User login
Reducing risk for thrombosis in patients with lung cancer
CHICAGO – Having cancer is a known risk factor for thrombosis. A patient with cancer has a fourfold risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE).
This risk may be increased by certain cancer drugs, which seems to be the case for the combination of innovative targeted therapies lazertinib-amivantamab, as shown in patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer.
A study of this increased risk of VTE was presented by Nicolas Girard, MD, a respiratory medicine specialist at Curie-Montsouris Chest Center in Paris, during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Combination therapies
Amivantamab is an EGFR and cMET bispecific antibody, and lazertinib is a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Prescribed after osimertinib or after osimertinib plus chemotherapy, this combination of amivantamab and lazertinib has been evaluated in several cohorts of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non–small cell lung cancer in whom targeted therapy and chemotherapy has failed.
The antitumor activity appears to be improved when both therapies are given in combination. The side effects generally are acceptable. It is these side effects, particularly the rate of VTEs, that Dr. Girard and his colleagues are interested in.
The researchers collated the data from the ongoing CHRYSALIS, CHRYSALIS-2, and LASER201 clinical trials, which assess the efficacy of these new agents as monotherapy or in combination. They initially investigated all reported thrombotic events and ruled out those that occurred during or after the 30 days before disease progression.
Increased thrombosis risk
The analysis included 560 patients who had been given amivantamab as monotherapy, 536 patients who had received amivantamab plus lazertinib in combination, and 252 who had taken lazertinib as monotherapy. The incidence of thromboembolic events was higher among patients who received amivantamab plus lazertinib in combination (21%) than in those who were given amivantamab (11%) or lazertinib (11%) as monotherapy.
The first thromboembolic event occurred an average of 84.5 days after starting treatment with amivantamab, 79 days after starting the combination therapy, and 170 days after starting treatment with lazertinib. For the amivantamab plus lazertinib combination, most VTEs developed in the first 4 months of treatment. The most common VTEs were pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis.
The incidence of severe thrombotic events (grade ≥ 3), which was relatively low (amivantamab, 5%; amivantamab plus lazertinib, 6%; lazertinib, 6%) was similar regardless of the treatment, and there were no grade 5 thrombotic events among patients treated with the combination of both targeted therapies.
The significant risk factors for VTEs identified in this study were being age 60 years or older, having a score of 1 on the ECOG Performance Status Scale, and response to treatment (P < .05).
At a press conference organized by the Institut Curie before the ASCO conference, Dr. Girard said, “There has been shown to be an increased risk of blood clots with the use of this combination of targeted therapies. Preventive measures should therefore also be put forward, such as adding anticoagulant medication. This is an important study for the further development of these therapies.”
In a press release, the respiratory medicine specialist noted, “Institut Curie is particularly alert to the issue of the risk of thrombosis arising in cancer patients.” The DASTO project, dedicated to this issue and headed by the Institut Curie, “aims to cross-reference data sourced from several French cancer centers with data from the social security system to understand the risk factors, improve patient treatment, make changes to the care pathway, and prevent this unwanted occurrence from arising.”
Dr. Girard has direct links with Amgen, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Ipsen, Janssen, Roche, Lilly, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, OSE Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Sivan.
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – Having cancer is a known risk factor for thrombosis. A patient with cancer has a fourfold risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE).
This risk may be increased by certain cancer drugs, which seems to be the case for the combination of innovative targeted therapies lazertinib-amivantamab, as shown in patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer.
A study of this increased risk of VTE was presented by Nicolas Girard, MD, a respiratory medicine specialist at Curie-Montsouris Chest Center in Paris, during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Combination therapies
Amivantamab is an EGFR and cMET bispecific antibody, and lazertinib is a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Prescribed after osimertinib or after osimertinib plus chemotherapy, this combination of amivantamab and lazertinib has been evaluated in several cohorts of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non–small cell lung cancer in whom targeted therapy and chemotherapy has failed.
The antitumor activity appears to be improved when both therapies are given in combination. The side effects generally are acceptable. It is these side effects, particularly the rate of VTEs, that Dr. Girard and his colleagues are interested in.
The researchers collated the data from the ongoing CHRYSALIS, CHRYSALIS-2, and LASER201 clinical trials, which assess the efficacy of these new agents as monotherapy or in combination. They initially investigated all reported thrombotic events and ruled out those that occurred during or after the 30 days before disease progression.
Increased thrombosis risk
The analysis included 560 patients who had been given amivantamab as monotherapy, 536 patients who had received amivantamab plus lazertinib in combination, and 252 who had taken lazertinib as monotherapy. The incidence of thromboembolic events was higher among patients who received amivantamab plus lazertinib in combination (21%) than in those who were given amivantamab (11%) or lazertinib (11%) as monotherapy.
The first thromboembolic event occurred an average of 84.5 days after starting treatment with amivantamab, 79 days after starting the combination therapy, and 170 days after starting treatment with lazertinib. For the amivantamab plus lazertinib combination, most VTEs developed in the first 4 months of treatment. The most common VTEs were pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis.
The incidence of severe thrombotic events (grade ≥ 3), which was relatively low (amivantamab, 5%; amivantamab plus lazertinib, 6%; lazertinib, 6%) was similar regardless of the treatment, and there were no grade 5 thrombotic events among patients treated with the combination of both targeted therapies.
The significant risk factors for VTEs identified in this study were being age 60 years or older, having a score of 1 on the ECOG Performance Status Scale, and response to treatment (P < .05).
At a press conference organized by the Institut Curie before the ASCO conference, Dr. Girard said, “There has been shown to be an increased risk of blood clots with the use of this combination of targeted therapies. Preventive measures should therefore also be put forward, such as adding anticoagulant medication. This is an important study for the further development of these therapies.”
In a press release, the respiratory medicine specialist noted, “Institut Curie is particularly alert to the issue of the risk of thrombosis arising in cancer patients.” The DASTO project, dedicated to this issue and headed by the Institut Curie, “aims to cross-reference data sourced from several French cancer centers with data from the social security system to understand the risk factors, improve patient treatment, make changes to the care pathway, and prevent this unwanted occurrence from arising.”
Dr. Girard has direct links with Amgen, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Ipsen, Janssen, Roche, Lilly, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, OSE Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Sivan.
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – Having cancer is a known risk factor for thrombosis. A patient with cancer has a fourfold risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE).
This risk may be increased by certain cancer drugs, which seems to be the case for the combination of innovative targeted therapies lazertinib-amivantamab, as shown in patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer.
A study of this increased risk of VTE was presented by Nicolas Girard, MD, a respiratory medicine specialist at Curie-Montsouris Chest Center in Paris, during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Combination therapies
Amivantamab is an EGFR and cMET bispecific antibody, and lazertinib is a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Prescribed after osimertinib or after osimertinib plus chemotherapy, this combination of amivantamab and lazertinib has been evaluated in several cohorts of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non–small cell lung cancer in whom targeted therapy and chemotherapy has failed.
The antitumor activity appears to be improved when both therapies are given in combination. The side effects generally are acceptable. It is these side effects, particularly the rate of VTEs, that Dr. Girard and his colleagues are interested in.
The researchers collated the data from the ongoing CHRYSALIS, CHRYSALIS-2, and LASER201 clinical trials, which assess the efficacy of these new agents as monotherapy or in combination. They initially investigated all reported thrombotic events and ruled out those that occurred during or after the 30 days before disease progression.
Increased thrombosis risk
The analysis included 560 patients who had been given amivantamab as monotherapy, 536 patients who had received amivantamab plus lazertinib in combination, and 252 who had taken lazertinib as monotherapy. The incidence of thromboembolic events was higher among patients who received amivantamab plus lazertinib in combination (21%) than in those who were given amivantamab (11%) or lazertinib (11%) as monotherapy.
The first thromboembolic event occurred an average of 84.5 days after starting treatment with amivantamab, 79 days after starting the combination therapy, and 170 days after starting treatment with lazertinib. For the amivantamab plus lazertinib combination, most VTEs developed in the first 4 months of treatment. The most common VTEs were pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis.
