main findings.

“Doing widespread screening of patients in the emergency department is a feasible option,” Dr. Levine, who was not involved with this study, said in an interview. “But it only makes sense to do this in a population with some prevalence of HIV. With some forms of testing, like rapid HIV tests, you only get a presumptive positive and you then have a confirmatory test. The presumptive positives do have false positives associated with them. So if you’re in a population with very few cases of HIV, and you have a significant number of false positives, that’s going to be problematic. It’s going to add a tremendous amount of stress to the patient.”

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

Results of a new study indicate that opt-out HIV testing, in particular “notional consent testing” where a patient is not asked or counseled before conducting the test, is an effective tool for identifying undiagnosed HIV cases in populations with an HIV positivity rate greater than 0.2%.

On implementation of opt-out testing of patients aged 18-59 years admitted to the ED at St. George’s University Hospital in London, the proportion of tests performed increased from 57.9% to 69%. Upon increasing the age range to those 16 and older and implementing notional consent, overall testing coverage improved to 74.2%.

“An opt-out HIV testing program in the emergency department provides an excellent opportunity to diagnose patients who do not perceive themselves to be at risk or who have never tested before,” lead author Rebecca Marchant, MBBS, of St. George’s Hospital, said in an interview.

The study was published online in HIV Medicine.

She continued, “I think this take-away message would be applicable to other countries with prevalence of HIV greater than 2 per 1,000 people, as routine HIV testing in areas of high prevalence removes the need to target testing of specific populations, potentially preventing stigmatization.”

Despite excellent uptake of HIV testing in antenatal and sexual health services, 6% of people living in the United Kingdom are unaware of their status, and up to 42% of people living with HIV are diagnosed at a late stage of infection. Because blood is routinely drawn in EDs, it’s an excellent opportunity for increased testing. Late-stage diagnosis carries an increased risk of developing an AIDS-related illness, a sevenfold increase in risk for death in the first year after diagnosis, and increased rates of HIV transmission and health care costs.

The study was conducted in a region of London that has an HIV prevalence of 5.4 cases per 1,000 residents aged 15-59 years. Opt-out HIV testing was implemented in February 2019 for people aged 18-59, and in March 2021, this was changed to include those aged 16-plus years along with a move to notional consent.

Out of 78,333 HIV tests, there were 1054 reactive results. Of these, 728 (69%) were known people living with HIV, 8 (0.8%) were not contactable, 2 (0.2%) retested elsewhere and 3 (0.3%) declined a retest. A total of 259 false positives were determined by follow-up testing.

Of those who received a confirmed HIV diagnosis, 50 (4.8%) were newly diagnosed. HIV was suspected in only 22% of these people, and 48% had never previously tested for the virus. New diagnoses were 80% male with a median age of 42 years. CD4 counts varied widely (3 cells/mcL to 1,344 cells/mcL), with 60% diagnosed at a late stage (CD4 < 350 cells/mcL) and 40% with advanced immunosuppression (CD4 < 200 cells/mcL).

“It did not surprise me that heterosexuals made up 62% of all new diagnoses,” Dr. Marchant noted. “This is because routine opt-out testing in the ED offers the opportunity to test people who don’t perceive themselves to be at risk or who have never tested before, and I believe heterosexual people are more likely to fit into those categories. In London, new HIV diagnoses amongst men who have sex with men have fallen year on year likely due to pre-exposure prophylaxis being more readily available and a generally good awareness of HIV and testing amongst MSM.”

Michael D. Levine, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, agreed with its main findings.

“Doing widespread screening of patients in the emergency department is a feasible option,” Dr. Levine, who was not involved with this study, said in an interview. “But it only makes sense to do this in a population with some prevalence of HIV. With some forms of testing, like rapid HIV tests, you only get a presumptive positive and you then have a confirmatory test. The presumptive positives do have false positives associated with them. So if you’re in a population with very few cases of HIV, and you have a significant number of false positives, that’s going to be problematic. It’s going to add a tremendous amount of stress to the patient.”

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

Results of a new study indicate that opt-out HIV testing, in particular “notional consent testing” where a patient is not asked or counseled before conducting the test, is an effective tool for identifying undiagnosed HIV cases in populations with an HIV positivity rate greater than 0.2%.

On implementation of opt-out testing of patients aged 18-59 years admitted to the ED at St. George’s University Hospital in London, the proportion of tests performed increased from 57.9% to 69%. Upon increasing the age range to those 16 and older and implementing notional consent, overall testing coverage improved to 74.2%.

“An opt-out HIV testing program in the emergency department provides an excellent opportunity to diagnose patients who do not perceive themselves to be at risk or who have never tested before,” lead author Rebecca Marchant, MBBS, of St. George’s Hospital, said in an interview.

The study was published online in HIV Medicine.

She continued, “I think this take-away message would be applicable to other countries with prevalence of HIV greater than 2 per 1,000 people, as routine HIV testing in areas of high prevalence removes the need to target testing of specific populations, potentially preventing stigmatization.”

Despite excellent uptake of HIV testing in antenatal and sexual health services, 6% of people living in the United Kingdom are unaware of their status, and up to 42% of people living with HIV are diagnosed at a late stage of infection. Because blood is routinely drawn in EDs, it’s an excellent opportunity for increased testing. Late-stage diagnosis carries an increased risk of developing an AIDS-related illness, a sevenfold increase in risk for death in the first year after diagnosis, and increased rates of HIV transmission and health care costs.

The study was conducted in a region of London that has an HIV prevalence of 5.4 cases per 1,000 residents aged 15-59 years. Opt-out HIV testing was implemented in February 2019 for people aged 18-59, and in March 2021, this was changed to include those aged 16-plus years along with a move to notional consent.

Out of 78,333 HIV tests, there were 1054 reactive results. Of these, 728 (69%) were known people living with HIV, 8 (0.8%) were not contactable, 2 (0.2%) retested elsewhere and 3 (0.3%) declined a retest. A total of 259 false positives were determined by follow-up testing.

Of those who received a confirmed HIV diagnosis, 50 (4.8%) were newly diagnosed. HIV was suspected in only 22% of these people, and 48% had never previously tested for the virus. New diagnoses were 80% male with a median age of 42 years. CD4 counts varied widely (3 cells/mcL to 1,344 cells/mcL), with 60% diagnosed at a late stage (CD4 < 350 cells/mcL) and 40% with advanced immunosuppression (CD4 < 200 cells/mcL).

“It did not surprise me that heterosexuals made up 62% of all new diagnoses,” Dr. Marchant noted. “This is because routine opt-out testing in the ED offers the opportunity to test people who don’t perceive themselves to be at risk or who have never tested before, and I believe heterosexual people are more likely to fit into those categories. In London, new HIV diagnoses amongst men who have sex with men have fallen year on year likely due to pre-exposure prophylaxis being more readily available and a generally good awareness of HIV and testing amongst MSM.”

Michael D. Levine, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, agreed with its main findings.

“Doing widespread screening of patients in the emergency department is a feasible option,” Dr. Levine, who was not involved with this study, said in an interview. “But it only makes sense to do this in a population with some prevalence of HIV. With some forms of testing, like rapid HIV tests, you only get a presumptive positive and you then have a confirmatory test. The presumptive positives do have false positives associated with them. So if you’re in a population with very few cases of HIV, and you have a significant number of false positives, that’s going to be problematic. It’s going to add a tremendous amount of stress to the patient.”

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

Among the more remarkable legacies of the COVID-19 pandemic is how quickly federal regulators, the health care industry, and consumers moved to make at-home testing a reliable tool for managing a public health crisis.

But that fast-track focus is missing from another, less publicized epidemic: an explosion in sexually transmitted diseases that can cause chronic pain and infertility among infected adults and disable or kill infected newborns. The disparity has amplified calls from researchers, public health advocates, and health care companies urging the federal government to greenlight at-home testing kits that could vastly multiply the number of Americans testing for STDs.

Online shoppers can already choose from more than a dozen self-testing kits, typically ranging in price from $69 to $500, depending on the brand and the variety of infections they can detect.

But, except for HIV tests, the Food and Drug Administration hasn’t approved STD test kits for use outside a medical setting. That leaves consumers unsure about their reliability even as at-home use grows dramatically.

The STD epidemic is “out of control,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security. “We know we are missing diagnoses. We know that contact tracing is happening late or not at all. If we’re really serious about tackling the STD crisis, we have to get more people diagnosed.”

Preliminary data for 2021 showed nearly 2.5 million reported cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reported cases of syphilis and gonorrhea have been climbing for about a decade. In its most recent prevalence estimate, the agency said that on any given day, one in five Americans are infected with any of eight common STDs.

The push to make at-home testing for STDs as easy and commonplace as at-home COVID and pregnancy testing is coming from several sectors. Public health officials say their overextended staffers can’t handle the staggering need for testing and surveillance. Diagnostic and pharmaceutical companies see a business opportunity in the unmet demand.

The medical science underpinning STD testing is not particularly new or mysterious. Depending on the test, it may involve collecting a urine sample, pricking a finger for blood, or swabbing the mouth, genitals, or anus for discharge or cell samples. Medical centers and community health clinics have performed such testing for decades.

The issue for regulators is whether sampling kits can be reliably adapted for in-home use. Unlike rapid antigen tests for COVID, which produce results in 15-20 minutes, the home STD kits on the market require patients to collect their own samples, and then package and mail them to a lab for analysis.

In the past 3 years, as the pandemic prompted clinics that provide low-cost care to drastically curtail in-person services, a number of public health departments – among them state agencies in Alabama, Alaska, and Maryland – have started mailing free STD test kits to residents. Universities and nonprofits are also spearheading at-home testing efforts.

And dozens of commercial enterprises are jumping into or ramping up direct-to-consumer sales. Everly Health, a digital health company that sells a variety of lab tests online, reported sales for its suite of STD kits grew 120% in the first half of this year compared with the first half of 2021.

CVS Health began selling its own bundled STD kit in October, priced at $99.99. Unlike most home kits, CVS’ version is available in stores.

Hologic, Abbott, and Molecular Testing Labs are among the companies urgently developing tests. And Cue Health, which sells COVID tests, is poised to launch a clinical trial for a rapid home test for chlamydia and gonorrhea that would set a new bar, providing results in about 20 minutes.

Alberto Gutierrez, who formerly led the FDA office that oversees diagnostic tests, said agency officials have been concerned about the reliability of home tests for years. The FDA wants companies to prove that home collection kits are as accurate as those used in clinics, and that samples don’t degrade during shipping.

“The agency doesn’t believe these tests are legally marketed at this point,” said Mr. Gutierrez, a partner at NDA Partners, a consulting firm that advises companies seeking to bring health care products to market.

“CVS should not be selling that test,” he added.

In response to KHN questions, the FDA said it considers home collection kits, which can include swabs, lancets, transport tubes, and chemicals to stabilize the samples, to be devices that require agency review. The FDA “generally does not comment” on whether it plans to take action on any specific case, the statement said.

CVS spokesperson Mary Gattuso said the pharmacy chain is following the law. “We are committed to ensuring the products we offer are safe, work as intended, comply with regulations, and satisfy customers,” Ms. Gattuso said.

Everly Health and other companies described their kits as laboratory-developed tests, akin to the diagnostics some hospitals create for in-house use. And they contend their tests can be legally marketed because their labs have been certified by a different agency, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

“The instruments and assays used by the laboratories we use are comparable to – and often the same as – those used by the labs a doctor’s office uses,” said Liz Kwo, MD, chief medical officer at Everly Health. “Our at-home sample collection methods, like dried blood spots and saliva, have been widely used for decades.”

Home collection kits appeal to Uxmal Caldera, 27, of Miami Beach, who prefers to test in the privacy of his home. Mr. Caldera, who doesn’t have a car, said home testing saves him the time and expense of getting to a clinic.

Mr. Caldera has been testing himself for HIV and other STDs every 3 months for more than a year, part of routine monitoring for people taking PrEP, a regimen of daily pills to prevent HIV infection.

“Doing it by yourself is not hard at all,” said Mr. Caldera, who is uninsured but receives the tests free through a community foundation. “The instructions are really clear. I get the results in maybe 4 days. For sure, I would recommend it to other people.”

Leandro Mena, MD, director of the CDC’s division of STD prevention, said he would like to see at-home STD testing become as routine as home pregnancy tests. An estimated 16 million–20 million tests for gonorrhea and chlamydia are performed in the United States each year, Dr. Mena said. Widespread use of at-home STD testing could double or triple that number.

He noted that doctors have years of experience using home collection kits.

The Johns Hopkins Center for Point-of-Care Technologies Research for Sexually Transmitted Diseases has distributed roughly 23,000 at-home STD kits since 2004, said Charlotte Gaydos, DrPH, a principal investigator with the center. The FDA generally allows such use if it’s part of research overseen by medical professionals. The center’s tests are now used by the Alaska health department, as well as Native American tribes in Arizona and Oklahoma.

Dr. Gaydos has published dozens of studies establishing that home collection kits for diseases such as chlamydia and gonorrhea are accurate and easy to use.

“There’s a huge amount of data showing that home testing works,” said Dr. Gaydos.

But Dr. Gaydos noted that her studies have been limited to small sample sizes. She said she doesn’t have the millions of dollars in funding it would take to run the sort of comprehensive trial the FDA typically requires for approval.

Jenny Mahn, director of clinical and sexual health at the National Coalition of STD Directors, said many public health labs are reluctant to handle home kits. “The public health labs won’t touch it without FDA’s blessing.”

Public health clinics often provide STD testing at little to no cost, while health insurance typically covers in-person testing at a private practice. But most consumers pay out-of-pocket for direct-to-consumer kits. Commercial pricing puts them out of reach for many people, particularly teens and young adults, who account for nearly half of STDs.

Adalja said the FDA has a history of moving slowly on home testing. The agency spent 7 years evaluating the first home HIV test it approved, which hit the market in 2012.

“Home testing is the way of the future,” said Laura Lindberg, PhD, a professor of public health at Rutgers University, Piscataway, N.J. “The pandemic opened the door to testing and treatment at home without traveling to a health care provider, and we aren’t going to be able to put the genie back in the bottle.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Among the more remarkable legacies of the COVID-19 pandemic is how quickly federal regulators, the health care industry, and consumers moved to make at-home testing a reliable tool for managing a public health crisis.

But that fast-track focus is missing from another, less publicized epidemic: an explosion in sexually transmitted diseases that can cause chronic pain and infertility among infected adults and disable or kill infected newborns. The disparity has amplified calls from researchers, public health advocates, and health care companies urging the federal government to greenlight at-home testing kits that could vastly multiply the number of Americans testing for STDs.

Online shoppers can already choose from more than a dozen self-testing kits, typically ranging in price from $69 to $500, depending on the brand and the variety of infections they can detect.

But, except for HIV tests, the Food and Drug Administration hasn’t approved STD test kits for use outside a medical setting. That leaves consumers unsure about their reliability even as at-home use grows dramatically.

The STD epidemic is “out of control,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security. “We know we are missing diagnoses. We know that contact tracing is happening late or not at all. If we’re really serious about tackling the STD crisis, we have to get more people diagnosed.”

Preliminary data for 2021 showed nearly 2.5 million reported cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reported cases of syphilis and gonorrhea have been climbing for about a decade. In its most recent prevalence estimate, the agency said that on any given day, one in five Americans are infected with any of eight common STDs.

The push to make at-home testing for STDs as easy and commonplace as at-home COVID and pregnancy testing is coming from several sectors. Public health officials say their overextended staffers can’t handle the staggering need for testing and surveillance. Diagnostic and pharmaceutical companies see a business opportunity in the unmet demand.

The medical science underpinning STD testing is not particularly new or mysterious. Depending on the test, it may involve collecting a urine sample, pricking a finger for blood, or swabbing the mouth, genitals, or anus for discharge or cell samples. Medical centers and community health clinics have performed such testing for decades.

The issue for regulators is whether sampling kits can be reliably adapted for in-home use. Unlike rapid antigen tests for COVID, which produce results in 15-20 minutes, the home STD kits on the market require patients to collect their own samples, and then package and mail them to a lab for analysis.

In the past 3 years, as the pandemic prompted clinics that provide low-cost care to drastically curtail in-person services, a number of public health departments – among them state agencies in Alabama, Alaska, and Maryland – have started mailing free STD test kits to residents. Universities and nonprofits are also spearheading at-home testing efforts.

And dozens of commercial enterprises are jumping into or ramping up direct-to-consumer sales. Everly Health, a digital health company that sells a variety of lab tests online, reported sales for its suite of STD kits grew 120% in the first half of this year compared with the first half of 2021.

CVS Health began selling its own bundled STD kit in October, priced at $99.99. Unlike most home kits, CVS’ version is available in stores.

Hologic, Abbott, and Molecular Testing Labs are among the companies urgently developing tests. And Cue Health, which sells COVID tests, is poised to launch a clinical trial for a rapid home test for chlamydia and gonorrhea that would set a new bar, providing results in about 20 minutes.

Alberto Gutierrez, who formerly led the FDA office that oversees diagnostic tests, said agency officials have been concerned about the reliability of home tests for years. The FDA wants companies to prove that home collection kits are as accurate as those used in clinics, and that samples don’t degrade during shipping.

“The agency doesn’t believe these tests are legally marketed at this point,” said Mr. Gutierrez, a partner at NDA Partners, a consulting firm that advises companies seeking to bring health care products to market.

“CVS should not be selling that test,” he added.