The incidence of severe thrombotic events (grade ≥ 3), which was relatively low (amivantamab, 5%; amivantamab plus lazertinib, 6%; lazertinib, 6%) was similar regardless of the treatment, and there were no grade 5 thrombotic events among patients treated with the combination of both targeted therapies.
The significant risk factors for VTEs identified in this study were being age 60 years or older, having a score of 1 on the ECOG Performance Status Scale, and response to treatment (P < .05).
At a press conference organized by the Institut Curie before the ASCO conference, Dr. Girard said, “There has been shown to be an increased risk of blood clots with the use of this combination of targeted therapies. Preventive measures should therefore also be put forward, such as adding anticoagulant medication. This is an important study for the further development of these therapies.”
In a press release, the respiratory medicine specialist noted, “Institut Curie is particularly alert to the issue of the risk of thrombosis arising in cancer patients.” The DASTO project, dedicated to this issue and headed by the Institut Curie, “aims to cross-reference data sourced from several French cancer centers with data from the social security system to understand the risk factors, improve patient treatment, make changes to the care pathway, and prevent this unwanted occurrence from arising.”
Dr. Girard has direct links with Amgen, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Ipsen, Janssen, Roche, Lilly, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, OSE Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Sivan.
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ASCO 2023
Myths about smoking, diet, alcohol, and cancer persist
FRANCE – Conducted every 5 years since 2005, the Cancer Survey documents the knowledge, perceptions, and way of life of the French people in relation to cancer. The researchers analyzed responses to telephone interviews of a representative sample of almost 5,000 individuals aged 15-85 years.
This study shows how thinking has changed over time and how difficult it is to alter preconceived notions.
Is cancer hereditary?
The report shows that 67.7% of respondents believe that cancer is a hereditary disease. Respondents were asked to explain their answer. “Data show that medical practices for cancer treatment substantiate this belief [that cancer is hereditary],” wrote the authors of the report.
“Indeed, health care professionals almost systematically ask questions about family history of breast cancer and, when a family member has been diagnosed with cancer, medical monitoring of other family members is often sought out, thus reinforcing the belief that cancer is hereditary,” they said.
Furthermore, there seems to be confusion regarding the role of genes in the development of cancer. A person can inherit cancer-predisposing genes, not cancer itself. The authors highlighted their concern that this confusion may “lead people to think that prevention measures are unnecessary because cancer is inherited.”
Misconceptions about smoking
About 41% of smokers think that the length of time one has been smoking is the biggest determining factor for developing cancer; 58.1% think the number of cigarettes smoked per day has a bigger impact.
Experts at InCA and SPF put the debate to rest, stating that prolonged exposure to carcinogenic substances is far more toxic. As for the danger threshold concerning the number of cigarettes smoked per day, respondents believed this to be 9.2 cigarettes per day, on average. They believed that the danger threshold for the number of years as an active smoker is 13.4, on average.
“The [survey] respondents clearly understand that smoking carries a risk, but many smokers think that light smoking or smoking for a short period of time doesn’t carry any risks.” Yet it is understood that even occasional tobacco consumption increases mortality.
This was not the only misconception regarding smoking and its relationship with cancer. About 34% of survey respondents agreed with the following statement: “Smoking doesn’t cause cancer unless you’re a heavy smoker and have smoked for a long time.” Furthermore, 43.3% agreed with the statement, “Pollution is more likely to cause cancer than smoking,” 54.6% think that “exercising cleans your lungs of tobacco,” and 61.6% think that “a smoker can prevent developing cancer caused by smoking if they know to quit on time.”
Overweight and obesity
Although diet and excess weight represent the third and fourth biggest avoidable cancer risk factors, after smoking and alcohol, only 30% of survey respondents knew of this link.
“Among the causes of cancer known and cited by respondents without prompting, excessive weight and obesity were mentioned only 100 times out of 12,558 responses,” highlighted the authors of the report. The explanation put forward by the authors is that discourse about diet has been more focused on diet as a protective health factor, especially in preventing cardiovascular diseases. “The link between cancer and diet is less prominent in the public space,” they noted.
Breastfeeding and cancer
About 63% of survey respondents, which for the first time included both women and men, believe that breastfeeding does not affect mothers’ risk of breast cancer, but this is a misconception. And almost 1 in 3 respondents said that breastfeeding provides health benefits for the mother.
Artificial UV rays
Exposure to UV rays, whether of natural or artificial origin, is a major risk factor for skin cancer. However, 1 in 5 people (20.9%) think that a session in a tanning bed is less harmful than sun exposure.
Daily stress
Regarding psychological factors linked to cancer, the authors noted that risk factors not supported by scientific evidence were, ironically, cited more often by respondents than proven risk factors. There is a real knowledge gap between scientific data and the beliefs of the French people. For example, “working at night” is largely not seen as a risk factor, but data show that it presents a clear risk. However, “not being able to express one’s feelings,” “having been weakened by traumatic experiences,” and “being exposed to the stress of modern life” are seen as risk factors of cancer, without any scientific evidence.
Cigarettes and e-cigarettes
About 53% of respondents agreed that “e-cigarettes are just as harmful or more harmful than traditional cigarettes.” Nicotine and the flavors in e-cigarettes are largely perceived as “very” or “extremely” harmful to the health of a person. However, the authors note that “no published study on nicotine substitutes has shown harmful effects on the health of a person, let alone determined it a risk factor for cancer. The nicotine doses in e-cigarettes are similar to traditional nicotine substitutes, and no cytotoxic effect of nicotine in its inhaled form has been found.” There seems to be confusion between dependence and risk of cancer.
Alcohol consumption
Eight of 10 respondents believe that “some people can drink a lot of alcohol all their life without ever getting cancer,” which goes against the scientific literature. The authors of the report state that the negative effects of alcohol on health seem poorly understood. Although alcohol is the second biggest cause of cancer, only a third of survey respondents cited it without having been prompted as one of the main causes of cancer. And 23.5% even think that “in terms of decreasing your risk of cancer, it’s better to drink a little wine than to drink no wine at all.”
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FRANCE – Conducted every 5 years since 2005, the Cancer Survey documents the knowledge, perceptions, and way of life of the French people in relation to cancer. The researchers analyzed responses to telephone interviews of a representative sample of almost 5,000 individuals aged 15-85 years.
This study shows how thinking has changed over time and how difficult it is to alter preconceived notions.
Is cancer hereditary?
The report shows that 67.7% of respondents believe that cancer is a hereditary disease. Respondents were asked to explain their answer. “Data show that medical practices for cancer treatment substantiate this belief [that cancer is hereditary],” wrote the authors of the report.
“Indeed, health care professionals almost systematically ask questions about family history of breast cancer and, when a family member has been diagnosed with cancer, medical monitoring of other family members is often sought out, thus reinforcing the belief that cancer is hereditary,” they said.
Furthermore, there seems to be confusion regarding the role of genes in the development of cancer. A person can inherit cancer-predisposing genes, not cancer itself. The authors highlighted their concern that this confusion may “lead people to think that prevention measures are unnecessary because cancer is inherited.”
Misconceptions about smoking
About 41% of smokers think that the length of time one has been smoking is the biggest determining factor for developing cancer; 58.1% think the number of cigarettes smoked per day has a bigger impact.
Experts at InCA and SPF put the debate to rest, stating that prolonged exposure to carcinogenic substances is far more toxic. As for the danger threshold concerning the number of cigarettes smoked per day, respondents believed this to be 9.2 cigarettes per day, on average. They believed that the danger threshold for the number of years as an active smoker is 13.4, on average.
“The [survey] respondents clearly understand that smoking carries a risk, but many smokers think that light smoking or smoking for a short period of time doesn’t carry any risks.” Yet it is understood that even occasional tobacco consumption increases mortality.
This was not the only misconception regarding smoking and its relationship with cancer. About 34% of survey respondents agreed with the following statement: “Smoking doesn’t cause cancer unless you’re a heavy smoker and have smoked for a long time.” Furthermore, 43.3% agreed with the statement, “Pollution is more likely to cause cancer than smoking,” 54.6% think that “exercising cleans your lungs of tobacco,” and 61.6% think that “a smoker can prevent developing cancer caused by smoking if they know to quit on time.”
Overweight and obesity
Although diet and excess weight represent the third and fourth biggest avoidable cancer risk factors, after smoking and alcohol, only 30% of survey respondents knew of this link.
“Among the causes of cancer known and cited by respondents without prompting, excessive weight and obesity were mentioned only 100 times out of 12,558 responses,” highlighted the authors of the report. The explanation put forward by the authors is that discourse about diet has been more focused on diet as a protective health factor, especially in preventing cardiovascular diseases. “The link between cancer and diet is less prominent in the public space,” they noted.
Breastfeeding and cancer
About 63% of survey respondents, which for the first time included both women and men, believe that breastfeeding does not affect mothers’ risk of breast cancer, but this is a misconception. And almost 1 in 3 respondents said that breastfeeding provides health benefits for the mother.
Artificial UV rays
Exposure to UV rays, whether of natural or artificial origin, is a major risk factor for skin cancer. However, 1 in 5 people (20.9%) think that a session in a tanning bed is less harmful than sun exposure.
Daily stress
Regarding psychological factors linked to cancer, the authors noted that risk factors not supported by scientific evidence were, ironically, cited more often by respondents than proven risk factors. There is a real knowledge gap between scientific data and the beliefs of the French people. For example, “working at night” is largely not seen as a risk factor, but data show that it presents a clear risk. However, “not being able to express one’s feelings,” “having been weakened by traumatic experiences,” and “being exposed to the stress of modern life” are seen as risk factors of cancer, without any scientific evidence.
Cigarettes and e-cigarettes
About 53% of respondents agreed that “e-cigarettes are just as harmful or more harmful than traditional cigarettes.” Nicotine and the flavors in e-cigarettes are largely perceived as “very” or “extremely” harmful to the health of a person. However, the authors note that “no published study on nicotine substitutes has shown harmful effects on the health of a person, let alone determined it a risk factor for cancer. The nicotine doses in e-cigarettes are similar to traditional nicotine substitutes, and no cytotoxic effect of nicotine in its inhaled form has been found.” There seems to be confusion between dependence and risk of cancer.
Alcohol consumption
Eight of 10 respondents believe that “some people can drink a lot of alcohol all their life without ever getting cancer,” which goes against the scientific literature. The authors of the report state that the negative effects of alcohol on health seem poorly understood. Although alcohol is the second biggest cause of cancer, only a third of survey respondents cited it without having been prompted as one of the main causes of cancer. And 23.5% even think that “in terms of decreasing your risk of cancer, it’s better to drink a little wine than to drink no wine at all.”
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FRANCE – Conducted every 5 years since 2005, the Cancer Survey documents the knowledge, perceptions, and way of life of the French people in relation to cancer. The researchers analyzed responses to telephone interviews of a representative sample of almost 5,000 individuals aged 15-85 years.
This study shows how thinking has changed over time and how difficult it is to alter preconceived notions.
Is cancer hereditary?
The report shows that 67.7% of respondents believe that cancer is a hereditary disease. Respondents were asked to explain their answer. “Data show that medical practices for cancer treatment substantiate this belief [that cancer is hereditary],” wrote the authors of the report.
“Indeed, health care professionals almost systematically ask questions about family history of breast cancer and, when a family member has been diagnosed with cancer, medical monitoring of other family members is often sought out, thus reinforcing the belief that cancer is hereditary,” they said.
Furthermore, there seems to be confusion regarding the role of genes in the development of cancer. A person can inherit cancer-predisposing genes, not cancer itself. The authors highlighted their concern that this confusion may “lead people to think that prevention measures are unnecessary because cancer is inherited.”
Misconceptions about smoking
About 41% of smokers think that the length of time one has been smoking is the biggest determining factor for developing cancer; 58.1% think the number of cigarettes smoked per day has a bigger impact.
Experts at InCA and SPF put the debate to rest, stating that prolonged exposure to carcinogenic substances is far more toxic. As for the danger threshold concerning the number of cigarettes smoked per day, respondents believed this to be 9.2 cigarettes per day, on average. They believed that the danger threshold for the number of years as an active smoker is 13.4, on average.
“The [survey] respondents clearly understand that smoking carries a risk, but many smokers think that light smoking or smoking for a short period of time doesn’t carry any risks.” Yet it is understood that even occasional tobacco consumption increases mortality.
This was not the only misconception regarding smoking and its relationship with cancer. About 34% of survey respondents agreed with the following statement: “Smoking doesn’t cause cancer unless you’re a heavy smoker and have smoked for a long time.” Furthermore, 43.3% agreed with the statement, “Pollution is more likely to cause cancer than smoking,” 54.6% think that “exercising cleans your lungs of tobacco,” and 61.6% think that “a smoker can prevent developing cancer caused by smoking if they know to quit on time.”
Overweight and obesity
Although diet and excess weight represent the third and fourth biggest avoidable cancer risk factors, after smoking and alcohol, only 30% of survey respondents knew of this link.
“Among the causes of cancer known and cited by respondents without prompting, excessive weight and obesity were mentioned only 100 times out of 12,558 responses,” highlighted the authors of the report. The explanation put forward by the authors is that discourse about diet has been more focused on diet as a protective health factor, especially in preventing cardiovascular diseases. “The link between cancer and diet is less prominent in the public space,” they noted.
Breastfeeding and cancer
About 63% of survey respondents, which for the first time included both women and men, believe that breastfeeding does not affect mothers’ risk of breast cancer, but this is a misconception. And almost 1 in 3 respondents said that breastfeeding provides health benefits for the mother.
Artificial UV rays
Exposure to UV rays, whether of natural or artificial origin, is a major risk factor for skin cancer. However, 1 in 5 people (20.9%) think that a session in a tanning bed is less harmful than sun exposure.
Daily stress
Regarding psychological factors linked to cancer, the authors noted that risk factors not supported by scientific evidence were, ironically, cited more often by respondents than proven risk factors. There is a real knowledge gap between scientific data and the beliefs of the French people. For example, “working at night” is largely not seen as a risk factor, but data show that it presents a clear risk. However, “not being able to express one’s feelings,” “having been weakened by traumatic experiences,” and “being exposed to the stress of modern life” are seen as risk factors of cancer, without any scientific evidence.
Cigarettes and e-cigarettes
About 53% of respondents agreed that “e-cigarettes are just as harmful or more harmful than traditional cigarettes.” Nicotine and the flavors in e-cigarettes are largely perceived as “very” or “extremely” harmful to the health of a person. However, the authors note that “no published study on nicotine substitutes has shown harmful effects on the health of a person, let alone determined it a risk factor for cancer. The nicotine doses in e-cigarettes are similar to traditional nicotine substitutes, and no cytotoxic effect of nicotine in its inhaled form has been found.” There seems to be confusion between dependence and risk of cancer.
Alcohol consumption
Eight of 10 respondents believe that “some people can drink a lot of alcohol all their life without ever getting cancer,” which goes against the scientific literature. The authors of the report state that the negative effects of alcohol on health seem poorly understood. Although alcohol is the second biggest cause of cancer, only a third of survey respondents cited it without having been prompted as one of the main causes of cancer. And 23.5% even think that “in terms of decreasing your risk of cancer, it’s better to drink a little wine than to drink no wine at all.”
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Bacterial vaginosis linked with persistent HPV infections
Montrouge, France – Four in five women will be infected by one or more human papillomavirus (HPV) strains during their lifetimes. For most of these women, the HPV will be cleared from the body, but 5% of them will develop precancerous lesions in the cervix.
At a press conference ahead of the 46th meeting of the French Colposcopy and Cervical and Vaginal Diseases Society, Julia Maruani, MD, a medical gynecologist in Marseille, France, took the opportunity to discuss the importance of vaginal flora and the need to treat cases of bacterial vaginosis.