In response to KHN questions, the FDA said it considers home collection kits, which can include swabs, lancets, transport tubes, and chemicals to stabilize the samples, to be devices that require agency review. The FDA “generally does not comment” on whether it plans to take action on any specific case, the statement said.

CVS spokesperson Mary Gattuso said the pharmacy chain is following the law. “We are committed to ensuring the products we offer are safe, work as intended, comply with regulations, and satisfy customers,” Ms. Gattuso said.

Everly Health and other companies described their kits as laboratory-developed tests, akin to the diagnostics some hospitals create for in-house use. And they contend their tests can be legally marketed because their labs have been certified by a different agency, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

“The instruments and assays used by the laboratories we use are comparable to – and often the same as – those used by the labs a doctor’s office uses,” said Liz Kwo, MD, chief medical officer at Everly Health. “Our at-home sample collection methods, like dried blood spots and saliva, have been widely used for decades.”

Home collection kits appeal to Uxmal Caldera, 27, of Miami Beach, who prefers to test in the privacy of his home. Mr. Caldera, who doesn’t have a car, said home testing saves him the time and expense of getting to a clinic.

Mr. Caldera has been testing himself for HIV and other STDs every 3 months for more than a year, part of routine monitoring for people taking PrEP, a regimen of daily pills to prevent HIV infection.

“Doing it by yourself is not hard at all,” said Mr. Caldera, who is uninsured but receives the tests free through a community foundation. “The instructions are really clear. I get the results in maybe 4 days. For sure, I would recommend it to other people.”

Leandro Mena, MD, director of the CDC’s division of STD prevention, said he would like to see at-home STD testing become as routine as home pregnancy tests. An estimated 16 million–20 million tests for gonorrhea and chlamydia are performed in the United States each year, Dr. Mena said. Widespread use of at-home STD testing could double or triple that number.

He noted that doctors have years of experience using home collection kits.

The Johns Hopkins Center for Point-of-Care Technologies Research for Sexually Transmitted Diseases has distributed roughly 23,000 at-home STD kits since 2004, said Charlotte Gaydos, DrPH, a principal investigator with the center. The FDA generally allows such use if it’s part of research overseen by medical professionals. The center’s tests are now used by the Alaska health department, as well as Native American tribes in Arizona and Oklahoma.

Dr. Gaydos has published dozens of studies establishing that home collection kits for diseases such as chlamydia and gonorrhea are accurate and easy to use.

“There’s a huge amount of data showing that home testing works,” said Dr. Gaydos.

But Dr. Gaydos noted that her studies have been limited to small sample sizes. She said she doesn’t have the millions of dollars in funding it would take to run the sort of comprehensive trial the FDA typically requires for approval.

Jenny Mahn, director of clinical and sexual health at the National Coalition of STD Directors, said many public health labs are reluctant to handle home kits. “The public health labs won’t touch it without FDA’s blessing.”

Public health clinics often provide STD testing at little to no cost, while health insurance typically covers in-person testing at a private practice. But most consumers pay out-of-pocket for direct-to-consumer kits. Commercial pricing puts them out of reach for many people, particularly teens and young adults, who account for nearly half of STDs.

Adalja said the FDA has a history of moving slowly on home testing. The agency spent 7 years evaluating the first home HIV test it approved, which hit the market in 2012.

“Home testing is the way of the future,” said Laura Lindberg, PhD, a professor of public health at Rutgers University, Piscataway, N.J. “The pandemic opened the door to testing and treatment at home without traveling to a health care provider, and we aren’t going to be able to put the genie back in the bottle.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Among the more remarkable legacies of the COVID-19 pandemic is how quickly federal regulators, the health care industry, and consumers moved to make at-home testing a reliable tool for managing a public health crisis.

But that fast-track focus is missing from another, less publicized epidemic: an explosion in sexually transmitted diseases that can cause chronic pain and infertility among infected adults and disable or kill infected newborns. The disparity has amplified calls from researchers, public health advocates, and health care companies urging the federal government to greenlight at-home testing kits that could vastly multiply the number of Americans testing for STDs.

Online shoppers can already choose from more than a dozen self-testing kits, typically ranging in price from $69 to $500, depending on the brand and the variety of infections they can detect.

But, except for HIV tests, the Food and Drug Administration hasn’t approved STD test kits for use outside a medical setting. That leaves consumers unsure about their reliability even as at-home use grows dramatically.

The STD epidemic is “out of control,” said Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security. “We know we are missing diagnoses. We know that contact tracing is happening late or not at all. If we’re really serious about tackling the STD crisis, we have to get more people diagnosed.”

Preliminary data for 2021 showed nearly 2.5 million reported cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reported cases of syphilis and gonorrhea have been climbing for about a decade. In its most recent prevalence estimate, the agency said that on any given day, one in five Americans are infected with any of eight common STDs.

The push to make at-home testing for STDs as easy and commonplace as at-home COVID and pregnancy testing is coming from several sectors. Public health officials say their overextended staffers can’t handle the staggering need for testing and surveillance. Diagnostic and pharmaceutical companies see a business opportunity in the unmet demand.

The medical science underpinning STD testing is not particularly new or mysterious. Depending on the test, it may involve collecting a urine sample, pricking a finger for blood, or swabbing the mouth, genitals, or anus for discharge or cell samples. Medical centers and community health clinics have performed such testing for decades.

The issue for regulators is whether sampling kits can be reliably adapted for in-home use. Unlike rapid antigen tests for COVID, which produce results in 15-20 minutes, the home STD kits on the market require patients to collect their own samples, and then package and mail them to a lab for analysis.

In the past 3 years, as the pandemic prompted clinics that provide low-cost care to drastically curtail in-person services, a number of public health departments – among them state agencies in Alabama, Alaska, and Maryland – have started mailing free STD test kits to residents. Universities and nonprofits are also spearheading at-home testing efforts.

And dozens of commercial enterprises are jumping into or ramping up direct-to-consumer sales. Everly Health, a digital health company that sells a variety of lab tests online, reported sales for its suite of STD kits grew 120% in the first half of this year compared with the first half of 2021.

CVS Health began selling its own bundled STD kit in October, priced at $99.99. Unlike most home kits, CVS’ version is available in stores.

Hologic, Abbott, and Molecular Testing Labs are among the companies urgently developing tests. And Cue Health, which sells COVID tests, is poised to launch a clinical trial for a rapid home test for chlamydia and gonorrhea that would set a new bar, providing results in about 20 minutes.

Alberto Gutierrez, who formerly led the FDA office that oversees diagnostic tests, said agency officials have been concerned about the reliability of home tests for years. The FDA wants companies to prove that home collection kits are as accurate as those used in clinics, and that samples don’t degrade during shipping.

“The agency doesn’t believe these tests are legally marketed at this point,” said Mr. Gutierrez, a partner at NDA Partners, a consulting firm that advises companies seeking to bring health care products to market.

“CVS should not be selling that test,” he added.

In response to KHN questions, the FDA said it considers home collection kits, which can include swabs, lancets, transport tubes, and chemicals to stabilize the samples, to be devices that require agency review. The FDA “generally does not comment” on whether it plans to take action on any specific case, the statement said.

CVS spokesperson Mary Gattuso said the pharmacy chain is following the law. “We are committed to ensuring the products we offer are safe, work as intended, comply with regulations, and satisfy customers,” Ms. Gattuso said.

Everly Health and other companies described their kits as laboratory-developed tests, akin to the diagnostics some hospitals create for in-house use. And they contend their tests can be legally marketed because their labs have been certified by a different agency, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

“The instruments and assays used by the laboratories we use are comparable to – and often the same as – those used by the labs a doctor’s office uses,” said Liz Kwo, MD, chief medical officer at Everly Health. “Our at-home sample collection methods, like dried blood spots and saliva, have been widely used for decades.”

Home collection kits appeal to Uxmal Caldera, 27, of Miami Beach, who prefers to test in the privacy of his home. Mr. Caldera, who doesn’t have a car, said home testing saves him the time and expense of getting to a clinic.

Mr. Caldera has been testing himself for HIV and other STDs every 3 months for more than a year, part of routine monitoring for people taking PrEP, a regimen of daily pills to prevent HIV infection.

“Doing it by yourself is not hard at all,” said Mr. Caldera, who is uninsured but receives the tests free through a community foundation. “The instructions are really clear. I get the results in maybe 4 days. For sure, I would recommend it to other people.”

Leandro Mena, MD, director of the CDC’s division of STD prevention, said he would like to see at-home STD testing become as routine as home pregnancy tests. An estimated 16 million–20 million tests for gonorrhea and chlamydia are performed in the United States each year, Dr. Mena said. Widespread use of at-home STD testing could double or triple that number.

He noted that doctors have years of experience using home collection kits.

The Johns Hopkins Center for Point-of-Care Technologies Research for Sexually Transmitted Diseases has distributed roughly 23,000 at-home STD kits since 2004, said Charlotte Gaydos, DrPH, a principal investigator with the center. The FDA generally allows such use if it’s part of research overseen by medical professionals. The center’s tests are now used by the Alaska health department, as well as Native American tribes in Arizona and Oklahoma.

Dr. Gaydos has published dozens of studies establishing that home collection kits for diseases such as chlamydia and gonorrhea are accurate and easy to use.

“There’s a huge amount of data showing that home testing works,” said Dr. Gaydos.

But Dr. Gaydos noted that her studies have been limited to small sample sizes. She said she doesn’t have the millions of dollars in funding it would take to run the sort of comprehensive trial the FDA typically requires for approval.

Jenny Mahn, director of clinical and sexual health at the National Coalition of STD Directors, said many public health labs are reluctant to handle home kits. “The public health labs won’t touch it without FDA’s blessing.”

Public health clinics often provide STD testing at little to no cost, while health insurance typically covers in-person testing at a private practice. But most consumers pay out-of-pocket for direct-to-consumer kits. Commercial pricing puts them out of reach for many people, particularly teens and young adults, who account for nearly half of STDs.

Adalja said the FDA has a history of moving slowly on home testing. The agency spent 7 years evaluating the first home HIV test it approved, which hit the market in 2012.

“Home testing is the way of the future,” said Laura Lindberg, PhD, a professor of public health at Rutgers University, Piscataway, N.J. “The pandemic opened the door to testing and treatment at home without traveling to a health care provider, and we aren’t going to be able to put the genie back in the bottle.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Shedding of genital herpes simplex virus was frequent soon after first-time infection but declined significantly during the first year, based on data from 82 individuals.

Genital herpes simplex virus (HSV) infections remain common and incurable; consequently, the population with residual infection continues to rise, Christine Johnston, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote. However, data on the viral shedding trajectory of genital HSV-1 are limited, although HSV-1 accounts for an increasing number of infections.

In a study published in JAMA the researchers recruited 82 women with first-episode genital HSV-1 infections from sexual health and primary care clinics in Seattle, between 2013 and 2018. The participants supplied self-collected oral and genital swabs for daily HSV polymerase chain reaction testing for two 30-day periods at 2 months and 11 months after their initial symptoms. The study population was not pregnant and did not have HIV infection. The median age of the participants was 26 years, 54 were women, and 42 had primary HSV-1 infections. Primary HSV-1 infection was defined as the lack of HSV antibody at baseline or an evolving antibody profile, based on the University of Washington HSV Western Blot.

The primary outcome was the rates of genital and oral HSV shedding and lesions at 2 and 11 months and up to 2 years after an initial HSV-1 infection.

At 2 months, approximately two-thirds (64.6%) of the participants had HSV-1 in the genital tract and 29.3% had virus in the mouth. Genital shedding of HSV-1 was detected in 12.1% of 2,264 total testing days at 2 months, but this rate declined to 7.1% of 1,719 testing days at 11 months (relative risk, 0.52).

The researchers identified oral HSV-1 shedding on 3.9% of 2,247 testing days at 2 months, with a slight increase to 5.1% of 1,714 testing days at 11 months.

Both genital and oral lesions were rare, with reports of 2.6% and 0.4%, respectively, at 2 months and 3.8% and 0.5%, respectively, at 11 months.

The risk of genital shedding was significantly higher in individuals with primary HSV-1, compared with those with nonprimary infections (7.9% vs. 2.9%; RR, 2.75). The overall rate of genital shedding was 17.2% for those with primary HSV-1, of which 15.2% was asymptomatic. Oral shedding was similar for individuals with primary and nonprimary HSV in a multivariate analysis.

In addition, HSV-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses were identified in all participants, and these remained stable during the study period. No association appeared between rates of genital and oral shedding and the proportion of cells that expressed two, three, or four cytokines.

The current study is the first known to comprehensively assess genital and oral HSV-1 viral shedding using polymerase chain reaction, the researchers wrote. “Characterizing shedding rates is clinically important because patients with genital herpes are often concerned about transmission to sexual partners, which usually occurs in the absence of lesions.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the 22% loss of participants to follow-up by the end of the first year, and the use of data from a single location with a primarily White population, the researchers noted. Another limitation was reliance on self-reports and the potential underestimation of recurrences because of the possible use of antiviral medications between swabbing periods.

However, the results indicate the early frequency of HSV-1 shedding and suggest that suppressive therapy might benefit individuals with primary HSV-1 during their first year of infection, the researchers said.
 

Findings may improve HSV management

The current study helps fill a knowledge gap regarding the natural history of genital HSV-1 infections, Richard J. Whitley, MD, and Edward W. Hook III, MD, both of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, wrote in an accompanying editorial. Despite the small study population, the data represent the largest cohort to date of individuals with first-episode infection and up to 2 years’ follow-up.

Although HSV-2 shedding is greater and associated with more symptoms, seroprevalence of HSV-2 in the United States is declining, they noted. Therefore, the findings can inform patient counseling and recommendations for antiviral therapy that may extend to managing HSV-1 in pregnant women as well, although no pregnant women were included in the study.

“For clinicians, these data emphasize the importance of determining the HSV viral type in persons presenting with initial episodes of genital herpes to accurately counsel patients regarding risk of clinical recurrence, the likelihood of asymptomatic shedding of virus and hence transmission, and antiviral prophylaxis,” the editorialists emphasized. For investigators, the results should prompt additional studies of the host defense against HSV and improved serological testing.
 

Study supports need for attention to HSV-1

“Genital herpes is an extremely common sexually transmitted infection, and often only HSV-2 is measured,” Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “This study shows that HSV-1 also accounts for a significant amount of genital disease, and should also be considered when determining prevalence of genital herpes.

“I was not surprised to see that viral shedding decreased significantly over the first year after diagnosis, and similarly not surprised that lesions were rare after the initial infection,” said Dr. Prager, who was not involved in the study. “I was somewhat surprised to see that genital HSV-1 shedding was more common than oral shedding.”

Dr. Prager said that she would advise clinicians against serum HSV testing unless someone has an active genital lesion. “Testing after a lesion will often reveal HSV-1, and patients should be counseled that shedding will decrease over the first year. Subsequent genital lesions are uncommon, but certainly possible, and oral lesions and shedding are both rare.” ]

More research is needed in a more diverse population, Dr. Prager emphasized. Following patients for more than a year and learning more about the use of antiviral medications also would be useful.

The study was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases through grants to several authors, including lead author Dr. Johnston. Dr. Johnston also disclosed personal fees from AbbVie, grants from Gilead, royalties from UpToDate, and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to the current study. Dr. Whitley disclosed personal fees from Virios Therapeutics as a board member and shareholder during the conduct of the study, royalties from Aettis unrelated to the submitted work, and serving on an advisory board for Visby Diagnostics. Dr. Hook disclosed serving on an advisory board for Visby Diagnostics unrelated to the submitted work. Dr. Prager had no conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn News.
 

Shedding of genital herpes simplex virus was frequent soon after first-time infection but declined significantly during the first year, based on data from 82 individuals.

Genital herpes simplex virus (HSV) infections remain common and incurable; consequently, the population with residual infection continues to rise, Christine Johnston, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote. However, data on the viral shedding trajectory of genital HSV-1 are limited, although HSV-1 accounts for an increasing number of infections.

In a study published in JAMA the researchers recruited 82 women with first-episode genital HSV-1 infections from sexual health and primary care clinics in Seattle, between 2013 and 2018. The participants supplied self-collected oral and genital swabs for daily HSV polymerase chain reaction testing for two 30-day periods at 2 months and 11 months after their initial symptoms. The study population was not pregnant and did not have HIV infection. The median age of the participants was 26 years, 54 were women, and 42 had primary HSV-1 infections. Primary HSV-1 infection was defined as the lack of HSV antibody at baseline or an evolving antibody profile, based on the University of Washington HSV Western Blot.

The primary outcome was the rates of genital and oral HSV shedding and lesions at 2 and 11 months and up to 2 years after an initial HSV-1 infection.

At 2 months, approximately two-thirds (64.6%) of the participants had HSV-1 in the genital tract and 29.3% had virus in the mouth. Genital shedding of HSV-1 was detected in 12.1% of 2,264 total testing days at 2 months, but this rate declined to 7.1% of 1,719 testing days at 11 months (relative risk, 0.52).

The researchers identified oral HSV-1 shedding on 3.9% of 2,247 testing days at 2 months, with a slight increase to 5.1% of 1,714 testing days at 11 months.

Both genital and oral lesions were rare, with reports of 2.6% and 0.4%, respectively, at 2 months and 3.8% and 0.5%, respectively, at 11 months.

The risk of genital shedding was significantly higher in individuals with primary HSV-1, compared with those with nonprimary infections (7.9% vs. 2.9%; RR, 2.75). The overall rate of genital shedding was 17.2% for those with primary HSV-1, of which 15.2% was asymptomatic. Oral shedding was similar for individuals with primary and nonprimary HSV in a multivariate analysis.