Striking a balance
Essential for reducing the risk of sexually transmitted infections, a healthy vaginal flora is made up of millions of microorganisms, mainly lactobacilli, as well as other bacteria (Gardnerella vaginalis, Atopobium vaginae, Prevotella, streptococcus, gonococcus), HPV, and fungi.
Lactobacilli produce lactic acid, which reduces the vagina’s pH, as well as hydrogen peroxide, which is toxic to the other bacteria.
Different factors, such as alcohol, a diet rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids and sugar, and especially smoking, can lead to an imbalance of the bacteria in the vaginal flora and thus result in vaginosis. What occurs is an abnormal multiplication of different types of anaerobic bacteria that are normally present in much lower numbers. There is a relative reduction in lactobacilli, which results in an increased vaginal pH, a greater risk of contracting an STI, and reduced clearance of the HPV infection. “Women who smoke probably experience persistent HPV infections due to an imbalance in vaginal flora,” said Dr. Maruani.
Vaginosis and HPV
When there are fewer lactobacilli than there should be, these bacteria can no longer protect the vaginal mucosa, which is disrupted by other bacteria. “HPV then has access to the basal cells,” said Dr. Maruani, acknowledging that the relationship between bacterial vaginosis and persistent HPV infections has been the subject of numerous research studies over the past decade or so. “For years, I would see this same link in my patients. Those with persistent vaginosis were also the ones with persistent HPV. And I’m not the only one to notice this. Studies have also been carried out investigating this exact correlation,” she added.
These studies have shown that HPV infections persist in cases of vaginosis, resulting in the appearance of epithelial lesions. Additionally, the lesions are more severe when dysbiosis is more severe.
What about probiotics? Can they treat dysbiosis and an HPV infection at the same time? “Probiotics work very well for vaginosis, provided they are used for a long time. We know that they lessen HPV infections and low-grade lesions,” said Dr. Maruani, although no randomized studies support this conclusion. “It’s not a one size fits all. We aren’t about to treat patients with precancerous lesions with probiotics.” There are currently no data concerning the efficacy of probiotics on high-grade lesions. These days, Dr. Maruani has been thinking about a new issue: the benefit of diagnosing cases of asymptomatic vaginosis – because treating them would reduce the risk of persistent HPV infection.
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Montrouge, France – Four in five women will be infected by one or more human papillomavirus (HPV) strains during their lifetimes. For most of these women, the HPV will be cleared from the body, but 5% of them will develop precancerous lesions in the cervix.
At a press conference ahead of the 46th meeting of the French Colposcopy and Cervical and Vaginal Diseases Society, Julia Maruani, MD, a medical gynecologist in Marseille, France, took the opportunity to discuss the importance of vaginal flora and the need to treat cases of bacterial vaginosis.
Striking a balance
Essential for reducing the risk of sexually transmitted infections, a healthy vaginal flora is made up of millions of microorganisms, mainly lactobacilli, as well as other bacteria (Gardnerella vaginalis, Atopobium vaginae, Prevotella, streptococcus, gonococcus), HPV, and fungi.
Lactobacilli produce lactic acid, which reduces the vagina’s pH, as well as hydrogen peroxide, which is toxic to the other bacteria.
Different factors, such as alcohol, a diet rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids and sugar, and especially smoking, can lead to an imbalance of the bacteria in the vaginal flora and thus result in vaginosis. What occurs is an abnormal multiplication of different types of anaerobic bacteria that are normally present in much lower numbers. There is a relative reduction in lactobacilli, which results in an increased vaginal pH, a greater risk of contracting an STI, and reduced clearance of the HPV infection. “Women who smoke probably experience persistent HPV infections due to an imbalance in vaginal flora,” said Dr. Maruani.
Vaginosis and HPV
When there are fewer lactobacilli than there should be, these bacteria can no longer protect the vaginal mucosa, which is disrupted by other bacteria. “HPV then has access to the basal cells,” said Dr. Maruani, acknowledging that the relationship between bacterial vaginosis and persistent HPV infections has been the subject of numerous research studies over the past decade or so. “For years, I would see this same link in my patients. Those with persistent vaginosis were also the ones with persistent HPV. And I’m not the only one to notice this. Studies have also been carried out investigating this exact correlation,” she added.
These studies have shown that HPV infections persist in cases of vaginosis, resulting in the appearance of epithelial lesions. Additionally, the lesions are more severe when dysbiosis is more severe.
What about probiotics? Can they treat dysbiosis and an HPV infection at the same time? “Probiotics work very well for vaginosis, provided they are used for a long time. We know that they lessen HPV infections and low-grade lesions,” said Dr. Maruani, although no randomized studies support this conclusion. “It’s not a one size fits all. We aren’t about to treat patients with precancerous lesions with probiotics.” There are currently no data concerning the efficacy of probiotics on high-grade lesions. These days, Dr. Maruani has been thinking about a new issue: the benefit of diagnosing cases of asymptomatic vaginosis – because treating them would reduce the risk of persistent HPV infection.
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Montrouge, France – Four in five women will be infected by one or more human papillomavirus (HPV) strains during their lifetimes. For most of these women, the HPV will be cleared from the body, but 5% of them will develop precancerous lesions in the cervix.
At a press conference ahead of the 46th meeting of the French Colposcopy and Cervical and Vaginal Diseases Society, Julia Maruani, MD, a medical gynecologist in Marseille, France, took the opportunity to discuss the importance of vaginal flora and the need to treat cases of bacterial vaginosis.
Striking a balance
Essential for reducing the risk of sexually transmitted infections, a healthy vaginal flora is made up of millions of microorganisms, mainly lactobacilli, as well as other bacteria (Gardnerella vaginalis, Atopobium vaginae, Prevotella, streptococcus, gonococcus), HPV, and fungi.
Lactobacilli produce lactic acid, which reduces the vagina’s pH, as well as hydrogen peroxide, which is toxic to the other bacteria.
Different factors, such as alcohol, a diet rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids and sugar, and especially smoking, can lead to an imbalance of the bacteria in the vaginal flora and thus result in vaginosis. What occurs is an abnormal multiplication of different types of anaerobic bacteria that are normally present in much lower numbers. There is a relative reduction in lactobacilli, which results in an increased vaginal pH, a greater risk of contracting an STI, and reduced clearance of the HPV infection. “Women who smoke probably experience persistent HPV infections due to an imbalance in vaginal flora,” said Dr. Maruani.
Vaginosis and HPV
When there are fewer lactobacilli than there should be, these bacteria can no longer protect the vaginal mucosa, which is disrupted by other bacteria. “HPV then has access to the basal cells,” said Dr. Maruani, acknowledging that the relationship between bacterial vaginosis and persistent HPV infections has been the subject of numerous research studies over the past decade or so. “For years, I would see this same link in my patients. Those with persistent vaginosis were also the ones with persistent HPV. And I’m not the only one to notice this. Studies have also been carried out investigating this exact correlation,” she added.
These studies have shown that HPV infections persist in cases of vaginosis, resulting in the appearance of epithelial lesions. Additionally, the lesions are more severe when dysbiosis is more severe.
What about probiotics? Can they treat dysbiosis and an HPV infection at the same time? “Probiotics work very well for vaginosis, provided they are used for a long time. We know that they lessen HPV infections and low-grade lesions,” said Dr. Maruani, although no randomized studies support this conclusion. “It’s not a one size fits all. We aren’t about to treat patients with precancerous lesions with probiotics.” There are currently no data concerning the efficacy of probiotics on high-grade lesions. These days, Dr. Maruani has been thinking about a new issue: the benefit of diagnosing cases of asymptomatic vaginosis – because treating them would reduce the risk of persistent HPV infection.
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Which populations should be screened for cervical cancer?
Montrouge, France – Whether you are a cisgender woman or a transgender man who has kept his uterus, regardless of the sex of your partner, and even if you are a woman who is no longer sexually active, you must take part in cervical cancer screening. This is the reminder issued by Julia Maruani, MD, a medical gynecologist in Marseille, France, at a press conference ahead of the 46th meeting of the French Colposcopy and Cervical-Vaginal Diseases Society (SFCPCV).
Cervical screening currently targets asymptomatic, immunocompetent, and sexually active women between ages 25 and 65 years.