In addition, HSV-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses were identified in all participants, and these remained stable during the study period. No association appeared between rates of genital and oral shedding and the proportion of cells that expressed two, three, or four cytokines.

The current study is the first known to comprehensively assess genital and oral HSV-1 viral shedding using polymerase chain reaction, the researchers wrote. “Characterizing shedding rates is clinically important because patients with genital herpes are often concerned about transmission to sexual partners, which usually occurs in the absence of lesions.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the 22% loss of participants to follow-up by the end of the first year, and the use of data from a single location with a primarily White population, the researchers noted. Another limitation was reliance on self-reports and the potential underestimation of recurrences because of the possible use of antiviral medications between swabbing periods.

However, the results indicate the early frequency of HSV-1 shedding and suggest that suppressive therapy might benefit individuals with primary HSV-1 during their first year of infection, the researchers said.
 

Findings may improve HSV management

The current study helps fill a knowledge gap regarding the natural history of genital HSV-1 infections, Richard J. Whitley, MD, and Edward W. Hook III, MD, both of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, wrote in an accompanying editorial. Despite the small study population, the data represent the largest cohort to date of individuals with first-episode infection and up to 2 years’ follow-up.

Although HSV-2 shedding is greater and associated with more symptoms, seroprevalence of HSV-2 in the United States is declining, they noted. Therefore, the findings can inform patient counseling and recommendations for antiviral therapy that may extend to managing HSV-1 in pregnant women as well, although no pregnant women were included in the study.

“For clinicians, these data emphasize the importance of determining the HSV viral type in persons presenting with initial episodes of genital herpes to accurately counsel patients regarding risk of clinical recurrence, the likelihood of asymptomatic shedding of virus and hence transmission, and antiviral prophylaxis,” the editorialists emphasized. For investigators, the results should prompt additional studies of the host defense against HSV and improved serological testing.
 

Study supports need for attention to HSV-1

“Genital herpes is an extremely common sexually transmitted infection, and often only HSV-2 is measured,” Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “This study shows that HSV-1 also accounts for a significant amount of genital disease, and should also be considered when determining prevalence of genital herpes.

“I was not surprised to see that viral shedding decreased significantly over the first year after diagnosis, and similarly not surprised that lesions were rare after the initial infection,” said Dr. Prager, who was not involved in the study. “I was somewhat surprised to see that genital HSV-1 shedding was more common than oral shedding.”

Dr. Prager said that she would advise clinicians against serum HSV testing unless someone has an active genital lesion. “Testing after a lesion will often reveal HSV-1, and patients should be counseled that shedding will decrease over the first year. Subsequent genital lesions are uncommon, but certainly possible, and oral lesions and shedding are both rare.” ]

More research is needed in a more diverse population, Dr. Prager emphasized. Following patients for more than a year and learning more about the use of antiviral medications also would be useful.

The study was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases through grants to several authors, including lead author Dr. Johnston. Dr. Johnston also disclosed personal fees from AbbVie, grants from Gilead, royalties from UpToDate, and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to the current study. Dr. Whitley disclosed personal fees from Virios Therapeutics as a board member and shareholder during the conduct of the study, royalties from Aettis unrelated to the submitted work, and serving on an advisory board for Visby Diagnostics. Dr. Hook disclosed serving on an advisory board for Visby Diagnostics unrelated to the submitted work. Dr. Prager had no conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn News.
 

Shedding of genital herpes simplex virus was frequent soon after first-time infection but declined significantly during the first year, based on data from 82 individuals.

Genital herpes simplex virus (HSV) infections remain common and incurable; consequently, the population with residual infection continues to rise, Christine Johnston, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote. However, data on the viral shedding trajectory of genital HSV-1 are limited, although HSV-1 accounts for an increasing number of infections.

In a study published in JAMA the researchers recruited 82 women with first-episode genital HSV-1 infections from sexual health and primary care clinics in Seattle, between 2013 and 2018. The participants supplied self-collected oral and genital swabs for daily HSV polymerase chain reaction testing for two 30-day periods at 2 months and 11 months after their initial symptoms. The study population was not pregnant and did not have HIV infection. The median age of the participants was 26 years, 54 were women, and 42 had primary HSV-1 infections. Primary HSV-1 infection was defined as the lack of HSV antibody at baseline or an evolving antibody profile, based on the University of Washington HSV Western Blot.

The primary outcome was the rates of genital and oral HSV shedding and lesions at 2 and 11 months and up to 2 years after an initial HSV-1 infection.

At 2 months, approximately two-thirds (64.6%) of the participants had HSV-1 in the genital tract and 29.3% had virus in the mouth. Genital shedding of HSV-1 was detected in 12.1% of 2,264 total testing days at 2 months, but this rate declined to 7.1% of 1,719 testing days at 11 months (relative risk, 0.52).

The researchers identified oral HSV-1 shedding on 3.9% of 2,247 testing days at 2 months, with a slight increase to 5.1% of 1,714 testing days at 11 months.

Both genital and oral lesions were rare, with reports of 2.6% and 0.4%, respectively, at 2 months and 3.8% and 0.5%, respectively, at 11 months.

The risk of genital shedding was significantly higher in individuals with primary HSV-1, compared with those with nonprimary infections (7.9% vs. 2.9%; RR, 2.75). The overall rate of genital shedding was 17.2% for those with primary HSV-1, of which 15.2% was asymptomatic. Oral shedding was similar for individuals with primary and nonprimary HSV in a multivariate analysis.

In addition, HSV-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses were identified in all participants, and these remained stable during the study period. No association appeared between rates of genital and oral shedding and the proportion of cells that expressed two, three, or four cytokines.

The current study is the first known to comprehensively assess genital and oral HSV-1 viral shedding using polymerase chain reaction, the researchers wrote. “Characterizing shedding rates is clinically important because patients with genital herpes are often concerned about transmission to sexual partners, which usually occurs in the absence of lesions.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the 22% loss of participants to follow-up by the end of the first year, and the use of data from a single location with a primarily White population, the researchers noted. Another limitation was reliance on self-reports and the potential underestimation of recurrences because of the possible use of antiviral medications between swabbing periods.

However, the results indicate the early frequency of HSV-1 shedding and suggest that suppressive therapy might benefit individuals with primary HSV-1 during their first year of infection, the researchers said.
 

Findings may improve HSV management

The current study helps fill a knowledge gap regarding the natural history of genital HSV-1 infections, Richard J. Whitley, MD, and Edward W. Hook III, MD, both of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, wrote in an accompanying editorial. Despite the small study population, the data represent the largest cohort to date of individuals with first-episode infection and up to 2 years’ follow-up.

Although HSV-2 shedding is greater and associated with more symptoms, seroprevalence of HSV-2 in the United States is declining, they noted. Therefore, the findings can inform patient counseling and recommendations for antiviral therapy that may extend to managing HSV-1 in pregnant women as well, although no pregnant women were included in the study.

“For clinicians, these data emphasize the importance of determining the HSV viral type in persons presenting with initial episodes of genital herpes to accurately counsel patients regarding risk of clinical recurrence, the likelihood of asymptomatic shedding of virus and hence transmission, and antiviral prophylaxis,” the editorialists emphasized. For investigators, the results should prompt additional studies of the host defense against HSV and improved serological testing.
 

Study supports need for attention to HSV-1

“Genital herpes is an extremely common sexually transmitted infection, and often only HSV-2 is measured,” Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “This study shows that HSV-1 also accounts for a significant amount of genital disease, and should also be considered when determining prevalence of genital herpes.

“I was not surprised to see that viral shedding decreased significantly over the first year after diagnosis, and similarly not surprised that lesions were rare after the initial infection,” said Dr. Prager, who was not involved in the study. “I was somewhat surprised to see that genital HSV-1 shedding was more common than oral shedding.”

Dr. Prager said that she would advise clinicians against serum HSV testing unless someone has an active genital lesion. “Testing after a lesion will often reveal HSV-1, and patients should be counseled that shedding will decrease over the first year. Subsequent genital lesions are uncommon, but certainly possible, and oral lesions and shedding are both rare.” ]

More research is needed in a more diverse population, Dr. Prager emphasized. Following patients for more than a year and learning more about the use of antiviral medications also would be useful.

The study was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases through grants to several authors, including lead author Dr. Johnston. Dr. Johnston also disclosed personal fees from AbbVie, grants from Gilead, royalties from UpToDate, and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to the current study. Dr. Whitley disclosed personal fees from Virios Therapeutics as a board member and shareholder during the conduct of the study, royalties from Aettis unrelated to the submitted work, and serving on an advisory board for Visby Diagnostics. Dr. Hook disclosed serving on an advisory board for Visby Diagnostics unrelated to the submitted work. Dr. Prager had no conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn News.
 

You’re rounding in the nursery and informed of the following about one of your new patients: He’s a 38-week-old infant delivered to a mother diagnosed with syphilis at 12 weeks’ gestation at her initial prenatal visit. Her rapid plasma reagin (RPR) was 1:64 and the fluorescent treponemal antibody–absorption (FTA-ABS) test was positive. By report she was appropriately treated. Maternal RPRs obtained at 18 and 28 weeks’ gestation were 1:16 and 1:4, respectively. Maternal RPR at delivery and the infant’s RPR obtained shortly after birth were both 1:4. The mother wants to know if her baby is infected.

One result of syphilis during pregnancy is intrauterine infection and resultant congenital disease in the infant. Before you answer this mother, let’s discuss syphilis.

Congenital syphilis is a significant public health problem. In 2021, there were a total of 2,677 cases reported for a rate of 74.1 per 100,000 live births. Between 2020 and 2021, the number of cases of congenital syphilis increased 24.1% (2,158-2,677 cases), concurrent with a 45.8% increase (10.7-15.6 per 100,000) in the rate of primary and secondary syphilis in women aged 15-44 years. Between 2012 and 2021, the number of cases of congenital syphilis increased 701.5% (334-2,677 cases) and the increase in rates of primary and secondary syphilis in women aged 15-44 was 642.9% over the same period.

Why are the rates of congenital syphilis increasing? Most cases result from a lack of prenatal care and thus no testing for syphilis. The next most common cause is inadequate maternal treatment.

Congenital syphilis usually is acquired through transplacental transmission of spirochetes in the maternal bloodstream. Occasionally, it occurs at delivery via direct contact with maternal lesions. It is not transmitted in breast milk. Transmission of syphilis:

• Can occur any time during pregnancy.
• Is more likely to occur in women with untreated primary or secondary disease (60%-100%).
• Is approximately 40% in those with early latent syphilis and less than 8% in mothers with late latent syphilis.
• Is higher in women coinfected with HIV since they more frequently receive no prenatal care and their disease is inadequately treated.

Coinfection with syphilis may also increase the rate of mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

Untreated early syphilis during pregnancy results in spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, or perinatal death in up to 40% of cases. Infected newborns with early congenital syphilis can be asymptomatic or have evidence of hepatosplenomegaly, generalized lymphadenopathy, nasal discharge that is occasionally bloody, rash, and skeletal abnormalities (osteochondritis and periostitis). Other manifestations include edema, hemolytic anemia, jaundice, pneumonia, pseudoparalysis, and thrombocytopenia. Asymptomatic infants may have abnormal cerebrospinal fluid findings including elevated CSF white cell count, elevated protein, and a reactive venereal disease research laboratory test.

Late congenital syphilis, defined as the onset of symptoms after 2 years of age is secondary to scarring or persistent inflammation and gumma formation in a variety of tissues. It occurs in up to 40% of cases of untreated maternal disease. Most cases can be prevented by maternal treatment and treatment of the infant within the first 3 months of life. Common clinical manifestations include interstitial keratitis, sensorineural hearing loss, frontal bossing, saddle nose, Hutchinson teeth, mulberry molars, perforation of the hard palate, anterior bowing of the tibia (saber shins), and other skeletal abnormalities.

Diagnostic tests. Maternal diagnosis is dependent upon knowing the results of both a nontreponemal (RPR, VDRL) and a confirmatory treponemal test (TP-PA, TP-EIA, TP-CIA, FTA-ABS,) before or at delivery. TP-PA is the preferred test. When maternal disease is confirmed, the newborn should have the same quantitative nontreponemal test as the mother. A confirmatory treponemal test is not required

Evaluation and treatment. It’s imperative that children born to mothers with a reactive test, regardless of their treatment status, have a thorough exam performed before hospital discharge. The provider must determine what additional interventions should be performed.

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/congenital-syphilis.htm) have developed standard algorithms for the diagnostic approach and treatment of infants born to mothers with reactive serologic tests for syphilis. It is available in the Red Book for AAP members (https://publications.aap.org/redbook). Recommendations based on various scenarios for neonates up to 1 month of age include proven or highly probable congenital syphilis, possible congenital syphilis, congenital syphilis less likely, and congenital syphilis unlikely. It is beyond the scope of this article to list the criteria and evaluation for each scenario. The reader is referred to the algorithm.

If syphilis is suspected in infants or children older than 1 month, the challenge is to determine if it is untreated congenital syphilis or acquired syphilis. Maternal syphilis status should be determined. Evaluation for congenital syphilis in this age group includes CSF analysis for VDRL, cell count and protein, CBC with differential and platelets, hepatic panel, abdominal ultrasound, long-bone radiographs, chest radiograph, neuroimaging, auditory brain stem response, and HIV testing.

Let’s go back to your patient. The mother was diagnosed with syphilis during pregnancy. You confirm that she was treated with benzathine penicillin G, and the course was completed at least 4 weeks before delivery. Treatment with any other drug during pregnancy is not appropriate. The RPR has declined, and the infant’s titer is equal to or less than four times the maternal titer. The exam is significant for generalized adenopathy and slightly bloody nasal discharge. This infant has two findings consistent with congenital syphilis regardless of RPR titer or treatment status. This places him in the proven or highly probable congenital syphilis group. Management includes CSF analysis (VDRL, cell count, and protein), CBC with differential and platelet count, and treatment with penicillin G for 10 days. Additional tests as clinically indicated include: long-bone radiograph, chest radiography, aspartate aminotranferase and alanine aminotransferase levels, neuroimaging, ophthalmologic exam, and auditory brain stem response. Despite maternal treatment, this newborn has congenital syphilis. The same nontreponemal test should be obtained every 2-3 months until it is nonreactive. It should be nonreactive by 6 months. If the infection persists to 6-12 months post treatment, reevaluation including CSF analysis and retreatment may be indicated.

Congenital syphilis can be prevented by maternal screening, diagnosis, and treatment. When that fails it is up to us to diagnosis and adequately treat our patients.

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

You’re rounding in the nursery and informed of the following about one of your new patients: He’s a 38-week-old infant delivered to a mother diagnosed with syphilis at 12 weeks’ gestation at her initial prenatal visit. Her rapid plasma reagin (RPR) was 1:64 and the fluorescent treponemal antibody–absorption (FTA-ABS) test was positive. By report she was appropriately treated. Maternal RPRs obtained at 18 and 28 weeks’ gestation were 1:16 and 1:4, respectively. Maternal RPR at delivery and the infant’s RPR obtained shortly after birth were both 1:4. The mother wants to know if her baby is infected.

One result of syphilis during pregnancy is intrauterine infection and resultant congenital disease in the infant. Before you answer this mother, let’s discuss syphilis.

Congenital syphilis is a significant public health problem. In 2021, there were a total of 2,677 cases reported for a rate of 74.1 per 100,000 live births. Between 2020 and 2021, the number of cases of congenital syphilis increased 24.1% (2,158-2,677 cases), concurrent with a 45.8% increase (10.7-15.6 per 100,000) in the rate of primary and secondary syphilis in women aged 15-44 years. Between 2012 and 2021, the number of cases of congenital syphilis increased 701.5% (334-2,677 cases) and the increase in rates of primary and secondary syphilis in women aged 15-44 was 642.9% over the same period.

Why are the rates of congenital syphilis increasing? Most cases result from a lack of prenatal care and thus no testing for syphilis. The next most common cause is inadequate maternal treatment.

Congenital syphilis usually is acquired through transplacental transmission of spirochetes in the maternal bloodstream. Occasionally, it occurs at delivery via direct contact with maternal lesions. It is not transmitted in breast milk. Transmission of syphilis:

• Can occur any time during pregnancy.
• Is more likely to occur in women with untreated primary or secondary disease (60%-100%).
• Is approximately 40% in those with early latent syphilis and less than 8% in mothers with late latent syphilis.
• Is higher in women coinfected with HIV since they more frequently receive no prenatal care and their disease is inadequately treated.

Coinfection with syphilis may also increase the rate of mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

Untreated early syphilis during pregnancy results in spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, or perinatal death in up to 40% of cases. Infected newborns with early congenital syphilis can be asymptomatic or have evidence of hepatosplenomegaly, generalized lymphadenopathy, nasal discharge that is occasionally bloody, rash, and skeletal abnormalities (osteochondritis and periostitis). Other manifestations include edema, hemolytic anemia, jaundice, pneumonia, pseudoparalysis, and thrombocytopenia. Asymptomatic infants may have abnormal cerebrospinal fluid findings including elevated CSF white cell count, elevated protein, and a reactive venereal disease research laboratory test.

Late congenital syphilis, defined as the onset of symptoms after 2 years of age is secondary to scarring or persistent inflammation and gumma formation in a variety of tissues. It occurs in up to 40% of cases of untreated maternal disease. Most cases can be prevented by maternal treatment and treatment of the infant within the first 3 months of life. Common clinical manifestations include interstitial keratitis, sensorineural hearing loss, frontal bossing, saddle nose, Hutchinson teeth, mulberry molars, perforation of the hard palate, anterior bowing of the tibia (saber shins), and other skeletal abnormalities.

Diagnostic tests. Maternal diagnosis is dependent upon knowing the results of both a nontreponemal (RPR, VDRL) and a confirmatory treponemal test (TP-PA, TP-EIA, TP-CIA, FTA-ABS,) before or at delivery. TP-PA is the preferred test. When maternal disease is confirmed, the newborn should have the same quantitative nontreponemal test as the mother. A confirmatory treponemal test is not required

Evaluation and treatment. It’s imperative that children born to mothers with a reactive test, regardless of their treatment status, have a thorough exam performed before hospital discharge. The provider must determine what additional interventions should be performed.

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/congenital-syphilis.htm) have developed standard algorithms for the diagnostic approach and treatment of infants born to mothers with reactive serologic tests for syphilis. It is available in the Red Book for AAP members (https://publications.aap.org/redbook). Recommendations based on various scenarios for neonates up to 1 month of age include proven or highly probable congenital syphilis, possible congenital syphilis, congenital syphilis less likely, and congenital syphilis unlikely. It is beyond the scope of this article to list the criteria and evaluation for each scenario. The reader is referred to the algorithm.

If syphilis is suspected in infants or children older than 1 month, the challenge is to determine if it is untreated congenital syphilis or acquired syphilis. Maternal syphilis status should be determined. Evaluation for congenital syphilis in this age group includes CSF analysis for VDRL, cell count and protein, CBC with differential and platelets, hepatic panel, abdominal ultrasound, long-bone radiographs, chest radiograph, neuroimaging, auditory brain stem response, and HIV testing.

Let’s go back to your patient. The mother was diagnosed with syphilis during pregnancy. You confirm that she was treated with benzathine penicillin G, and the course was completed at least 4 weeks before delivery. Treatment with any other drug during pregnancy is not appropriate. The RPR has declined, and the infant’s titer is equal to or less than four times the maternal titer. The exam is significant for generalized adenopathy and slightly bloody nasal discharge. This infant has two findings consistent with congenital syphilis regardless of RPR titer or treatment status. This places him in the proven or highly probable congenital syphilis group. Management includes CSF analysis (VDRL, cell count, and protein), CBC with differential and platelet count, and treatment with penicillin G for 10 days. Additional tests as clinically indicated include: long-bone radiograph, chest radiography, aspartate aminotranferase and alanine aminotransferase levels, neuroimaging, ophthalmologic exam, and auditory brain stem response. Despite maternal treatment, this newborn has congenital syphilis. The same nontreponemal test should be obtained every 2-3 months until it is nonreactive. It should be nonreactive by 6 months. If the infection persists to 6-12 months post treatment, reevaluation including CSF analysis and retreatment may be indicated.

Congenital syphilis can be prevented by maternal screening, diagnosis, and treatment. When that fails it is up to us to diagnosis and adequately treat our patients.

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

You’re rounding in the nursery and informed of the following about one of your new patients: He’s a 38-week-old infant delivered to a mother diagnosed with syphilis at 12 weeks’ gestation at her initial prenatal visit. Her rapid plasma reagin (RPR) was 1:64 and the fluorescent treponemal antibody–absorption (FTA-ABS) test was positive. By report she was appropriately treated. Maternal RPRs obtained at 18 and 28 weeks’ gestation were 1:16 and 1:4, respectively. Maternal RPR at delivery and the infant’s RPR obtained shortly after birth were both 1:4. The mother wants to know if her baby is infected.

One result of syphilis during pregnancy is intrauterine infection and resultant congenital disease in the infant. Before you answer this mother, let’s discuss syphilis.

Congenital syphilis is a significant public health problem. In 2021, there were a total of 2,677 cases reported for a rate of 74.1 per 100,000 live births. Between 2020 and 2021, the number of cases of congenital syphilis increased 24.1% (2,158-2,677 cases), concurrent with a 45.8% increase (10.7-15.6 per 100,000) in the rate of primary and secondary syphilis in women aged 15-44 years. Between 2012 and 2021, the number of cases of congenital syphilis increased 701.5% (334-2,677 cases) and the increase in rates of primary and secondary syphilis in women aged 15-44 was 642.9% over the same period.

Why are the rates of congenital syphilis increasing? Most cases result from a lack of prenatal care and thus no testing for syphilis. The next most common cause is inadequate maternal treatment.

Congenital syphilis usually is acquired through transplacental transmission of spirochetes in the maternal bloodstream. Occasionally, it occurs at delivery via direct contact with maternal lesions. It is not transmitted in breast milk. Transmission of syphilis:

• Can occur any time during pregnancy.
• Is more likely to occur in women with untreated primary or secondary disease (60%-100%).
• Is approximately 40% in those with early latent syphilis and less than 8% in mothers with late latent syphilis.
• Is higher in women coinfected with HIV since they more frequently receive no prenatal care and their disease is inadequately treated.

Coinfection with syphilis may also increase the rate of mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

Untreated early syphilis during pregnancy results in spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, or perinatal death in up to 40% of cases. Infected newborns with early congenital syphilis can be asymptomatic or have evidence of hepatosplenomegaly, generalized lymphadenopathy, nasal discharge that is occasionally bloody, rash, and skeletal abnormalities (osteochondritis and periostitis). Other manifestations include edema, hemolytic anemia, jaundice, pneumonia, pseudoparalysis, and thrombocytopenia. Asymptomatic infants may have abnormal cerebrospinal fluid findings including elevated CSF white cell count, elevated protein, and a reactive venereal disease research laboratory test.

Late congenital syphilis, defined as the onset of symptoms after 2 years of age is secondary to scarring or persistent inflammation and gumma formation in a variety of tissues. It occurs in up to 40% of cases of untreated maternal disease. Most cases can be prevented by maternal treatment and treatment of the infant within the first 3 months of life. Common clinical manifestations include interstitial keratitis, sensorineural hearing loss, frontal bossing, saddle nose, Hutchinson teeth, mulberry molars, perforation of the hard palate, anterior bowing of the tibia (saber shins), and other skeletal abnormalities.

Diagnostic tests. Maternal diagnosis is dependent upon knowing the results of both a nontreponemal (RPR, VDRL) and a confirmatory treponemal test (TP-PA, TP-EIA, TP-CIA, FTA-ABS,) before or at delivery. TP-PA is the preferred test. When maternal disease is confirmed, the newborn should have the same quantitative nontreponemal test as the mother. A confirmatory treponemal test is not required

Evaluation and treatment. It’s imperative that children born to mothers with a reactive test, regardless of their treatment status, have a thorough exam performed before hospital discharge. The provider must determine what additional interventions should be performed.

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/congenital-syphilis.htm) have developed standard algorithms for the diagnostic approach and treatment of infants born to mothers with reactive serologic tests for syphilis. It is available in the Red Book for AAP members (https://publications.aap.org/redbook). Recommendations based on various scenarios for neonates up to 1 month of age include proven or highly probable congenital syphilis, possible congenital syphilis, congenital syphilis less likely, and congenital syphilis unlikely. It is beyond the scope of this article to list the criteria and evaluation for each scenario. The reader is referred to the algorithm.

If syphilis is suspected in infants or children older than 1 month, the challenge is to determine if it is untreated congenital syphilis or acquired syphilis. Maternal syphilis status should be determined. Evaluation for congenital syphilis in this age group includes CSF analysis for VDRL, cell count and protein, CBC with differential and platelets, hepatic panel, abdominal ultrasound, long-bone radiographs, chest radiograph, neuroimaging, auditory brain stem response, and HIV testing.

Let’s go back to your patient. The mother was diagnosed with syphilis during pregnancy. You confirm that she was treated with benzathine penicillin G, and the course was completed at least 4 weeks before delivery. Treatment with any other drug during pregnancy is not appropriate. The RPR has declined, and the infant’s titer is equal to or less than four times the maternal titer. The exam is significant for generalized adenopathy and slightly bloody nasal discharge. This infant has two findings consistent with congenital syphilis regardless of RPR titer or treatment status. This places him in the proven or highly probable congenital syphilis group. Management includes CSF analysis (VDRL, cell count, and protein), CBC with differential and platelet count, and treatment with penicillin G for 10 days. Additional tests as clinically indicated include: long-bone radiograph, chest radiography, aspartate aminotranferase and alanine aminotransferase levels, neuroimaging, ophthalmologic exam, and auditory brain stem response. Despite maternal treatment, this newborn has congenital syphilis. The same nontreponemal test should be obtained every 2-3 months until it is nonreactive. It should be nonreactive by 6 months. If the infection persists to 6-12 months post treatment, reevaluation including CSF analysis and retreatment may be indicated.

Congenital syphilis can be prevented by maternal screening, diagnosis, and treatment. When that fails it is up to us to diagnosis and adequately treat our patients.

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

Pregnant women living with HIV were more likely to be infected with human papillomavirus (HPV) than were pregnant women without HIV, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis reports.

“High prevalence of HPV was documented in pregnant WLWH [women living with HIV], exceeding the prevalence among pregnant women without HIV,” Elisabeth McClymont, PhD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

Their results contribute to two major global public health goals: eliminating cervical cancer and improving the health outcomes of newborn babies.

“Our findings of a high prevalence of HPV infection during pregnancy in WLWH, particularly of highly oncogenic HPV types, emphasize the need for HPV screening and vaccination in WLWH,” they added. “WLWH are a key population for both HPV and adverse pregnancy outcome prevention.”

Emerging evidence suggests that being infected with HPV during pregnancy may be linked with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Although women living with HIV have higher rates of HPV infection and adverse pregnancy outcomes, no prior reviews have reported on HPV infection during pregnancy in women living with HIV, the authors explained.
 

A study of studies

Dr. McClymont and colleagues searched the standard medical research databases through Jan. 18, 2022, for pooled and type-specific HPV prevalence and associated pregnancy outcomes among pregnant women living with HIV, including available within-study comparators of women without HIV.

They performed subgroup analyses according to polymerase chain reaction primers used to detect HPV type and according to region (Africa, Asia and Europe, the Americas).

Their analysis of 10 studies describing HPV prevalence in 1,594 pregnant women living with HIV found:

• The pooled HPV prevalence in pregnant women living with HIV was 75.5% (95% confidence interval, 50.2%-90.4%) but ranged from 23% to 98% between individual studies.
• Among the five studies that also analyzed HPV prevalence in pregnant women without HIV, the pooled prevalence was 48.1% (95% CI, 27.1%-69.8%).
• Pregnant women living with HIV had 54% higher odds of being HPV positive than did pregnant women without HIV.
• HPV-16 was the most common HPV type detected in pregnant women living with HIV, followed by HPV-52; other common types included HPV-18 and HPV-58.
• One study provided data on pregnancy outcomes in women living with HIV but did not correlate pregnancy outcomes with HPV status.

Experts urge HPV, cervical cancer screening for women living with HIV

“HPV is a common virus that can lead to cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer,” cautioned Clara Paik, MD, professor and clinic medical director of obstetrics and gynecology at UC Davis Health, Sacramento.

“HPV can also be associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth and premature membrane rupture,” she said in an interview. “It is important to know the prevalence of HPV infection in pregnant women living with HIV in order to assess if this specific population is at higher risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes.”

Dr. Paik, who was not involved in the study, would like these results to lead to better HPV screening in pregnant women living with HIV.

“The study’s strengths include the large number of women studied when all the research studies were pooled,” she said. “A weakness is that, if individual studies had limitations, a systematic review based on weaker studies may not necessarily yield results that are conclusive.”

Linda Eckert, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said that the study highlights the importance of including cervical cancer screening in antepartum care, especially in areas of high HIV prevalence.

“Women living with HIV have a sixfold increased rate of developing cervical cancer compared to women without HIV,” she added, citing a 2020 analysis in The Lancet Global Health that estimated global cervical cancer risk among women living with HIV.

“This [new] study allows us to definitively say that pregnant women living with HIV have higher rates of HPV than do pregnant women without HIV,” noted Dr. Eckert, who was not involved in either study. “And HPV type 16 – the HPV type most associated with developing cervical cancer – was the most common high-risk HPV type found in these patients.”
 

HPV vaccination recommended

The World Health Organization’s call to eliminate cervical cancer has generated interest and funding for cervical cancer screening of women with HIV, Dr. Eckert said. “WHO recommends that women living with HIV who are 25 years of age and above be screened for cervical cancer annually.”

The authors urged that women living with HIV not only be screened for HPV but that they also be vaccinated against HPV.

“We know that HPV vaccination is unprecedented in its ability to prevent HPV infections when it is received prior to acquiring HPV infection,” Dr. Eckert said, “but currently data showing that HPV vaccination would treat HPV16 in pregnant women already infected with HPV16 are lacking.

“This study points to the need for a trial to investigate HPV vaccination in pregnant women living with HIV who have the high-risk HPV types,” she suggested.

Dr. Eckert contributed to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ 2020 Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Committee Opinion. One study coauthor reported financial relationships with Merck. Dr. McClymont, the other coauthors, as well as Dr. Paik and Dr. Eckert reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnant women living with HIV were more likely to be infected with human papillomavirus (HPV) than were pregnant women without HIV, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis reports.

“High prevalence of HPV was documented in pregnant WLWH [women living with HIV], exceeding the prevalence among pregnant women without HIV,” Elisabeth McClymont, PhD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

Their results contribute to two major global public health goals: eliminating cervical cancer and improving the health outcomes of newborn babies.

“Our findings of a high prevalence of HPV infection during pregnancy in WLWH, particularly of highly oncogenic HPV types, emphasize the need for HPV screening and vaccination in WLWH,” they added. “WLWH are a key population for both HPV and adverse pregnancy outcome prevention.”

Emerging evidence suggests that being infected with HPV during pregnancy may be linked with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Although women living with HIV have higher rates of HPV infection and adverse pregnancy outcomes, no prior reviews have reported on HPV infection during pregnancy in women living with HIV, the authors explained.
 

A study of studies

Dr. McClymont and colleagues searched the standard medical research databases through Jan. 18, 2022, for pooled and type-specific HPV prevalence and associated pregnancy outcomes among pregnant women living with HIV, including available within-study comparators of women without HIV.

They performed subgroup analyses according to polymerase chain reaction primers used to detect HPV type and according to region (Africa, Asia and Europe, the Americas).

Their analysis of 10 studies describing HPV prevalence in 1,594 pregnant women living with HIV found:

• The pooled HPV prevalence in pregnant women living with HIV was 75.5% (95% confidence interval, 50.2%-90.4%) but ranged from 23% to 98% between individual studies.
• Among the five studies that also analyzed HPV prevalence in pregnant women without HIV, the pooled prevalence was 48.1% (95% CI, 27.1%-69.8%).
• Pregnant women living with HIV had 54% higher odds of being HPV positive than did pregnant women without HIV.
• HPV-16 was the most common HPV type detected in pregnant women living with HIV, followed by HPV-52; other common types included HPV-18 and HPV-58.
• One study provided data on pregnancy outcomes in women living with HIV but did not correlate pregnancy outcomes with HPV status.

Experts urge HPV, cervical cancer screening for women living with HIV

“HPV is a common virus that can lead to cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer,” cautioned Clara Paik, MD, professor and clinic medical director of obstetrics and gynecology at UC Davis Health, Sacramento.

“HPV can also be associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth and premature membrane rupture,” she said in an interview. “It is important to know the prevalence of HPV infection in pregnant women living with HIV in order to assess if this specific population is at higher risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes.”

Dr. Paik, who was not involved in the study, would like these results to lead to better HPV screening in pregnant women living with HIV.

“The study’s strengths include the large number of women studied when all the research studies were pooled,” she said. “A weakness is that, if individual studies had limitations, a systematic review based on weaker studies may not necessarily yield results that are conclusive.”

Linda Eckert, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said that the study highlights the importance of including cervical cancer screening in antepartum care, especially in areas of high HIV prevalence.

“Women living with HIV have a sixfold increased rate of developing cervical cancer compared to women without HIV,” she added, citing a 2020 analysis in The Lancet Global Health that estimated global cervical cancer risk among women living with HIV.

“This [new] study allows us to definitively say that pregnant women living with HIV have higher rates of HPV than do pregnant women without HIV,” noted Dr. Eckert, who was not involved in either study. “And HPV type 16 – the HPV type most associated with developing cervical cancer – was the most common high-risk HPV type found in these patients.”
 

HPV vaccination recommended

The World Health Organization’s call to eliminate cervical cancer has generated interest and funding for cervical cancer screening of women with HIV, Dr. Eckert said. “WHO recommends that women living with HIV who are 25 years of age and above be screened for cervical cancer annually.”

The authors urged that women living with HIV not only be screened for HPV but that they also be vaccinated against HPV.

“We know that HPV vaccination is unprecedented in its ability to prevent HPV infections when it is received prior to acquiring HPV infection,” Dr. Eckert said, “but currently data showing that HPV vaccination would treat HPV16 in pregnant women already infected with HPV16 are lacking.

“This study points to the need for a trial to investigate HPV vaccination in pregnant women living with HIV who have the high-risk HPV types,” she suggested.

Dr. Eckert contributed to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ 2020 Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Committee Opinion. One study coauthor reported financial relationships with Merck. Dr. McClymont, the other coauthors, as well as Dr. Paik and Dr. Eckert reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnant women living with HIV were more likely to be infected with human papillomavirus (HPV) than were pregnant women without HIV, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis reports.