Sex between women
There is a widely held belief that only men can transmit human papillomavirus (HPV). “If you are in a sexual relationship with a man, then yes, you can get HPV from him. But it’s also possible for HPV to be transmitted in a sexual relationship between two women via touch, bodily fluids, or sex toys,” said Dr. Maruani, who pointed out that 20% of lesbians and 30% of bisexual women are HPV carriers.
Because women who have sexual relationships with other women have the mistaken view that their demographic is less affected, they are less likely to take part in cervical screening. They also present more often with advanced lesions and with cancer because of the lack of screening in this group.
Transgender men
Dr. Maruani defines transgender men as “women who have changed gender and who have become men.” Why are they affected by cervical screening? Not all of them are. Those who’ve had their uterus removed no longer have a cervix, so this screening doesn’t affect them. But hysterectomies are rarely performed, as they’re not required in most European countries to legally change gender.
The figures are concerning: 27% of transgender men are screened versus 60% of cisgender females.
“For this demographic, specialist gynecology appointments are hard to come by. Sitting in a women’s waiting room is not easy,” said Dr. Maruani, recalling that often discussion about the transition phase takes up the entire appointment time. It’s also usually the case that any medical problems or health care prevention issues not related to the topic of transitioning are not discussed.
Moreover, the online appointment-booking software doesn’t allow transgender men who have kept their cervix and legally identify as men to make an appointment. “Gynecologists must disable this default option,” said Dr. Maruani.
Likewise, transgender men will not receive an invitation to take part in cervical or breast cancer screening, as they are identified as male by social security services and screening sites. Furthermore, in what Dr. Maruani referred to as an “administrative head-scratcher that needs to change,” some medical procedures are not funded for men.
Yet the risk of contracting HPV is higher among transgender men than in the rest of the population because of different sexual practices in this demographic, as well as the propensity to have multiple sexual partners. The risk of finding abnormalities on cytology screening is greater.
Although data regarding cancer are lacking, “if screening is inadequate but the risk of infection with HPV is great, logic tells us that there will be more lesions, more cancer” in this demographic, said Dr. Maruani.
Celibate women
Nowadays, screening drops with age in women, especially after menopause. This is especially true for women who are no longer sexually active. Another preconceived notion to be addressed is that women who are no longer sexually active no longer need screening. But this concept completely goes against the natural history of HPV infection. “There are years, at least 5, between infection and the development of precancerous lesions. There is a further 5 years between a precancerous lesion and cancer,” said Dr. Maruani.
A woman could still be at risk even 20 years after contracting HPV. Approximately 80% of women are exposed to HPV, and 5%-10% have a persistent infection that could lead to the development of precancerous lesions.
“So, a woman who is no longer sexually active can’t stop participating in cervical screening, especially since there aren’t any symptoms until a fairly advanced stage of cancer.” No longer having sex does not mean that screening can be stopped.
What treatment is appropriate for partners of a woman who is no longer sexually active? None. During the press conference, the specialists agreed that a positive HPV test would be of importance to her partner. Even so, they recalled that the infection would generally be an old one and that the woman’s partner (whether male or female) would therefore have probably already been exposed to it. Patients should also be reminded that, in the past, cytology testing did not look for HPV, so the virus could already have been there. According to these specialists, you don’t need to change your sexual habits, just continue to monitor yourself.
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition and a version first appeared on Medscape.com.
Montrouge, France – Whether you are a cisgender woman or a transgender man who has kept his uterus, regardless of the sex of your partner, and even if you are a woman who is no longer sexually active, you must take part in cervical cancer screening. This is the reminder issued by Julia Maruani, MD, a medical gynecologist in Marseille, France, at a press conference ahead of the 46th meeting of the French Colposcopy and Cervical-Vaginal Diseases Society (SFCPCV).
Cervical screening currently targets asymptomatic, immunocompetent, and sexually active women between ages 25 and 65 years.
Sex between women
There is a widely held belief that only men can transmit human papillomavirus (HPV). “If you are in a sexual relationship with a man, then yes, you can get HPV from him. But it’s also possible for HPV to be transmitted in a sexual relationship between two women via touch, bodily fluids, or sex toys,” said Dr. Maruani, who pointed out that 20% of lesbians and 30% of bisexual women are HPV carriers.
Because women who have sexual relationships with other women have the mistaken view that their demographic is less affected, they are less likely to take part in cervical screening. They also present more often with advanced lesions and with cancer because of the lack of screening in this group.
Transgender men
Dr. Maruani defines transgender men as “women who have changed gender and who have become men.” Why are they affected by cervical screening? Not all of them are. Those who’ve had their uterus removed no longer have a cervix, so this screening doesn’t affect them. But hysterectomies are rarely performed, as they’re not required in most European countries to legally change gender.
The figures are concerning: 27% of transgender men are screened versus 60% of cisgender females.
“For this demographic, specialist gynecology appointments are hard to come by. Sitting in a women’s waiting room is not easy,” said Dr. Maruani, recalling that often discussion about the transition phase takes up the entire appointment time. It’s also usually the case that any medical problems or health care prevention issues not related to the topic of transitioning are not discussed.
Moreover, the online appointment-booking software doesn’t allow transgender men who have kept their cervix and legally identify as men to make an appointment. “Gynecologists must disable this default option,” said Dr. Maruani.
Likewise, transgender men will not receive an invitation to take part in cervical or breast cancer screening, as they are identified as male by social security services and screening sites. Furthermore, in what Dr. Maruani referred to as an “administrative head-scratcher that needs to change,” some medical procedures are not funded for men.
Yet the risk of contracting HPV is higher among transgender men than in the rest of the population because of different sexual practices in this demographic, as well as the propensity to have multiple sexual partners. The risk of finding abnormalities on cytology screening is greater.
Although data regarding cancer are lacking, “if screening is inadequate but the risk of infection with HPV is great, logic tells us that there will be more lesions, more cancer” in this demographic, said Dr. Maruani.
Celibate women
Nowadays, screening drops with age in women, especially after menopause. This is especially true for women who are no longer sexually active. Another preconceived notion to be addressed is that women who are no longer sexually active no longer need screening. But this concept completely goes against the natural history of HPV infection. “There are years, at least 5, between infection and the development of precancerous lesions. There is a further 5 years between a precancerous lesion and cancer,” said Dr. Maruani.
A woman could still be at risk even 20 years after contracting HPV. Approximately 80% of women are exposed to HPV, and 5%-10% have a persistent infection that could lead to the development of precancerous lesions.
“So, a woman who is no longer sexually active can’t stop participating in cervical screening, especially since there aren’t any symptoms until a fairly advanced stage of cancer.” No longer having sex does not mean that screening can be stopped.
What treatment is appropriate for partners of a woman who is no longer sexually active? None. During the press conference, the specialists agreed that a positive HPV test would be of importance to her partner. Even so, they recalled that the infection would generally be an old one and that the woman’s partner (whether male or female) would therefore have probably already been exposed to it. Patients should also be reminded that, in the past, cytology testing did not look for HPV, so the virus could already have been there. According to these specialists, you don’t need to change your sexual habits, just continue to monitor yourself.
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition and a version first appeared on Medscape.com.
Montrouge, France – Whether you are a cisgender woman or a transgender man who has kept his uterus, regardless of the sex of your partner, and even if you are a woman who is no longer sexually active, you must take part in cervical cancer screening. This is the reminder issued by Julia Maruani, MD, a medical gynecologist in Marseille, France, at a press conference ahead of the 46th meeting of the French Colposcopy and Cervical-Vaginal Diseases Society (SFCPCV).
Cervical screening currently targets asymptomatic, immunocompetent, and sexually active women between ages 25 and 65 years.
Sex between women
There is a widely held belief that only men can transmit human papillomavirus (HPV). “If you are in a sexual relationship with a man, then yes, you can get HPV from him. But it’s also possible for HPV to be transmitted in a sexual relationship between two women via touch, bodily fluids, or sex toys,” said Dr. Maruani, who pointed out that 20% of lesbians and 30% of bisexual women are HPV carriers.