“High prevalence of HPV was documented in pregnant WLWH [women living with HIV], exceeding the prevalence among pregnant women without HIV,” Elisabeth McClymont, PhD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

Their results contribute to two major global public health goals: eliminating cervical cancer and improving the health outcomes of newborn babies.

“Our findings of a high prevalence of HPV infection during pregnancy in WLWH, particularly of highly oncogenic HPV types, emphasize the need for HPV screening and vaccination in WLWH,” they added. “WLWH are a key population for both HPV and adverse pregnancy outcome prevention.”

Emerging evidence suggests that being infected with HPV during pregnancy may be linked with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Although women living with HIV have higher rates of HPV infection and adverse pregnancy outcomes, no prior reviews have reported on HPV infection during pregnancy in women living with HIV, the authors explained.
 

A study of studies

Dr. McClymont and colleagues searched the standard medical research databases through Jan. 18, 2022, for pooled and type-specific HPV prevalence and associated pregnancy outcomes among pregnant women living with HIV, including available within-study comparators of women without HIV.

They performed subgroup analyses according to polymerase chain reaction primers used to detect HPV type and according to region (Africa, Asia and Europe, the Americas).

Their analysis of 10 studies describing HPV prevalence in 1,594 pregnant women living with HIV found:

• The pooled HPV prevalence in pregnant women living with HIV was 75.5% (95% confidence interval, 50.2%-90.4%) but ranged from 23% to 98% between individual studies.
• Among the five studies that also analyzed HPV prevalence in pregnant women without HIV, the pooled prevalence was 48.1% (95% CI, 27.1%-69.8%).
• Pregnant women living with HIV had 54% higher odds of being HPV positive than did pregnant women without HIV.
• HPV-16 was the most common HPV type detected in pregnant women living with HIV, followed by HPV-52; other common types included HPV-18 and HPV-58.
• One study provided data on pregnancy outcomes in women living with HIV but did not correlate pregnancy outcomes with HPV status.

Experts urge HPV, cervical cancer screening for women living with HIV

“HPV is a common virus that can lead to cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer,” cautioned Clara Paik, MD, professor and clinic medical director of obstetrics and gynecology at UC Davis Health, Sacramento.

“HPV can also be associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth and premature membrane rupture,” she said in an interview. “It is important to know the prevalence of HPV infection in pregnant women living with HIV in order to assess if this specific population is at higher risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes.”

Dr. Paik, who was not involved in the study, would like these results to lead to better HPV screening in pregnant women living with HIV.

“The study’s strengths include the large number of women studied when all the research studies were pooled,” she said. “A weakness is that, if individual studies had limitations, a systematic review based on weaker studies may not necessarily yield results that are conclusive.”

Linda Eckert, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said that the study highlights the importance of including cervical cancer screening in antepartum care, especially in areas of high HIV prevalence.

“Women living with HIV have a sixfold increased rate of developing cervical cancer compared to women without HIV,” she added, citing a 2020 analysis in The Lancet Global Health that estimated global cervical cancer risk among women living with HIV.

“This [new] study allows us to definitively say that pregnant women living with HIV have higher rates of HPV than do pregnant women without HIV,” noted Dr. Eckert, who was not involved in either study. “And HPV type 16 – the HPV type most associated with developing cervical cancer – was the most common high-risk HPV type found in these patients.”
 

HPV vaccination recommended

The World Health Organization’s call to eliminate cervical cancer has generated interest and funding for cervical cancer screening of women with HIV, Dr. Eckert said. “WHO recommends that women living with HIV who are 25 years of age and above be screened for cervical cancer annually.”

The authors urged that women living with HIV not only be screened for HPV but that they also be vaccinated against HPV.

“We know that HPV vaccination is unprecedented in its ability to prevent HPV infections when it is received prior to acquiring HPV infection,” Dr. Eckert said, “but currently data showing that HPV vaccination would treat HPV16 in pregnant women already infected with HPV16 are lacking.

“This study points to the need for a trial to investigate HPV vaccination in pregnant women living with HIV who have the high-risk HPV types,” she suggested.

Dr. Eckert contributed to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ 2020 Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Committee Opinion. One study coauthor reported financial relationships with Merck. Dr. McClymont, the other coauthors, as well as Dr. Paik and Dr. Eckert reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers in France have discovered monkeypox virus in anal samples of men with no symptoms of the disease, advancing the possibility that asymptomatic carriers may be hidden drivers of the global outbreak.

The findings, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, follow a similar, non–peer-reviewed report from Belgium. Researchers in both studies tested swabs for monkeypox in men who have sex with men. These swabs had been collected for routine STI screening.

It’s unclear whether asymptomatic individuals who test positive for monkeypox can spread the virus, the French team wrote. But if so, public health strategies to vaccinate those with known exposure “may not be sufficient to contain spread.”

In an editorial accompanying their paper, Stuart Isaacs, MD, associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said it “raises the question of whether asymptomatic or subclinical infections are contributing to the current worldwide outbreak.”

Historically, transmission of monkeypox and its close relative, smallpox, was thought to be greatest when a rash was present, Dr. Isaacs wrote. “Long chains of human-to-human transmission were rare” with monkeypox.

That’s changed with the current outbreak, which was first detected in May. On Aug. 17, the World Health Organization reported more than 35,000 cases in 92 countries, with 12 deaths.
 

Research methods

For the French study, researchers conducted polymerase chain reaction tests on 200 anorectal swabs from asymptomatic individuals that had been collected from June 5 to July 11 in order to screen for gonorrhea and chlamydia. Of those, 13 (6.5%) were positive for monkeypox.

During the study period, STI testing had been suspended in individuals with monkeypox symptoms because of safety concerns, the researchers reported.

The research team contacted the 13 monkeypox-positive patients and advised them to limit sexual activity for 21 days following their test and notify recent sexual partners. None reported having developed symptoms, but two subsequently returned to the clinic with symptoms – one had an anal rash and the other a sore throat.

In the Belgian report, posted publicly on June 21 as a preprint, 3 of 224 anal samples collected for STI screening in May tested positive for monkeypox. All three of the men who tested positive said they did not have any symptoms in the weeks before and after the sample was taken.

At follow-up testing, 21-37 days after the initial samples were taken, all patients who had previously tested positive were negative. This was “likely as a consequence of spontaneous clearance of the infection,” the authors of that paper wrote.
 

Clinical implications of findings are uncertain

Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview that the clinical implications of the findings are uncertain because it’s not known how much viral transmission results from asymptomatic individuals.

Nevertheless, Dr. Gandhi said that “vaccinating all gay men for monkeypox who will accept the vaccine is prudent,” compared with a less aggressive strategy of only vaccinating those with known exposure, which is called ring vaccination. That way, “we can be assured to provide immunity to large swaths of the at-risk population.”

Dr. Gandhi said that movement toward mass vaccination of gay men is occurring in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia, despite limited vaccine supply.

She added that, although monkeypox has been concentrated in communities of men who have sex with men, “anyone with multiple sexual partners should be vaccinated given the data.”

However, a WHO official recently cautioned that reports of breakthrough infections in individuals who were vaccinated against monkeypox constitute a reminder that “vaccine is not a silver bullet.”
 

Non-vaccine interventions are also needed

Other experts stressed the need for nonvaccine interventions.

In his editorial, Dr. Isaacs said an “expanded” ring vaccination strategy in communities of high risk is likely needed, but ultimately the outbreak will only be controlled if vaccination is accompanied by other measures such as identifying and isolating cases, making treatment available, and educating individuals about how to reduce their risk.

Aileen Marty, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Florida International University, Miami, said in an interview that the new evidence makes it “incredibly important” to inform people that they might be infected by a sex partner even if that person does not have telltale lesions.

Dr. Marty said she has been advising men who have sex with men to “reduce or eliminate situations in which they find themselves with multiple anonymous individuals.”

Although most individuals recover from monkeypox, the disease can lead to hospitalization, disfigurement, blindness, and even death, Dr. Marty noted, adding that monkeypox is “absolutely a disease to avoid.”

Authors of the French study reported financial relationships with Gilead Sciences, Viiv Healthcare, MSD, AstraZeneca, Theratechnologies, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, and bioMérieux. Dr. Isaacs reported grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Institutes of Health and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Marty reported no relevant financial interests.

Researchers in France have discovered monkeypox virus in anal samples of men with no symptoms of the disease, advancing the possibility that asymptomatic carriers may be hidden drivers of the global outbreak.

The findings, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, follow a similar, non–peer-reviewed report from Belgium. Researchers in both studies tested swabs for monkeypox in men who have sex with men. These swabs had been collected for routine STI screening.

It’s unclear whether asymptomatic individuals who test positive for monkeypox can spread the virus, the French team wrote. But if so, public health strategies to vaccinate those with known exposure “may not be sufficient to contain spread.”

In an editorial accompanying their paper, Stuart Isaacs, MD, associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said it “raises the question of whether asymptomatic or subclinical infections are contributing to the current worldwide outbreak.”

Historically, transmission of monkeypox and its close relative, smallpox, was thought to be greatest when a rash was present, Dr. Isaacs wrote. “Long chains of human-to-human transmission were rare” with monkeypox.

That’s changed with the current outbreak, which was first detected in May. On Aug. 17, the World Health Organization reported more than 35,000 cases in 92 countries, with 12 deaths.
 

Research methods

For the French study, researchers conducted polymerase chain reaction tests on 200 anorectal swabs from asymptomatic individuals that had been collected from June 5 to July 11 in order to screen for gonorrhea and chlamydia. Of those, 13 (6.5%) were positive for monkeypox.

During the study period, STI testing had been suspended in individuals with monkeypox symptoms because of safety concerns, the researchers reported.

The research team contacted the 13 monkeypox-positive patients and advised them to limit sexual activity for 21 days following their test and notify recent sexual partners. None reported having developed symptoms, but two subsequently returned to the clinic with symptoms – one had an anal rash and the other a sore throat.

In the Belgian report, posted publicly on June 21 as a preprint, 3 of 224 anal samples collected for STI screening in May tested positive for monkeypox. All three of the men who tested positive said they did not have any symptoms in the weeks before and after the sample was taken.

At follow-up testing, 21-37 days after the initial samples were taken, all patients who had previously tested positive were negative. This was “likely as a consequence of spontaneous clearance of the infection,” the authors of that paper wrote.
 

Clinical implications of findings are uncertain

Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview that the clinical implications of the findings are uncertain because it’s not known how much viral transmission results from asymptomatic individuals.

Nevertheless, Dr. Gandhi said that “vaccinating all gay men for monkeypox who will accept the vaccine is prudent,” compared with a less aggressive strategy of only vaccinating those with known exposure, which is called ring vaccination. That way, “we can be assured to provide immunity to large swaths of the at-risk population.”

Dr. Gandhi said that movement toward mass vaccination of gay men is occurring in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia, despite limited vaccine supply.

She added that, although monkeypox has been concentrated in communities of men who have sex with men, “anyone with multiple sexual partners should be vaccinated given the data.”

However, a WHO official recently cautioned that reports of breakthrough infections in individuals who were vaccinated against monkeypox constitute a reminder that “vaccine is not a silver bullet.”
 

Non-vaccine interventions are also needed

Other experts stressed the need for nonvaccine interventions.

In his editorial, Dr. Isaacs said an “expanded” ring vaccination strategy in communities of high risk is likely needed, but ultimately the outbreak will only be controlled if vaccination is accompanied by other measures such as identifying and isolating cases, making treatment available, and educating individuals about how to reduce their risk.

Aileen Marty, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Florida International University, Miami, said in an interview that the new evidence makes it “incredibly important” to inform people that they might be infected by a sex partner even if that person does not have telltale lesions.

Dr. Marty said she has been advising men who have sex with men to “reduce or eliminate situations in which they find themselves with multiple anonymous individuals.”

Although most individuals recover from monkeypox, the disease can lead to hospitalization, disfigurement, blindness, and even death, Dr. Marty noted, adding that monkeypox is “absolutely a disease to avoid.”

Authors of the French study reported financial relationships with Gilead Sciences, Viiv Healthcare, MSD, AstraZeneca, Theratechnologies, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, and bioMérieux. Dr. Isaacs reported grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Institutes of Health and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Marty reported no relevant financial interests.

Researchers in France have discovered monkeypox virus in anal samples of men with no symptoms of the disease, advancing the possibility that asymptomatic carriers may be hidden drivers of the global outbreak.

The findings, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, follow a similar, non–peer-reviewed report from Belgium. Researchers in both studies tested swabs for monkeypox in men who have sex with men. These swabs had been collected for routine STI screening.

It’s unclear whether asymptomatic individuals who test positive for monkeypox can spread the virus, the French team wrote. But if so, public health strategies to vaccinate those with known exposure “may not be sufficient to contain spread.”

In an editorial accompanying their paper, Stuart Isaacs, MD, associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said it “raises the question of whether asymptomatic or subclinical infections are contributing to the current worldwide outbreak.”

Historically, transmission of monkeypox and its close relative, smallpox, was thought to be greatest when a rash was present, Dr. Isaacs wrote. “Long chains of human-to-human transmission were rare” with monkeypox.

That’s changed with the current outbreak, which was first detected in May. On Aug. 17, the World Health Organization reported more than 35,000 cases in 92 countries, with 12 deaths.
 

Research methods

For the French study, researchers conducted polymerase chain reaction tests on 200 anorectal swabs from asymptomatic individuals that had been collected from June 5 to July 11 in order to screen for gonorrhea and chlamydia. Of those, 13 (6.5%) were positive for monkeypox.

During the study period, STI testing had been suspended in individuals with monkeypox symptoms because of safety concerns, the researchers reported.

The research team contacted the 13 monkeypox-positive patients and advised them to limit sexual activity for 21 days following their test and notify recent sexual partners. None reported having developed symptoms, but two subsequently returned to the clinic with symptoms – one had an anal rash and the other a sore throat.

In the Belgian report, posted publicly on June 21 as a preprint, 3 of 224 anal samples collected for STI screening in May tested positive for monkeypox. All three of the men who tested positive said they did not have any symptoms in the weeks before and after the sample was taken.

At follow-up testing, 21-37 days after the initial samples were taken, all patients who had previously tested positive were negative. This was “likely as a consequence of spontaneous clearance of the infection,” the authors of that paper wrote.
 

Clinical implications of findings are uncertain

Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview that the clinical implications of the findings are uncertain because it’s not known how much viral transmission results from asymptomatic individuals.

Nevertheless, Dr. Gandhi said that “vaccinating all gay men for monkeypox who will accept the vaccine is prudent,” compared with a less aggressive strategy of only vaccinating those with known exposure, which is called ring vaccination. That way, “we can be assured to provide immunity to large swaths of the at-risk population.”

Dr. Gandhi said that movement toward mass vaccination of gay men is occurring in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia, despite limited vaccine supply.

She added that, although monkeypox has been concentrated in communities of men who have sex with men, “anyone with multiple sexual partners should be vaccinated given the data.”

However, a WHO official recently cautioned that reports of breakthrough infections in individuals who were vaccinated against monkeypox constitute a reminder that “vaccine is not a silver bullet.”
 

Non-vaccine interventions are also needed

Other experts stressed the need for nonvaccine interventions.

In his editorial, Dr. Isaacs said an “expanded” ring vaccination strategy in communities of high risk is likely needed, but ultimately the outbreak will only be controlled if vaccination is accompanied by other measures such as identifying and isolating cases, making treatment available, and educating individuals about how to reduce their risk.

Aileen Marty, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Florida International University, Miami, said in an interview that the new evidence makes it “incredibly important” to inform people that they might be infected by a sex partner even if that person does not have telltale lesions.

Dr. Marty said she has been advising men who have sex with men to “reduce or eliminate situations in which they find themselves with multiple anonymous individuals.”

Although most individuals recover from monkeypox, the disease can lead to hospitalization, disfigurement, blindness, and even death, Dr. Marty noted, adding that monkeypox is “absolutely a disease to avoid.”

Authors of the French study reported financial relationships with Gilead Sciences, Viiv Healthcare, MSD, AstraZeneca, Theratechnologies, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, and bioMérieux. Dr. Isaacs reported grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Institutes of Health and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Marty reported no relevant financial interests.

The White House declared monkeypox a public health emergency Aug. 4. There have been more than 6,600 reported cases of the disease in the United States, up from less than 5,000 cases reported last week.

“This public health emergency will allow us to explore additional strategies to get vaccines and treatments more quickly out in the affected communities. And it will allow us to get more data from jurisdictions so we can effectively track and attack this outbreak,” Robert Fenton, who was named as the national monkeypox response coordinator this week, said at a news briefing Aug. 4.

Those who catch the virus usually have fever-like symptoms, followed by red lesions on the body that can raise and develop pus. Those at highest risk of monkeypox are gay and bisexual men, as well as men who have sex with other men. There are between 1.6 million and 1.7 million Americans in this high-risk group, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said at the briefing.

The Jynneos vaccine is being distributed to protect against monkeypox and can prevent severe symptoms. It’s mostly going to those with the greatest risk of catching the virus.

Last week, the Biden administration made over 1.1 million doses of the Jynneos vaccine available – of which over 600,000 doses have already been distributed across the country – and have secured over 6.9 million Jynneos doses altogether.

Around 786,000 vaccines have already been allocated, and the first doses were shipped this week. States will be able to order more doses beginning Aug. 15. If a state has used 90% or more of its vaccine supply, it will be eligible to order more doses before Aug. 15, according to Dawn O’Connell, JD, assistant secretary for preparedness and response at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

An additional 150,000 doses will be added to the national stockpile in September, with more doses to come later this year, Ms. O’Connell says.

The administration is also stressing the importance of monkeypox testing and says it can now distribute 80,000 monkeypox tests per week.

An antiviral drug – known as TPOXX – is also available to treat severe cases of monkeypox. Around 1,700,000 doses are available in the Strategic National Stockpile, public health officials say.

“We are prepared to take our response to the next level, and we urge every American to take this seriously and to take responsibility to help us tackle this virus,” Secretary Becerra told reporters.

The White House says it will continue reaching out to doctors, public health partners, LGBTQ advocates, and other impacted communities.

“The public health emergency further raises awareness about monkeypox, which will encourage clinicians to test for it,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said at the briefing.

This week, President Joe Biden appointed a new White House monkeypox response team. Besides Mr. Fenton as the response coordinator, Demetre Daskalakis, MD, will serve as the White House national monkeypox response deputy coordinator. He is the director of the CDC’s Division of HIV Prevention.

“This virus is moving fast. This is a unique outbreak that is spreading faster than previous outbreaks,” Mr. Fenton told reporters Aug. 4. “That’s why the president asked me to explore everything we can do to combat monkeypox and protect communities at risk.”

This article was updated 8/4/22.

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

The White House declared monkeypox a public health emergency Aug. 4. There have been more than 6,600 reported cases of the disease in the United States, up from less than 5,000 cases reported last week.

“This public health emergency will allow us to explore additional strategies to get vaccines and treatments more quickly out in the affected communities. And it will allow us to get more data from jurisdictions so we can effectively track and attack this outbreak,” Robert Fenton, who was named as the national monkeypox response coordinator this week, said at a news briefing Aug. 4.

Those who catch the virus usually have fever-like symptoms, followed by red lesions on the body that can raise and develop pus. Those at highest risk of monkeypox are gay and bisexual men, as well as men who have sex with other men. There are between 1.6 million and 1.7 million Americans in this high-risk group, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said at the briefing.

The Jynneos vaccine is being distributed to protect against monkeypox and can prevent severe symptoms. It’s mostly going to those with the greatest risk of catching the virus.

Last week, the Biden administration made over 1.1 million doses of the Jynneos vaccine available – of which over 600,000 doses have already been distributed across the country – and have secured over 6.9 million Jynneos doses altogether.

Around 786,000 vaccines have already been allocated, and the first doses were shipped this week. States will be able to order more doses beginning Aug. 15. If a state has used 90% or more of its vaccine supply, it will be eligible to order more doses before Aug. 15, according to Dawn O’Connell, JD, assistant secretary for preparedness and response at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

An additional 150,000 doses will be added to the national stockpile in September, with more doses to come later this year, Ms. O’Connell says.

The administration is also stressing the importance of monkeypox testing and says it can now distribute 80,000 monkeypox tests per week.

An antiviral drug – known as TPOXX – is also available to treat severe cases of monkeypox. Around 1,700,000 doses are available in the Strategic National Stockpile, public health officials say.

“We are prepared to take our response to the next level, and we urge every American to take this seriously and to take responsibility to help us tackle this virus,” Secretary Becerra told reporters.

The White House says it will continue reaching out to doctors, public health partners, LGBTQ advocates, and other impacted communities.

“The public health emergency further raises awareness about monkeypox, which will encourage clinicians to test for it,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said at the briefing.

This week, President Joe Biden appointed a new White House monkeypox response team. Besides Mr. Fenton as the response coordinator, Demetre Daskalakis, MD, will serve as the White House national monkeypox response deputy coordinator. He is the director of the CDC’s Division of HIV Prevention.

“This virus is moving fast. This is a unique outbreak that is spreading faster than previous outbreaks,” Mr. Fenton told reporters Aug. 4. “That’s why the president asked me to explore everything we can do to combat monkeypox and protect communities at risk.”

This article was updated 8/4/22.

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

The White House declared monkeypox a public health emergency Aug. 4. There have been more than 6,600 reported cases of the disease in the United States, up from less than 5,000 cases reported last week.

“This public health emergency will allow us to explore additional strategies to get vaccines and treatments more quickly out in the affected communities. And it will allow us to get more data from jurisdictions so we can effectively track and attack this outbreak,” Robert Fenton, who was named as the national monkeypox response coordinator this week, said at a news briefing Aug. 4.

Those who catch the virus usually have fever-like symptoms, followed by red lesions on the body that can raise and develop pus. Those at highest risk of monkeypox are gay and bisexual men, as well as men who have sex with other men. There are between 1.6 million and 1.7 million Americans in this high-risk group, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said at the briefing.

The Jynneos vaccine is being distributed to protect against monkeypox and can prevent severe symptoms. It’s mostly going to those with the greatest risk of catching the virus.

Last week, the Biden administration made over 1.1 million doses of the Jynneos vaccine available – of which over 600,000 doses have already been distributed across the country – and have secured over 6.9 million Jynneos doses altogether.

Around 786,000 vaccines have already been allocated, and the first doses were shipped this week. States will be able to order more doses beginning Aug. 15. If a state has used 90% or more of its vaccine supply, it will be eligible to order more doses before Aug. 15, according to Dawn O’Connell, JD, assistant secretary for preparedness and response at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

An additional 150,000 doses will be added to the national stockpile in September, with more doses to come later this year, Ms. O’Connell says.

The administration is also stressing the importance of monkeypox testing and says it can now distribute 80,000 monkeypox tests per week.

An antiviral drug – known as TPOXX – is also available to treat severe cases of monkeypox. Around 1,700,000 doses are available in the Strategic National Stockpile, public health officials say.

“We are prepared to take our response to the next level, and we urge every American to take this seriously and to take responsibility to help us tackle this virus,” Secretary Becerra told reporters.

The White House says it will continue reaching out to doctors, public health partners, LGBTQ advocates, and other impacted communities.

“The public health emergency further raises awareness about monkeypox, which will encourage clinicians to test for it,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said at the briefing.

This week, President Joe Biden appointed a new White House monkeypox response team. Besides Mr. Fenton as the response coordinator, Demetre Daskalakis, MD, will serve as the White House national monkeypox response deputy coordinator. He is the director of the CDC’s Division of HIV Prevention.

“This virus is moving fast. This is a unique outbreak that is spreading faster than previous outbreaks,” Mr. Fenton told reporters Aug. 4. “That’s why the president asked me to explore everything we can do to combat monkeypox and protect communities at risk.”

This article was updated 8/4/22.

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

The World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) has changed the recommendation for vaccines against human papillomavirus (HPV).

From the available evidence, SAGE has concluded that a single dose of vaccine offers solid protection against HPV, comparable to that achieved with two-dose schedules.

This could be a “game-changer for the prevention of the disease,” as it would allow “more doses of the life-saving jab reach more girls,” the WHO declared in a press release.

SAGE recommends updating HPV dose schedules as follows:

• One- or two-dose schedule for the primary target of girls aged 9-14 years.
• One- or two-dose schedule for young women aged 15-20.
• Two doses with a 6-month interval for women older than 21.

The HPV vaccine is highly effective for the prevention of HPV serotypes 16 and 18, which cause 70% of cases of cervical cancer, said Alejandro Cravioto, MD, PhD, SAGE chair, in a statement.

“SAGE urges all countries to introduce HPV vaccines and prioritize multi-age cohort catch up of missed and older cohorts of girls. These recommendations will enable more girls and women to be vaccinated and thus preventing them from having cervical cancer and all its consequences over the course of their lifetimes,” he added.

For individuals who are immunocompromised, including those with HIV, three doses of the vaccine should be given if feasible, and if not, then at least two doses. There is limited evidence regarding the efficacy of a single dose in this group, the advisory group noted.
 

Policy makers need to make changes

Now that the WHO has deemed that one dose of HPV vaccine is sufficient, policy makers should make changes, say experts in a recent editorial comment published in The Lancet Oncology.

“Policy makers should consider modifying their HPV immunization schedules for girls aged 9-14 years from a two-dose regimen to a one-dose regimen,” wrote Jeff D’Souza, PhD, Institute for Better Health, Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga, Ont., and David Nderitu, PhD, Egerton University, Nakuru County, Kenya.

Policy makers also need to consider reorienting their efforts on cervical cancer screening and treatment, and they should ensure that all girls globally have access to an effective HPV vaccination schedule, they add.

The editorialists also make a radical proposal.

Existing supply constraints of the HPV vaccine at the country level are expected to continue for the next 3 years, and the vast majority of new cervical cancer cases and related deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

To overcome these problems, they suggest that “high-income countries that currently offer two-dose regimens to girls aged 9-14 years should consider opting for a one-dose vaccination schedule, and give any excess of vaccines to countries in greater need of them.”
 

Two doses in high-income countries

But it is unclear whether high-income countries are ready to move to a one-dose schedule.

Approached for comment, Maurie Markman, MD, president of medicine and science at Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Philadelphia, told this news organization that while he can’t say for certain, he suspects that the United States will be slower to accept this recommendation for a single dose of HPV vaccine “as a component of a ‘standard-of-care’ approach.”

However, it “might formally acknowledge that if an individual/parent will only accept a single vaccine dose (or ultimately refuses to return for a recommended second dose), this will be considered a favorable outcome, both for the individual and society.

“I do not know if regulatory bodies in the United States will accept the existing studies performed to address the one-dose vaccination strategy to rather dramatically change the approach in our country,” he said. “The issue would be that if a single dose was stated to be a clinically acceptable option in the United States, it would rapidly become the standard approach, and the regulators would want to be as certain as possible that this would not have a negative effect on what is now recognized to be a remarkably safe and effective cancer prevention effort.”

Another expert who was approached for comment, Stephanie V. Blank, MD, professor of gynecologic oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said: “In higher-resourced countries, two doses are still preferred, as they are more effective than one.

“The modeling on which the SAGE recommendation is based is all from studies in LMICs and other modeling studies,” she added.

At present, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a two-dose schedule of HPV vaccines for individuals who receive the first dose before their 15th birthday. The three-dose schedule is recommended for those who receive the first dose on or after their 15th birthday and for people with certain immunocompromising conditions.

Studies have shown that two doses of HPV vaccine given to children aged 9-14 years provide as good or better protection than three doses given to older adolescents or young adults.

But even with a two-dose schedule, the WHO reports that uptake of the vaccine has been slow, and coverage is much lower than their 90% target. In 2020, global coverage with two doses was only 13%.

Factors that have influenced the slow uptake and low coverage of HPV vaccines include supply challenges, programmatic challenges, and costs related to delivering a two-dose regimen to older girls who are not typically included in childhood vaccination programs. The relatively high cost of HPV vaccines has also been problematic, particularly for middle-income countries.
 

Trials of one-dose schedules

The one-dose vaccine schedule has garnered a lot of interest, with several studies showing efficacy.

The KEN SHE trial, based in Kenya, showed that a single dose of the HPV vaccine was highly effective at preventing oncogenic infection, rivaling the protection offered by multidose regimens. Vaccine efficacy was 97.5% (P < .001) against HPV 16/18 for both the bivalent and monovalent vaccines, which is “comparable to that seen in multidose vaccine trials,” the researchers noted.

A study in India found that efficacy against persistent HPV 16 and 18 infection among participants evaluable for the endpoint was 95.4% for the single dose, 93.1% for the two-dose schedule, and 93.3% for the three-dose series.

Commenting on this trial in India in a recent interview with this news organization, Geoffroy Canlorbe, MD, PhD, of the department of gynecologic and breast surgery and oncology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, said the findings from India would need “to be confirmed by other studies.” The results were nonetheless “excellent news for developing countries where there are challenges when it comes to access to vaccination.”

Speaking at the 45th Congress of the French Society for Colposcopy and Cervical and Vaginal Diseases, he emphasized that at this stage, the findings “cannot be extrapolated” to France. HPV vaccination coverage is low in France (it is estimated that the rate is 23.7%, placing the country 28th of 31 countries in Europe), and he recommended continuing with the two- or three-dose schedule for the time being.

“This poor coverage has nothing to do with health care–related logistical or organizational issues; instead, it has to do with people’s mistrust when it comes to vaccination. Here, people who get the first dose get the subsequent ones,” said Dr. Canlorbe. “The very fact of getting two to three doses allows the person’s body to increase the production of antibodies and get a longer-lasting response to the vaccine.”
 

Ethics of the vaccine

In their editorial, Dr. D’Souza and Dr. Nderitu note that there are ethical considerations with the HPV vaccine that can “help guide deliberations, covering nonmaleficence, beneficence, health equity, stewardship, and solidarity.”

It would be inequitable and unjustifiable, they write, to offer a two-dose regimen to girls aged 9-14 years without also introducing multi-age cohort catch-up campaigns or programs for women who do not have access. “When it comes to an effective HPV vaccination schedule, no woman or girl should be left behind,” they say.

To achieve the goal of eliminating cervical cancer, “countries must ensure that 90% of girls are vaccinated, 70% of women are screened, and 90% of women with precancerous lesions receive treatment and care,” they write. “Given resource constraints, particularly in low-middle income countries, policy makers have a responsibility to ensure that resources are used in an optimal manner that promotes the right to health of all individuals.”

Thus, countries that are lagging far behind in cervical cancer education, screening, and treatment should consider opting for a one-dose regimen for girls aged 9-14 years, as well as using additional resources to close the gap in these other areas.

Dr. Markman has relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, and Amgen; he is also a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology with the Markamn on Oncology video column. Dr. D’Souza and Dr. Nderitu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) has changed the recommendation for vaccines against human papillomavirus (HPV).

From the available evidence, SAGE has concluded that a single dose of vaccine offers solid protection against HPV, comparable to that achieved with two-dose schedules.

This could be a “game-changer for the prevention of the disease,” as it would allow “more doses of the life-saving jab reach more girls,” the WHO declared in a press release.

SAGE recommends updating HPV dose schedules as follows:

• One- or two-dose schedule for the primary target of girls aged 9-14 years.
• One- or two-dose schedule for young women aged 15-20.
• Two doses with a 6-month interval for women older than 21.

The HPV vaccine is highly effective for the prevention of HPV serotypes 16 and 18, which cause 70% of cases of cervical cancer, said Alejandro Cravioto, MD, PhD, SAGE chair, in a statement.

“SAGE urges all countries to introduce HPV vaccines and prioritize multi-age cohort catch up of missed and older cohorts of girls. These recommendations will enable more girls and women to be vaccinated and thus preventing them from having cervical cancer and all its consequences over the course of their lifetimes,” he added.

For individuals who are immunocompromised, including those with HIV, three doses of the vaccine should be given if feasible, and if not, then at least two doses. There is limited evidence regarding the efficacy of a single dose in this group, the advisory group noted.
 

Policy makers need to make changes

Now that the WHO has deemed that one dose of HPV vaccine is sufficient, policy makers should make changes, say experts in a recent editorial comment published in The Lancet Oncology.

“Policy makers should consider modifying their HPV immunization schedules for girls aged 9-14 years from a two-dose regimen to a one-dose regimen,” wrote Jeff D’Souza, PhD, Institute for Better Health, Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga, Ont., and David Nderitu, PhD, Egerton University, Nakuru County, Kenya.

Policy makers also need to consider reorienting their efforts on cervical cancer screening and treatment, and they should ensure that all girls globally have access to an effective HPV vaccination schedule, they add.

The editorialists also make a radical proposal.

Existing supply constraints of the HPV vaccine at the country level are expected to continue for the next 3 years, and the vast majority of new cervical cancer cases and related deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

To overcome these problems, they suggest that “high-income countries that currently offer two-dose regimens to girls aged 9-14 years should consider opting for a one-dose vaccination schedule, and give any excess of vaccines to countries in greater need of them.”
 

Two doses in high-income countries

But it is unclear whether high-income countries are ready to move to a one-dose schedule.

Approached for comment, Maurie Markman, MD, president of medicine and science at Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Philadelphia, told this news organization that while he can’t say for certain, he suspects that the United States will be slower to accept this recommendation for a single dose of HPV vaccine “as a component of a ‘standard-of-care’ approach.”

However, it “might formally acknowledge that if an individual/parent will only accept a single vaccine dose (or ultimately refuses to return for a recommended second dose), this will be considered a favorable outcome, both for the individual and society.

“I do not know if regulatory bodies in the United States will accept the existing studies performed to address the one-dose vaccination strategy to rather dramatically change the approach in our country,” he said. “The issue would be that if a single dose was stated to be a clinically acceptable option in the United States, it would rapidly become the standard approach, and the regulators would want to be as certain as possible that this would not have a negative effect on what is now recognized to be a remarkably safe and effective cancer prevention effort.”

Another expert who was approached for comment, Stephanie V. Blank, MD, professor of gynecologic oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said: “In higher-resourced countries, two doses are still preferred, as they are more effective than one.

“The modeling on which the SAGE recommendation is based is all from studies in LMICs and other modeling studies,” she added.

At present, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a two-dose schedule of HPV vaccines for individuals who receive the first dose before their 15th birthday. The three-dose schedule is recommended for those who receive the first dose on or after their 15th birthday and for people with certain immunocompromising conditions.

Studies have shown that two doses of HPV vaccine given to children aged 9-14 years provide as good or better protection than three doses given to older adolescents or young adults.

But even with a two-dose schedule, the WHO reports that uptake of the vaccine has been slow, and coverage is much lower than their 90% target. In 2020, global coverage with two doses was only 13%.