Because women who have sexual relationships with other women have the mistaken view that their demographic is less affected, they are less likely to take part in cervical screening. They also present more often with advanced lesions and with cancer because of the lack of screening in this group.
Transgender men
Dr. Maruani defines transgender men as “women who have changed gender and who have become men.” Why are they affected by cervical screening? Not all of them are. Those who’ve had their uterus removed no longer have a cervix, so this screening doesn’t affect them. But hysterectomies are rarely performed, as they’re not required in most European countries to legally change gender.
The figures are concerning: 27% of transgender men are screened versus 60% of cisgender females.
“For this demographic, specialist gynecology appointments are hard to come by. Sitting in a women’s waiting room is not easy,” said Dr. Maruani, recalling that often discussion about the transition phase takes up the entire appointment time. It’s also usually the case that any medical problems or health care prevention issues not related to the topic of transitioning are not discussed.
Moreover, the online appointment-booking software doesn’t allow transgender men who have kept their cervix and legally identify as men to make an appointment. “Gynecologists must disable this default option,” said Dr. Maruani.
Likewise, transgender men will not receive an invitation to take part in cervical or breast cancer screening, as they are identified as male by social security services and screening sites. Furthermore, in what Dr. Maruani referred to as an “administrative head-scratcher that needs to change,” some medical procedures are not funded for men.
Yet the risk of contracting HPV is higher among transgender men than in the rest of the population because of different sexual practices in this demographic, as well as the propensity to have multiple sexual partners. The risk of finding abnormalities on cytology screening is greater.
Although data regarding cancer are lacking, “if screening is inadequate but the risk of infection with HPV is great, logic tells us that there will be more lesions, more cancer” in this demographic, said Dr. Maruani.
Celibate women
Nowadays, screening drops with age in women, especially after menopause. This is especially true for women who are no longer sexually active. Another preconceived notion to be addressed is that women who are no longer sexually active no longer need screening. But this concept completely goes against the natural history of HPV infection. “There are years, at least 5, between infection and the development of precancerous lesions. There is a further 5 years between a precancerous lesion and cancer,” said Dr. Maruani.
A woman could still be at risk even 20 years after contracting HPV. Approximately 80% of women are exposed to HPV, and 5%-10% have a persistent infection that could lead to the development of precancerous lesions.
“So, a woman who is no longer sexually active can’t stop participating in cervical screening, especially since there aren’t any symptoms until a fairly advanced stage of cancer.” No longer having sex does not mean that screening can be stopped.
What treatment is appropriate for partners of a woman who is no longer sexually active? None. During the press conference, the specialists agreed that a positive HPV test would be of importance to her partner. Even so, they recalled that the infection would generally be an old one and that the woman’s partner (whether male or female) would therefore have probably already been exposed to it. Patients should also be reminded that, in the past, cytology testing did not look for HPV, so the virus could already have been there. According to these specialists, you don’t need to change your sexual habits, just continue to monitor yourself.
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition and a version first appeared on Medscape.com.
Meningococcal B vaccine protects against gonorrhea
PARIS – All the way back in 1907, The Lancet published an article on a gonorrhea vaccine trial. Today, after continuous research throughout the intervening 110-plus years, scientists may finally have achieved success. Sébastien Fouéré, MD, discussed the details at a press conference that focused on the highlights of the Dermatology Days of Paris conference. Dr. Fouéré is the head of the genital dermatology and sexually transmitted infections unit at Saint-Louis Hospital, Paris.
Twin bacteria
Although the gonorrhea vaccine has long been the subject of research, Dr. Fouéré views 2017 as a turning point. This was when the results of a study led by Helen Petousis-Harris, PhD, were published.
“She tried to formalize the not completely indisputable results published by Cuba, where it seemed there were fewer gonococci in individuals vaccinated against meningococcal group B,” he noted.
Dr. Petousis-Harris, an immunologist, conducted a retrospective case-control study involving 11 clinics in New Zealand. The participants were aged 15-30 years, were eligible to receive the meningococcal B vaccine, and had been diagnosed with gonorrhea, chlamydia, or both. The researchers found that receiving the meningococcal B vaccine in childhood provides around 30% protection against Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections.
“It’s not perhaps a coincidence that a meningococcal B vaccine would be protective against gonorrhea,” Dr. Fouéré pointed out. He considers this protection logical, even expected, insofar as “meningococcus and gonococcus are almost twins.” There is 90% and 100% homology between membrane proteins of the two bacteria.
Vaccine is effective
Two retrospective case-control studies confirm that the vaccine is protective. One of the studies, carried out by an Australian team, found that the effectiveness was 32%, quite close to that reported by Petousis-Harris. In the other study, a U.S. team brought to light a dose-response relationship. while a complete vaccination series (two MenB-4C doses) was 40% effective.
Prospective studies are in progress, which will provide a higher level of evidence. The ANRS DOXYVAC trial has been underway since January 2021. The participants are men who have sex with men, who are highly exposed to the risk of sexually transmitted infections, and who presented with at least one STI in the year before their participation in the study. “The study is being conducted by Jean-Michel Molina of Saint-Louis Hospital. What they’re trying to do is protect our cohort of pre-exposure prophylaxis patients with meningococcal vaccine,” explained Dr. Fouéré.
Initial findings demonstrated the efficacy of a meningococcal B vaccine in reducing the risk of gonorrhea and the efficacy of doxycycline as preventive intervention for STIs when taken within 72 hours after sexual intercourse. In light of these results, a decision was made at the end of October to discontinue the trial and to recommend providing both interventions to all ANRS DOXYVAC participants. The follow-up of the participants will continue until the end of 2023. The results that led to stopping the study in its current form will be presented in early 2023.
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PARIS – All the way back in 1907, The Lancet published an article on a gonorrhea vaccine trial. Today, after continuous research throughout the intervening 110-plus years, scientists may finally have achieved success. Sébastien Fouéré, MD, discussed the details at a press conference that focused on the highlights of the Dermatology Days of Paris conference. Dr. Fouéré is the head of the genital dermatology and sexually transmitted infections unit at Saint-Louis Hospital, Paris.
Twin bacteria
Although the gonorrhea vaccine has long been the subject of research, Dr. Fouéré views 2017 as a turning point. This was when the results of a study led by Helen Petousis-Harris, PhD, were published.
“She tried to formalize the not completely indisputable results published by Cuba, where it seemed there were fewer gonococci in individuals vaccinated against meningococcal group B,” he noted.
Dr. Petousis-Harris, an immunologist, conducted a retrospective case-control study involving 11 clinics in New Zealand. The participants were aged 15-30 years, were eligible to receive the meningococcal B vaccine, and had been diagnosed with gonorrhea, chlamydia, or both. The researchers found that receiving the meningococcal B vaccine in childhood provides around 30% protection against Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections.
“It’s not perhaps a coincidence that a meningococcal B vaccine would be protective against gonorrhea,” Dr. Fouéré pointed out. He considers this protection logical, even expected, insofar as “meningococcus and gonococcus are almost twins.” There is 90% and 100% homology between membrane proteins of the two bacteria.
Vaccine is effective
Two retrospective case-control studies confirm that the vaccine is protective. One of the studies, carried out by an Australian team, found that the effectiveness was 32%, quite close to that reported by Petousis-Harris. In the other study, a U.S. team brought to light a dose-response relationship. while a complete vaccination series (two MenB-4C doses) was 40% effective.
Prospective studies are in progress, which will provide a higher level of evidence. The ANRS DOXYVAC trial has been underway since January 2021. The participants are men who have sex with men, who are highly exposed to the risk of sexually transmitted infections, and who presented with at least one STI in the year before their participation in the study. “The study is being conducted by Jean-Michel Molina of Saint-Louis Hospital. What they’re trying to do is protect our cohort of pre-exposure prophylaxis patients with meningococcal vaccine,” explained Dr. Fouéré.