Factors that have influenced the slow uptake and low coverage of HPV vaccines include supply challenges, programmatic challenges, and costs related to delivering a two-dose regimen to older girls who are not typically included in childhood vaccination programs. The relatively high cost of HPV vaccines has also been problematic, particularly for middle-income countries.
 

Trials of one-dose schedules

The one-dose vaccine schedule has garnered a lot of interest, with several studies showing efficacy.

The KEN SHE trial, based in Kenya, showed that a single dose of the HPV vaccine was highly effective at preventing oncogenic infection, rivaling the protection offered by multidose regimens. Vaccine efficacy was 97.5% (P < .001) against HPV 16/18 for both the bivalent and monovalent vaccines, which is “comparable to that seen in multidose vaccine trials,” the researchers noted.

A study in India found that efficacy against persistent HPV 16 and 18 infection among participants evaluable for the endpoint was 95.4% for the single dose, 93.1% for the two-dose schedule, and 93.3% for the three-dose series.

Commenting on this trial in India in a recent interview with this news organization, Geoffroy Canlorbe, MD, PhD, of the department of gynecologic and breast surgery and oncology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, said the findings from India would need “to be confirmed by other studies.” The results were nonetheless “excellent news for developing countries where there are challenges when it comes to access to vaccination.”

Speaking at the 45th Congress of the French Society for Colposcopy and Cervical and Vaginal Diseases, he emphasized that at this stage, the findings “cannot be extrapolated” to France. HPV vaccination coverage is low in France (it is estimated that the rate is 23.7%, placing the country 28th of 31 countries in Europe), and he recommended continuing with the two- or three-dose schedule for the time being.

“This poor coverage has nothing to do with health care–related logistical or organizational issues; instead, it has to do with people’s mistrust when it comes to vaccination. Here, people who get the first dose get the subsequent ones,” said Dr. Canlorbe. “The very fact of getting two to three doses allows the person’s body to increase the production of antibodies and get a longer-lasting response to the vaccine.”
 

Ethics of the vaccine

In their editorial, Dr. D’Souza and Dr. Nderitu note that there are ethical considerations with the HPV vaccine that can “help guide deliberations, covering nonmaleficence, beneficence, health equity, stewardship, and solidarity.”

It would be inequitable and unjustifiable, they write, to offer a two-dose regimen to girls aged 9-14 years without also introducing multi-age cohort catch-up campaigns or programs for women who do not have access. “When it comes to an effective HPV vaccination schedule, no woman or girl should be left behind,” they say.

To achieve the goal of eliminating cervical cancer, “countries must ensure that 90% of girls are vaccinated, 70% of women are screened, and 90% of women with precancerous lesions receive treatment and care,” they write. “Given resource constraints, particularly in low-middle income countries, policy makers have a responsibility to ensure that resources are used in an optimal manner that promotes the right to health of all individuals.”

Thus, countries that are lagging far behind in cervical cancer education, screening, and treatment should consider opting for a one-dose regimen for girls aged 9-14 years, as well as using additional resources to close the gap in these other areas.

Dr. Markman has relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, and Amgen; he is also a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology with the Markamn on Oncology video column. Dr. D’Souza and Dr. Nderitu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) has changed the recommendation for vaccines against human papillomavirus (HPV).

From the available evidence, SAGE has concluded that a single dose of vaccine offers solid protection against HPV, comparable to that achieved with two-dose schedules.

This could be a “game-changer for the prevention of the disease,” as it would allow “more doses of the life-saving jab reach more girls,” the WHO declared in a press release.

SAGE recommends updating HPV dose schedules as follows:

• One- or two-dose schedule for the primary target of girls aged 9-14 years.
• One- or two-dose schedule for young women aged 15-20.
• Two doses with a 6-month interval for women older than 21.

The HPV vaccine is highly effective for the prevention of HPV serotypes 16 and 18, which cause 70% of cases of cervical cancer, said Alejandro Cravioto, MD, PhD, SAGE chair, in a statement.

“SAGE urges all countries to introduce HPV vaccines and prioritize multi-age cohort catch up of missed and older cohorts of girls. These recommendations will enable more girls and women to be vaccinated and thus preventing them from having cervical cancer and all its consequences over the course of their lifetimes,” he added.

For individuals who are immunocompromised, including those with HIV, three doses of the vaccine should be given if feasible, and if not, then at least two doses. There is limited evidence regarding the efficacy of a single dose in this group, the advisory group noted.
 

Policy makers need to make changes

Now that the WHO has deemed that one dose of HPV vaccine is sufficient, policy makers should make changes, say experts in a recent editorial comment published in The Lancet Oncology.

“Policy makers should consider modifying their HPV immunization schedules for girls aged 9-14 years from a two-dose regimen to a one-dose regimen,” wrote Jeff D’Souza, PhD, Institute for Better Health, Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga, Ont., and David Nderitu, PhD, Egerton University, Nakuru County, Kenya.

Policy makers also need to consider reorienting their efforts on cervical cancer screening and treatment, and they should ensure that all girls globally have access to an effective HPV vaccination schedule, they add.

The editorialists also make a radical proposal.

Existing supply constraints of the HPV vaccine at the country level are expected to continue for the next 3 years, and the vast majority of new cervical cancer cases and related deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

To overcome these problems, they suggest that “high-income countries that currently offer two-dose regimens to girls aged 9-14 years should consider opting for a one-dose vaccination schedule, and give any excess of vaccines to countries in greater need of them.”
 

Two doses in high-income countries

But it is unclear whether high-income countries are ready to move to a one-dose schedule.

Approached for comment, Maurie Markman, MD, president of medicine and science at Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Philadelphia, told this news organization that while he can’t say for certain, he suspects that the United States will be slower to accept this recommendation for a single dose of HPV vaccine “as a component of a ‘standard-of-care’ approach.”

However, it “might formally acknowledge that if an individual/parent will only accept a single vaccine dose (or ultimately refuses to return for a recommended second dose), this will be considered a favorable outcome, both for the individual and society.

“I do not know if regulatory bodies in the United States will accept the existing studies performed to address the one-dose vaccination strategy to rather dramatically change the approach in our country,” he said. “The issue would be that if a single dose was stated to be a clinically acceptable option in the United States, it would rapidly become the standard approach, and the regulators would want to be as certain as possible that this would not have a negative effect on what is now recognized to be a remarkably safe and effective cancer prevention effort.”

Another expert who was approached for comment, Stephanie V. Blank, MD, professor of gynecologic oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said: “In higher-resourced countries, two doses are still preferred, as they are more effective than one.

“The modeling on which the SAGE recommendation is based is all from studies in LMICs and other modeling studies,” she added.

At present, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a two-dose schedule of HPV vaccines for individuals who receive the first dose before their 15th birthday. The three-dose schedule is recommended for those who receive the first dose on or after their 15th birthday and for people with certain immunocompromising conditions.

Studies have shown that two doses of HPV vaccine given to children aged 9-14 years provide as good or better protection than three doses given to older adolescents or young adults.

But even with a two-dose schedule, the WHO reports that uptake of the vaccine has been slow, and coverage is much lower than their 90% target. In 2020, global coverage with two doses was only 13%.

Factors that have influenced the slow uptake and low coverage of HPV vaccines include supply challenges, programmatic challenges, and costs related to delivering a two-dose regimen to older girls who are not typically included in childhood vaccination programs. The relatively high cost of HPV vaccines has also been problematic, particularly for middle-income countries.
 

Trials of one-dose schedules

The one-dose vaccine schedule has garnered a lot of interest, with several studies showing efficacy.

The KEN SHE trial, based in Kenya, showed that a single dose of the HPV vaccine was highly effective at preventing oncogenic infection, rivaling the protection offered by multidose regimens. Vaccine efficacy was 97.5% (P < .001) against HPV 16/18 for both the bivalent and monovalent vaccines, which is “comparable to that seen in multidose vaccine trials,” the researchers noted.

A study in India found that efficacy against persistent HPV 16 and 18 infection among participants evaluable for the endpoint was 95.4% for the single dose, 93.1% for the two-dose schedule, and 93.3% for the three-dose series.

Commenting on this trial in India in a recent interview with this news organization, Geoffroy Canlorbe, MD, PhD, of the department of gynecologic and breast surgery and oncology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, said the findings from India would need “to be confirmed by other studies.” The results were nonetheless “excellent news for developing countries where there are challenges when it comes to access to vaccination.”

Speaking at the 45th Congress of the French Society for Colposcopy and Cervical and Vaginal Diseases, he emphasized that at this stage, the findings “cannot be extrapolated” to France. HPV vaccination coverage is low in France (it is estimated that the rate is 23.7%, placing the country 28th of 31 countries in Europe), and he recommended continuing with the two- or three-dose schedule for the time being.

“This poor coverage has nothing to do with health care–related logistical or organizational issues; instead, it has to do with people’s mistrust when it comes to vaccination. Here, people who get the first dose get the subsequent ones,” said Dr. Canlorbe. “The very fact of getting two to three doses allows the person’s body to increase the production of antibodies and get a longer-lasting response to the vaccine.”
 

Ethics of the vaccine

In their editorial, Dr. D’Souza and Dr. Nderitu note that there are ethical considerations with the HPV vaccine that can “help guide deliberations, covering nonmaleficence, beneficence, health equity, stewardship, and solidarity.”

It would be inequitable and unjustifiable, they write, to offer a two-dose regimen to girls aged 9-14 years without also introducing multi-age cohort catch-up campaigns or programs for women who do not have access. “When it comes to an effective HPV vaccination schedule, no woman or girl should be left behind,” they say.

To achieve the goal of eliminating cervical cancer, “countries must ensure that 90% of girls are vaccinated, 70% of women are screened, and 90% of women with precancerous lesions receive treatment and care,” they write. “Given resource constraints, particularly in low-middle income countries, policy makers have a responsibility to ensure that resources are used in an optimal manner that promotes the right to health of all individuals.”

Thus, countries that are lagging far behind in cervical cancer education, screening, and treatment should consider opting for a one-dose regimen for girls aged 9-14 years, as well as using additional resources to close the gap in these other areas.

Dr. Markman has relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, and Amgen; he is also a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology with the Markamn on Oncology video column. Dr. D’Souza and Dr. Nderitu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

As pediatricians, almost all of our clinic visits include some anticipatory guidance and recommendations on ways to promote well-being and prevent illness and injury for our patients. Because of minority stress, discrimination, and increased exposure to adverse childhood experiences, LGBTQ+ patients are disproportionately affected by certain health conditions including depression, anxiety, substance use, homelessness, as well as HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs).¹ While LGBTQ+ youth could benefit from additional guidance, counseling, and interventions related to these health disparities and have expressed interest in talking about these topics with their providers, sexual and gender minority youth also stress that they want to be treated as any other youth.² Extending counseling for preventive care measures such as preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV to all sexually active youth could help to destigmatize LGBTQ+ youth as being “different” from other youth and also help to increase overall access to HIV prevention services.³

Described by some as the “birth control” for HIV infection, PrEP is taken on an ongoing basis by those who are HIV negative before potential exposures to HIV in order to prevent new HIV infections. PrEP was first approved as a daily pill for adults in 2015 by the Food and Drug Administration with extension in 2018 to all individuals at risk for HIV weighing at least 35 kg after safety and efficacy data showed it could be used routinely for adolescents.⁴ When taken daily, oral PrEP can decrease the risk of HIV from sexual contact by more than 90% and from injection drug use by around 70%. As PrEP is highly effective with low risk for side effects, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) gave PrEP a “Grade A” recommendation for use in those at high risk for HIV infection in 2019.⁵ Since efficacy is closely tied to adherence, the first injectable PrEP (given at 0, 1, and 2 months with dosing then every 2 months) was also recently FDA approved in late 2021.⁶

Since HIV infection disproportionately affects LBGTQ+ individuals, and particularly LBGTQ+ youth of color, counseling related to PrEP has been largely targeted to these groups.⁷ Insurance and financial barriers to PrEP have been greatly reduced over the past several years through changes in insurance coverage (strengthened by the USPSTF recommendation), supplemental insurance programs, and pharmaceutical copay programs. Many states (but not all) also include HIV in the definition of STIs and allow minors to consent to PrEP services without a parent or guardian. Unfortunately, despite the high efficacy of PrEP and efforts to decrease barriers, rates of PrEP use continue to be extremely low, especially in youth, with only 15.6% of those aged 16-24 who are at risk for HIV in the United States actually taking PrEP in 2019.⁸ Many barriers to PrEP continue to exist including lack of awareness of PrEP, stigma surrounding HIV and PrEP, and lack of PrEP providers.

In order to address these low rates of PrEP uptake, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now recommends that medical providers discuss PrEP with all sexually active patients.⁶ PrEP should not be seen or discussed as something only relevant to LBGTQ+ populations, but rather as another tool in everyone’s “sexual health toolbox” that can allow us to experience human connection and pleasure through sexual activity while also having more control over what happens to our bodies. Not only will this allow more patients to access PrEP directly, it will also decrease the stigma of talking about HIV and PrEP and strengthen youths’ sense of autonomy and control over their own sexual health.

Since PrEP is a relatively new medical service, many providers will need to learn more about PrEP to at least have initial discussions with patients and to feel comfortable prescribing this themselves (See Resources). Below are also some suggestions to incorporate into your practice in order to advocate for the health and well-being of all your patients, including LGBTQ+ youth.

• Once your patients are 13 years and older, spend time with them alone to confidentially discuss more sensitive topics such as sexual health, mental health, and substance use.
• For all patients who are sexually active or considering sexual activity in the near future, discuss topics to help them control what happens to their bodies including consent, condoms, birth control, PrEP, and routine STI screening.
• Recommend PrEP to anyone who is sexually active and may be at increased risk for HIV infection or who is interested in taking PrEP for HIV prevention.
• Learn more about PrEP and start prescribing it to your own patients or become familiar with providers in your area to whom you could refer patients who are interested. While no certification is needed to prescribe PrEP, programs exist to help providers become more familiar with how to prescribe PrEP.

Dr. Warus is an adolescent medicine physician who specializes in care for transgender and gender-nonconforming youth, HIV prevention for adolescents and young adults, and LGBTQ health for youth at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles. He is an assistant professor of clinical pediatrics and a University of Southern California faculty member.

Resources

CDC PrEP resources for clinicians: www.cdc.gov/hiv/clinicians/prevention/prep.html.Health HIV’s HIV Prevention Certified Provider Certification Program: https://healthhiv.org/programs/hpcp/.PrEP providers in the United States: https://preplocator.org/.Adolescent Health Working Group’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Toolkit for Adolescent Providers: https://ahwg.org/download/sexual-and-reproductive-health-toolkit-for-adolescent-providers/.

References

1. Lund EM and Burgess CM. Prim Care Clin Office Pract. 2021:48:179-89.

2. Hoffman ND et al. J Adolesc Health. 2009;45:222-9.

3. Mayer KH et al. Adv Ther. 2020;37:1778-811.

4. Hosek SG et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(11):1063-71.

5. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force; Owens DK et al. JAMA. 2019;321(22):2203-13.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: U.S. Public Health Service: Preexposure Prophylaxis for the Prevention of HIV Infection in the United States – 2021 Update: A Clinical Practice Guideline. Published 2021. Accessed July 10, 2022.

7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Estimated HIV Incidence and Prevalence in the United States, 2015-2019. HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report. 2021;26(1). Published May 2021. Accessed July 10, 2022.

8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Monitoring Selected National HIV Prevention and Care Objectives by Using HIV Surveillance Data–United States and 6 Dependent Areas, 2020. HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report. 2022;27(3).

As pediatricians, almost all of our clinic visits include some anticipatory guidance and recommendations on ways to promote well-being and prevent illness and injury for our patients. Because of minority stress, discrimination, and increased exposure to adverse childhood experiences, LGBTQ+ patients are disproportionately affected by certain health conditions including depression, anxiety, substance use, homelessness, as well as HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs).¹ While LGBTQ+ youth could benefit from additional guidance, counseling, and interventions related to these health disparities and have expressed interest in talking about these topics with their providers, sexual and gender minority youth also stress that they want to be treated as any other youth.² Extending counseling for preventive care measures such as preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV to all sexually active youth could help to destigmatize LGBTQ+ youth as being “different” from other youth and also help to increase overall access to HIV prevention services.³

Described by some as the “birth control” for HIV infection, PrEP is taken on an ongoing basis by those who are HIV negative before potential exposures to HIV in order to prevent new HIV infections. PrEP was first approved as a daily pill for adults in 2015 by the Food and Drug Administration with extension in 2018 to all individuals at risk for HIV weighing at least 35 kg after safety and efficacy data showed it could be used routinely for adolescents.⁴ When taken daily, oral PrEP can decrease the risk of HIV from sexual contact by more than 90% and from injection drug use by around 70%. As PrEP is highly effective with low risk for side effects, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) gave PrEP a “Grade A” recommendation for use in those at high risk for HIV infection in 2019.⁵ Since efficacy is closely tied to adherence, the first injectable PrEP (given at 0, 1, and 2 months with dosing then every 2 months) was also recently FDA approved in late 2021.⁶

Since HIV infection disproportionately affects LBGTQ+ individuals, and particularly LBGTQ+ youth of color, counseling related to PrEP has been largely targeted to these groups.⁷ Insurance and financial barriers to PrEP have been greatly reduced over the past several years through changes in insurance coverage (strengthened by the USPSTF recommendation), supplemental insurance programs, and pharmaceutical copay programs. Many states (but not all) also include HIV in the definition of STIs and allow minors to consent to PrEP services without a parent or guardian. Unfortunately, despite the high efficacy of PrEP and efforts to decrease barriers, rates of PrEP use continue to be extremely low, especially in youth, with only 15.6% of those aged 16-24 who are at risk for HIV in the United States actually taking PrEP in 2019.⁸ Many barriers to PrEP continue to exist including lack of awareness of PrEP, stigma surrounding HIV and PrEP, and lack of PrEP providers.