Initial findings demonstrated the efficacy of a meningococcal B vaccine in reducing the risk of gonorrhea and the efficacy of doxycycline as preventive intervention for STIs when taken within 72 hours after sexual intercourse. In light of these results, a decision was made at the end of October to discontinue the trial and to recommend providing both interventions to all ANRS DOXYVAC participants. The follow-up of the participants will continue until the end of 2023. The results that led to stopping the study in its current form will be presented in early 2023.
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PARIS – All the way back in 1907, The Lancet published an article on a gonorrhea vaccine trial. Today, after continuous research throughout the intervening 110-plus years, scientists may finally have achieved success. Sébastien Fouéré, MD, discussed the details at a press conference that focused on the highlights of the Dermatology Days of Paris conference. Dr. Fouéré is the head of the genital dermatology and sexually transmitted infections unit at Saint-Louis Hospital, Paris.
Twin bacteria
Although the gonorrhea vaccine has long been the subject of research, Dr. Fouéré views 2017 as a turning point. This was when the results of a study led by Helen Petousis-Harris, PhD, were published.
“She tried to formalize the not completely indisputable results published by Cuba, where it seemed there were fewer gonococci in individuals vaccinated against meningococcal group B,” he noted.
Dr. Petousis-Harris, an immunologist, conducted a retrospective case-control study involving 11 clinics in New Zealand. The participants were aged 15-30 years, were eligible to receive the meningococcal B vaccine, and had been diagnosed with gonorrhea, chlamydia, or both. The researchers found that receiving the meningococcal B vaccine in childhood provides around 30% protection against Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections.
“It’s not perhaps a coincidence that a meningococcal B vaccine would be protective against gonorrhea,” Dr. Fouéré pointed out. He considers this protection logical, even expected, insofar as “meningococcus and gonococcus are almost twins.” There is 90% and 100% homology between membrane proteins of the two bacteria.
Vaccine is effective
Two retrospective case-control studies confirm that the vaccine is protective. One of the studies, carried out by an Australian team, found that the effectiveness was 32%, quite close to that reported by Petousis-Harris. In the other study, a U.S. team brought to light a dose-response relationship. while a complete vaccination series (two MenB-4C doses) was 40% effective.
Prospective studies are in progress, which will provide a higher level of evidence. The ANRS DOXYVAC trial has been underway since January 2021. The participants are men who have sex with men, who are highly exposed to the risk of sexually transmitted infections, and who presented with at least one STI in the year before their participation in the study. “The study is being conducted by Jean-Michel Molina of Saint-Louis Hospital. What they’re trying to do is protect our cohort of pre-exposure prophylaxis patients with meningococcal vaccine,” explained Dr. Fouéré.
Initial findings demonstrated the efficacy of a meningococcal B vaccine in reducing the risk of gonorrhea and the efficacy of doxycycline as preventive intervention for STIs when taken within 72 hours after sexual intercourse. In light of these results, a decision was made at the end of October to discontinue the trial and to recommend providing both interventions to all ANRS DOXYVAC participants. The follow-up of the participants will continue until the end of 2023. The results that led to stopping the study in its current form will be presented in early 2023.
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
What is known about sexual dysfunction after breast cancer?
PARIS – What do doctors know about their patients’ sexual health? Not a lot. What about oncologists who treat women with breast cancer? Not much more.
To determine the extent of sexual dysfunction among women with breast cancer, Maria Alice Franzoi, MD, an oncologist at Gustave Roussy Hospital, Villejuif, France, analyzed data concerning sexuality from the CANTO cohort study. She showed that sexual dysfunction often predates the cancer diagnosis and doesn’t improve but rather worsens in the following 2 years. She presented her results at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
Present at diagnosis
Dr. Franzoi, whose research projects have focused on patient monitoring post cancer, drew her conclusions from the data provided by CANTO, a longitudinal, prospective cohort study that monitors women being treated for localized breast cancer. Study participants answered the EORTC-QLQ-BR23 quality-of-life questionnaire at the time of diagnosis (T0), 1 year after diagnosis (T1), and 2 years after diagnosis (T2). Four factors were employed to better define women’s sex-related problems: poor body image, poor sexual functioning (activity and desire), lack of sexual pleasure, and a complete lack of sexual activity.
The analysis focused on the responses of 7,895 patients in the CANTO cohort study on sexual activity; 4,523 of those patients answered questions about sexual pleasure. Female respondents who reported engaging in no sexual activity did not have to answer the questions in this second section.
“Seventy-five percent of patients reported at least one of the four concerns during the study,” noted Dr. Franzoi during her presentation. This finding highlights the fact that “sexual problems are already present at the time of diagnosis in a considerable number of patients,” she said. More than a third of participants complained of at least one of the four items.
Developments after diagnosis
The proportion of women who reported no arousal or poor sexual function remained stable at around 30% over time, meaning that the sexual problems were reported in similar numbers at T0, T1, and T2. “However, after cancer, more patients are worried about a lack of sexual pleasure (38.7% at T1 and 38.1% at T2, vs. 29.1% at T0) or report having a negative body image (57.8% at T1 and 52.5% at T2, vs. 32.1% at T0),” said Dr. Franzoi.
She identified the following three variables as being associated with sexual dysfunction 2 years after diagnosis: the existence of this problem at the time of diagnosis, the use of adjuvant hormone therapy, and severe depression or a very high stress level after the first year of treatment.
Inadequate specific treatment
“Sexual dysfunction is a major unmet need with a significant impact on quality of life,” said Maryam Lustberg, MD, an oncologist at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., who was invited to discuss the results at the conference.
Dr. Franzoi observed that most participants with sexual dysfunction that had continued 2 years after diagnosis had not been referred to a doctor for this problem. “In terms of sexual function, it’s better at T2 than at T1, but only 41% of these women have been seen by a gynecologist, and only 15% have received specific treatment,” she reported, emphasizing the need to assess and treat these issues “proactively” at the time of diagnosis and during and after treatment.
“Now we need to work out what the best treatment approach is,” commented Dr. Lustberg. She said that cancers other than breast and gynecologic cancers should also be taken into consideration. She cited the Sexual Health Assessment in Women With Lung Cancer study, which recently revealed that after being diagnosed with lung cancer, female patients experienced a drop in sexual desire (31% vs. 15% before diagnosis) and an increase in vaginal discomfort or dryness (43% vs. 13% before diagnosis). This study, presented in August to the 2022 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer World Conference on Lung Cancer, also revealed that different parameters affect satisfaction in one’s sex life, including fatigue, sadness, relationship problems with a partner, and even breathing. Dr. Lustberg concluded from this study that a multidisciplinary approach is needed for cancer survivors.
Dr. Franzoi received research funding from Resilience Care. Dr. Lustberg has links with AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi, and Lilly.
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.
PARIS – What do doctors know about their patients’ sexual health? Not a lot. What about oncologists who treat women with breast cancer? Not much more.
To determine the extent of sexual dysfunction among women with breast cancer, Maria Alice Franzoi, MD, an oncologist at Gustave Roussy Hospital, Villejuif, France, analyzed data concerning sexuality from the CANTO cohort study. She showed that sexual dysfunction often predates the cancer diagnosis and doesn’t improve but rather worsens in the following 2 years. She presented her results at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
Present at diagnosis
Dr. Franzoi, whose research projects have focused on patient monitoring post cancer, drew her conclusions from the data provided by CANTO, a longitudinal, prospective cohort study that monitors women being treated for localized breast cancer. Study participants answered the EORTC-QLQ-BR23 quality-of-life questionnaire at the time of diagnosis (T0), 1 year after diagnosis (T1), and 2 years after diagnosis (T2). Four factors were employed to better define women’s sex-related problems: poor body image, poor sexual functioning (activity and desire), lack of sexual pleasure, and a complete lack of sexual activity.
The analysis focused on the responses of 7,895 patients in the CANTO cohort study on sexual activity; 4,523 of those patients answered questions about sexual pleasure. Female respondents who reported engaging in no sexual activity did not have to answer the questions in this second section.
“Seventy-five percent of patients reported at least one of the four concerns during the study,” noted Dr. Franzoi during her presentation. This finding highlights the fact that “sexual problems are already present at the time of diagnosis in a considerable number of patients,” she said. More than a third of participants complained of at least one of the four items.