In order to address these low rates of PrEP uptake, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now recommends that medical providers discuss PrEP with all sexually active patients.⁶ PrEP should not be seen or discussed as something only relevant to LBGTQ+ populations, but rather as another tool in everyone’s “sexual health toolbox” that can allow us to experience human connection and pleasure through sexual activity while also having more control over what happens to our bodies. Not only will this allow more patients to access PrEP directly, it will also decrease the stigma of talking about HIV and PrEP and strengthen youths’ sense of autonomy and control over their own sexual health.

Since PrEP is a relatively new medical service, many providers will need to learn more about PrEP to at least have initial discussions with patients and to feel comfortable prescribing this themselves (See Resources). Below are also some suggestions to incorporate into your practice in order to advocate for the health and well-being of all your patients, including LGBTQ+ youth.

• Once your patients are 13 years and older, spend time with them alone to confidentially discuss more sensitive topics such as sexual health, mental health, and substance use.
• For all patients who are sexually active or considering sexual activity in the near future, discuss topics to help them control what happens to their bodies including consent, condoms, birth control, PrEP, and routine STI screening.
• Recommend PrEP to anyone who is sexually active and may be at increased risk for HIV infection or who is interested in taking PrEP for HIV prevention.
• Learn more about PrEP and start prescribing it to your own patients or become familiar with providers in your area to whom you could refer patients who are interested. While no certification is needed to prescribe PrEP, programs exist to help providers become more familiar with how to prescribe PrEP.

Dr. Warus is an adolescent medicine physician who specializes in care for transgender and gender-nonconforming youth, HIV prevention for adolescents and young adults, and LGBTQ health for youth at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles. He is an assistant professor of clinical pediatrics and a University of Southern California faculty member.

Resources

CDC PrEP resources for clinicians: www.cdc.gov/hiv/clinicians/prevention/prep.html.Health HIV’s HIV Prevention Certified Provider Certification Program: https://healthhiv.org/programs/hpcp/.PrEP providers in the United States: https://preplocator.org/.Adolescent Health Working Group’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Toolkit for Adolescent Providers: https://ahwg.org/download/sexual-and-reproductive-health-toolkit-for-adolescent-providers/.

References

1. Lund EM and Burgess CM. Prim Care Clin Office Pract. 2021:48:179-89.

2. Hoffman ND et al. J Adolesc Health. 2009;45:222-9.

3. Mayer KH et al. Adv Ther. 2020;37:1778-811.

4. Hosek SG et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(11):1063-71.

5. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force; Owens DK et al. JAMA. 2019;321(22):2203-13.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: U.S. Public Health Service: Preexposure Prophylaxis for the Prevention of HIV Infection in the United States – 2021 Update: A Clinical Practice Guideline. Published 2021. Accessed July 10, 2022.

7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Estimated HIV Incidence and Prevalence in the United States, 2015-2019. HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report. 2021;26(1). Published May 2021. Accessed July 10, 2022.

8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Monitoring Selected National HIV Prevention and Care Objectives by Using HIV Surveillance Data–United States and 6 Dependent Areas, 2020. HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report. 2022;27(3).

As pediatricians, almost all of our clinic visits include some anticipatory guidance and recommendations on ways to promote well-being and prevent illness and injury for our patients. Because of minority stress, discrimination, and increased exposure to adverse childhood experiences, LGBTQ+ patients are disproportionately affected by certain health conditions including depression, anxiety, substance use, homelessness, as well as HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs).¹ While LGBTQ+ youth could benefit from additional guidance, counseling, and interventions related to these health disparities and have expressed interest in talking about these topics with their providers, sexual and gender minority youth also stress that they want to be treated as any other youth.² Extending counseling for preventive care measures such as preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV to all sexually active youth could help to destigmatize LGBTQ+ youth as being “different” from other youth and also help to increase overall access to HIV prevention services.³

Described by some as the “birth control” for HIV infection, PrEP is taken on an ongoing basis by those who are HIV negative before potential exposures to HIV in order to prevent new HIV infections. PrEP was first approved as a daily pill for adults in 2015 by the Food and Drug Administration with extension in 2018 to all individuals at risk for HIV weighing at least 35 kg after safety and efficacy data showed it could be used routinely for adolescents.⁴ When taken daily, oral PrEP can decrease the risk of HIV from sexual contact by more than 90% and from injection drug use by around 70%. As PrEP is highly effective with low risk for side effects, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) gave PrEP a “Grade A” recommendation for use in those at high risk for HIV infection in 2019.⁵ Since efficacy is closely tied to adherence, the first injectable PrEP (given at 0, 1, and 2 months with dosing then every 2 months) was also recently FDA approved in late 2021.⁶

Since HIV infection disproportionately affects LBGTQ+ individuals, and particularly LBGTQ+ youth of color, counseling related to PrEP has been largely targeted to these groups.⁷ Insurance and financial barriers to PrEP have been greatly reduced over the past several years through changes in insurance coverage (strengthened by the USPSTF recommendation), supplemental insurance programs, and pharmaceutical copay programs. Many states (but not all) also include HIV in the definition of STIs and allow minors to consent to PrEP services without a parent or guardian. Unfortunately, despite the high efficacy of PrEP and efforts to decrease barriers, rates of PrEP use continue to be extremely low, especially in youth, with only 15.6% of those aged 16-24 who are at risk for HIV in the United States actually taking PrEP in 2019.⁸ Many barriers to PrEP continue to exist including lack of awareness of PrEP, stigma surrounding HIV and PrEP, and lack of PrEP providers.

In order to address these low rates of PrEP uptake, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now recommends that medical providers discuss PrEP with all sexually active patients.⁶ PrEP should not be seen or discussed as something only relevant to LBGTQ+ populations, but rather as another tool in everyone’s “sexual health toolbox” that can allow us to experience human connection and pleasure through sexual activity while also having more control over what happens to our bodies. Not only will this allow more patients to access PrEP directly, it will also decrease the stigma of talking about HIV and PrEP and strengthen youths’ sense of autonomy and control over their own sexual health.

Since PrEP is a relatively new medical service, many providers will need to learn more about PrEP to at least have initial discussions with patients and to feel comfortable prescribing this themselves (See Resources). Below are also some suggestions to incorporate into your practice in order to advocate for the health and well-being of all your patients, including LGBTQ+ youth.

• Once your patients are 13 years and older, spend time with them alone to confidentially discuss more sensitive topics such as sexual health, mental health, and substance use.
• For all patients who are sexually active or considering sexual activity in the near future, discuss topics to help them control what happens to their bodies including consent, condoms, birth control, PrEP, and routine STI screening.
• Recommend PrEP to anyone who is sexually active and may be at increased risk for HIV infection or who is interested in taking PrEP for HIV prevention.
• Learn more about PrEP and start prescribing it to your own patients or become familiar with providers in your area to whom you could refer patients who are interested. While no certification is needed to prescribe PrEP, programs exist to help providers become more familiar with how to prescribe PrEP.

Dr. Warus is an adolescent medicine physician who specializes in care for transgender and gender-nonconforming youth, HIV prevention for adolescents and young adults, and LGBTQ health for youth at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles. He is an assistant professor of clinical pediatrics and a University of Southern California faculty member.

Resources

CDC PrEP resources for clinicians: www.cdc.gov/hiv/clinicians/prevention/prep.html.Health HIV’s HIV Prevention Certified Provider Certification Program: https://healthhiv.org/programs/hpcp/.PrEP providers in the United States: https://preplocator.org/.Adolescent Health Working Group’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Toolkit for Adolescent Providers: https://ahwg.org/download/sexual-and-reproductive-health-toolkit-for-adolescent-providers/.

References

1. Lund EM and Burgess CM. Prim Care Clin Office Pract. 2021:48:179-89.

2. Hoffman ND et al. J Adolesc Health. 2009;45:222-9.

3. Mayer KH et al. Adv Ther. 2020;37:1778-811.

4. Hosek SG et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(11):1063-71.

5. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force; Owens DK et al. JAMA. 2019;321(22):2203-13.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: U.S. Public Health Service: Preexposure Prophylaxis for the Prevention of HIV Infection in the United States – 2021 Update: A Clinical Practice Guideline. Published 2021. Accessed July 10, 2022.

7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Estimated HIV Incidence and Prevalence in the United States, 2015-2019. HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report. 2021;26(1). Published May 2021. Accessed July 10, 2022.

8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Monitoring Selected National HIV Prevention and Care Objectives by Using HIV Surveillance Data–United States and 6 Dependent Areas, 2020. HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report. 2022;27(3).

Human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination coverage of at least one dose significantly increased in U.S. adolescents from 56.1% in 2015 to 75.4% in 2020, according to the National Immunization Survey–Teen (NIS-Teen).

The telephone survey, conducted among the parents or guardians of children ages 13-17, found a faster increase in coverage among males than females: 4.7 percentage points annually versus 2.7 percentage points annually. With yearly overall survey samples ranging from 21,875 to 17,970, these coverage differences between males and females narrowed over the 5 years of the survey period.

The difference between coverage among males and females decreased from 13 to 3 percentage points. Traditionally, parents of boys have been less likely to vaccinate their sons against HPV.

Despite the increase in uptake, however, in 2020 about 25% of adolescents had not received at least one dose of HPV vaccine. “Targeted strategies are needed to increase coverage and narrow down inequalities,” Peng-jun Lu, MD, PhD, of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, and colleagues wrote in Pediatrics.

In other NIS-Teen findings:

• Coverage in 2020 was 73.7% for males and 76.8% for females (P < .05).
• Coverage rose to 80.7% for those with a provider recommendation but was only 51.7% for those without one (P < .05).
• The rate was 80.3% for those with a well-child visit at age 11-12 years and 64.8% for those without (P < .05).
• In multivariable logistic regression, the main characteristics independently associated with a higher likelihood of vaccination included a provider recommendation, age 16-17 years, and being non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, American Indian, or Alaskan Native.
• Other predictors of vaccination included having Medicaid insurance and having a mother who was widowed, divorced, or separated, or had no more than a high school education.
• Also predictive was having two or more provider contacts in the past 12 months, a well-child visit at age 11-12 years, and one or two vaccine providers (P < .05).
• Coverage among adolescents living in non-metropolitan statistical areas was significantly lower than those living in MSA principal cities in all years assessed (P < .05).

Provider recommendation remains significant and has historically been highly associated with HPV vaccination. In the 2012 NIS-Teen, for example, 15% of parents not intending to have their daughters vaccinated in the next 12 months cited the lack of a provider recommendation.

“To increase HPV vaccination coverage and further reduce HPV-related morbidity and mortality, providers, parents, and adolescents should use every health care visit as a chance to review vaccination histories and ensure that every adolescent receives the HPV vaccine and other needed vaccines,” Dr. Lu and associates wrote. But 18.5% of parents in the survey received no provider recommendation.

“Of note, we found that teenagers who had mothers with more education or who live in more rural communities had a lower likelihood of receiving vaccination against HPV,” Dr. Lu told this news organization. “Further research should be conducted to better understand these findings.”

According to Margaret E. Thew, DNP, FNP-BC, director of adolescent medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, several studies have highlighted resistance to the vaccine among better-educated parents. “Parents with higher education associate the HPV vaccine with sexual activity and consequently refuse,” said Ms. Thew, who was not involved in the NIS-Teen study. “They mistakenly assume that their children are not sexually active and they lack the understanding that HPV is one of the biggest causes of oral cancer.”

Human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination coverage of at least one dose significantly increased in U.S. adolescents from 56.1% in 2015 to 75.4% in 2020, according to the National Immunization Survey–Teen (NIS-Teen).

The telephone survey, conducted among the parents or guardians of children ages 13-17, found a faster increase in coverage among males than females: 4.7 percentage points annually versus 2.7 percentage points annually. With yearly overall survey samples ranging from 21,875 to 17,970, these coverage differences between males and females narrowed over the 5 years of the survey period.

The difference between coverage among males and females decreased from 13 to 3 percentage points. Traditionally, parents of boys have been less likely to vaccinate their sons against HPV.

Despite the increase in uptake, however, in 2020 about 25% of adolescents had not received at least one dose of HPV vaccine. “Targeted strategies are needed to increase coverage and narrow down inequalities,” Peng-jun Lu, MD, PhD, of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, and colleagues wrote in Pediatrics.

In other NIS-Teen findings:

• Coverage in 2020 was 73.7% for males and 76.8% for females (P < .05).
• Coverage rose to 80.7% for those with a provider recommendation but was only 51.7% for those without one (P < .05).
• The rate was 80.3% for those with a well-child visit at age 11-12 years and 64.8% for those without (P < .05).
• In multivariable logistic regression, the main characteristics independently associated with a higher likelihood of vaccination included a provider recommendation, age 16-17 years, and being non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, American Indian, or Alaskan Native.
• Other predictors of vaccination included having Medicaid insurance and having a mother who was widowed, divorced, or separated, or had no more than a high school education.
• Also predictive was having two or more provider contacts in the past 12 months, a well-child visit at age 11-12 years, and one or two vaccine providers (P < .05).
• Coverage among adolescents living in non-metropolitan statistical areas was significantly lower than those living in MSA principal cities in all years assessed (P < .05).

Provider recommendation remains significant and has historically been highly associated with HPV vaccination. In the 2012 NIS-Teen, for example, 15% of parents not intending to have their daughters vaccinated in the next 12 months cited the lack of a provider recommendation.

“To increase HPV vaccination coverage and further reduce HPV-related morbidity and mortality, providers, parents, and adolescents should use every health care visit as a chance to review vaccination histories and ensure that every adolescent receives the HPV vaccine and other needed vaccines,” Dr. Lu and associates wrote. But 18.5% of parents in the survey received no provider recommendation.

“Of note, we found that teenagers who had mothers with more education or who live in more rural communities had a lower likelihood of receiving vaccination against HPV,” Dr. Lu told this news organization. “Further research should be conducted to better understand these findings.”

According to Margaret E. Thew, DNP, FNP-BC, director of adolescent medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, several studies have highlighted resistance to the vaccine among better-educated parents. “Parents with higher education associate the HPV vaccine with sexual activity and consequently refuse,” said Ms. Thew, who was not involved in the NIS-Teen study. “They mistakenly assume that their children are not sexually active and they lack the understanding that HPV is one of the biggest causes of oral cancer.”

Human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination coverage of at least one dose significantly increased in U.S. adolescents from 56.1% in 2015 to 75.4% in 2020, according to the National Immunization Survey–Teen (NIS-Teen).

The telephone survey, conducted among the parents or guardians of children ages 13-17, found a faster increase in coverage among males than females: 4.7 percentage points annually versus 2.7 percentage points annually. With yearly overall survey samples ranging from 21,875 to 17,970, these coverage differences between males and females narrowed over the 5 years of the survey period.

The difference between coverage among males and females decreased from 13 to 3 percentage points. Traditionally, parents of boys have been less likely to vaccinate their sons against HPV.

Despite the increase in uptake, however, in 2020 about 25% of adolescents had not received at least one dose of HPV vaccine. “Targeted strategies are needed to increase coverage and narrow down inequalities,” Peng-jun Lu, MD, PhD, of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, and colleagues wrote in Pediatrics.

In other NIS-Teen findings:

• Coverage in 2020 was 73.7% for males and 76.8% for females (P < .05).
• Coverage rose to 80.7% for those with a provider recommendation but was only 51.7% for those without one (P < .05).
• The rate was 80.3% for those with a well-child visit at age 11-12 years and 64.8% for those without (P < .05).
• In multivariable logistic regression, the main characteristics independently associated with a higher likelihood of vaccination included a provider recommendation, age 16-17 years, and being non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, American Indian, or Alaskan Native.
• Other predictors of vaccination included having Medicaid insurance and having a mother who was widowed, divorced, or separated, or had no more than a high school education.
• Also predictive was having two or more provider contacts in the past 12 months, a well-child visit at age 11-12 years, and one or two vaccine providers (P < .05).
• Coverage among adolescents living in non-metropolitan statistical areas was significantly lower than those living in MSA principal cities in all years assessed (P < .05).

Provider recommendation remains significant and has historically been highly associated with HPV vaccination. In the 2012 NIS-Teen, for example, 15% of parents not intending to have their daughters vaccinated in the next 12 months cited the lack of a provider recommendation.

“To increase HPV vaccination coverage and further reduce HPV-related morbidity and mortality, providers, parents, and adolescents should use every health care visit as a chance to review vaccination histories and ensure that every adolescent receives the HPV vaccine and other needed vaccines,” Dr. Lu and associates wrote. But 18.5% of parents in the survey received no provider recommendation.

“Of note, we found that teenagers who had mothers with more education or who live in more rural communities had a lower likelihood of receiving vaccination against HPV,” Dr. Lu told this news organization. “Further research should be conducted to better understand these findings.”

According to Margaret E. Thew, DNP, FNP-BC, director of adolescent medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, several studies have highlighted resistance to the vaccine among better-educated parents. “Parents with higher education associate the HPV vaccine with sexual activity and consequently refuse,” said Ms. Thew, who was not involved in the NIS-Teen study. “They mistakenly assume that their children are not sexually active and they lack the understanding that HPV is one of the biggest causes of oral cancer.”