Developments after diagnosis
The proportion of women who reported no arousal or poor sexual function remained stable at around 30% over time, meaning that the sexual problems were reported in similar numbers at T0, T1, and T2. “However, after cancer, more patients are worried about a lack of sexual pleasure (38.7% at T1 and 38.1% at T2, vs. 29.1% at T0) or report having a negative body image (57.8% at T1 and 52.5% at T2, vs. 32.1% at T0),” said Dr. Franzoi.
She identified the following three variables as being associated with sexual dysfunction 2 years after diagnosis: the existence of this problem at the time of diagnosis, the use of adjuvant hormone therapy, and severe depression or a very high stress level after the first year of treatment.
Inadequate specific treatment
“Sexual dysfunction is a major unmet need with a significant impact on quality of life,” said Maryam Lustberg, MD, an oncologist at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., who was invited to discuss the results at the conference.
Dr. Franzoi observed that most participants with sexual dysfunction that had continued 2 years after diagnosis had not been referred to a doctor for this problem. “In terms of sexual function, it’s better at T2 than at T1, but only 41% of these women have been seen by a gynecologist, and only 15% have received specific treatment,” she reported, emphasizing the need to assess and treat these issues “proactively” at the time of diagnosis and during and after treatment.
“Now we need to work out what the best treatment approach is,” commented Dr. Lustberg. She said that cancers other than breast and gynecologic cancers should also be taken into consideration. She cited the Sexual Health Assessment in Women With Lung Cancer study, which recently revealed that after being diagnosed with lung cancer, female patients experienced a drop in sexual desire (31% vs. 15% before diagnosis) and an increase in vaginal discomfort or dryness (43% vs. 13% before diagnosis). This study, presented in August to the 2022 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer World Conference on Lung Cancer, also revealed that different parameters affect satisfaction in one’s sex life, including fatigue, sadness, relationship problems with a partner, and even breathing. Dr. Lustberg concluded from this study that a multidisciplinary approach is needed for cancer survivors.
Dr. Franzoi received research funding from Resilience Care. Dr. Lustberg has links with AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi, and Lilly.
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.
PARIS – What do doctors know about their patients’ sexual health? Not a lot. What about oncologists who treat women with breast cancer? Not much more.
To determine the extent of sexual dysfunction among women with breast cancer, Maria Alice Franzoi, MD, an oncologist at Gustave Roussy Hospital, Villejuif, France, analyzed data concerning sexuality from the CANTO cohort study. She showed that sexual dysfunction often predates the cancer diagnosis and doesn’t improve but rather worsens in the following 2 years. She presented her results at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
Present at diagnosis
Dr. Franzoi, whose research projects have focused on patient monitoring post cancer, drew her conclusions from the data provided by CANTO, a longitudinal, prospective cohort study that monitors women being treated for localized breast cancer. Study participants answered the EORTC-QLQ-BR23 quality-of-life questionnaire at the time of diagnosis (T0), 1 year after diagnosis (T1), and 2 years after diagnosis (T2). Four factors were employed to better define women’s sex-related problems: poor body image, poor sexual functioning (activity and desire), lack of sexual pleasure, and a complete lack of sexual activity.
The analysis focused on the responses of 7,895 patients in the CANTO cohort study on sexual activity; 4,523 of those patients answered questions about sexual pleasure. Female respondents who reported engaging in no sexual activity did not have to answer the questions in this second section.
“Seventy-five percent of patients reported at least one of the four concerns during the study,” noted Dr. Franzoi during her presentation. This finding highlights the fact that “sexual problems are already present at the time of diagnosis in a considerable number of patients,” she said. More than a third of participants complained of at least one of the four items.
Developments after diagnosis
The proportion of women who reported no arousal or poor sexual function remained stable at around 30% over time, meaning that the sexual problems were reported in similar numbers at T0, T1, and T2. “However, after cancer, more patients are worried about a lack of sexual pleasure (38.7% at T1 and 38.1% at T2, vs. 29.1% at T0) or report having a negative body image (57.8% at T1 and 52.5% at T2, vs. 32.1% at T0),” said Dr. Franzoi.
She identified the following three variables as being associated with sexual dysfunction 2 years after diagnosis: the existence of this problem at the time of diagnosis, the use of adjuvant hormone therapy, and severe depression or a very high stress level after the first year of treatment.
Inadequate specific treatment
“Sexual dysfunction is a major unmet need with a significant impact on quality of life,” said Maryam Lustberg, MD, an oncologist at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., who was invited to discuss the results at the conference.
Dr. Franzoi observed that most participants with sexual dysfunction that had continued 2 years after diagnosis had not been referred to a doctor for this problem. “In terms of sexual function, it’s better at T2 than at T1, but only 41% of these women have been seen by a gynecologist, and only 15% have received specific treatment,” she reported, emphasizing the need to assess and treat these issues “proactively” at the time of diagnosis and during and after treatment.
“Now we need to work out what the best treatment approach is,” commented Dr. Lustberg. She said that cancers other than breast and gynecologic cancers should also be taken into consideration. She cited the Sexual Health Assessment in Women With Lung Cancer study, which recently revealed that after being diagnosed with lung cancer, female patients experienced a drop in sexual desire (31% vs. 15% before diagnosis) and an increase in vaginal discomfort or dryness (43% vs. 13% before diagnosis). This study, presented in August to the 2022 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer World Conference on Lung Cancer, also revealed that different parameters affect satisfaction in one’s sex life, including fatigue, sadness, relationship problems with a partner, and even breathing. Dr. Lustberg concluded from this study that a multidisciplinary approach is needed for cancer survivors.
Dr. Franzoi received research funding from Resilience Care. Dr. Lustberg has links with AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi, and Lilly.
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.
AT ESMO CONGRESS 2022
Patients who engage in risky ‘chemsex’ benefit from appropriate treatment
Chemsex combines sex, drugs, and smartphones, and physicians know very little about it. Dedicated consultations were instituted in the fall of 2019 at the Infectious Diseases Department at the Saint-Louis Hospital in Paris. It’s estimated that 1,000 persons who were patients there practice chemsex.
Alexandre Aslan, MD, is one of the department’s physicians; he is also a sexologist and psychotherapist-psychoanalyst. At the ALBATROS International Congress of Addiction, which took place in the French capital in June, he presented the results of a study of patients who engage in chemsex and who regularly attend those consultations. Through this research, light is being shed on the phenomenon.
This news organization invited Dr. Aslan to discuss the issues connected with this practice.
Question: What exactly is chemsex, also known as party ‘n’ play (PnP)?
Dr. Aslan: Hearing the word “chemsex,” one would automatically think that it is what it sounds like it is: having sex while on drugs. That’s not really what it is. According to the definition that’s been published in the scientific literature, chemsex is a practice seen among men who have sex with men, where they take some very specific substances during sexual activity to sustain, enhance, or intensify the sexual experience, but also to “manage” issues related to intimacy, performance, and concerns about sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The substances are most commonly a cocktail of three drugs: GHB [gamma-hydroxybutyrate], cathinones, and crystal meth. In chemsex, smartphones play a central role as well, through the use of social networking and dating applications – those location-based apps that allow users to instantly find partners.
Question: In what ways does meeting through apps influence the sexual relationship and the use of substances?
Dr. Aslan: Because the plan to meet up for sex is being made through these kinds of apps, the promise to have sex is often implied – and this is before the individuals even meet up in real life. Let me explain. It’s not an encounter or a person that’s going to trigger sexual desire. Instead, it’s something within – the sexual “urge” inside of the individual – that’s going to drive them toward sexual activity. Now, finding yourself promising to have sex with someone – someone you don’t know, haven’t spoken to, and haven’t actually met – in an environment where it’s possible that you’ll meet several people and where the moments in which the sexual acts take place are predominantly characterized by pornography-related performance scripts: This can push you to take substances so you can “let go” and get to the point where you’re able to adapt to the requirements of the situation. Seeking to perform well and to not be overly inhibited, these individuals have found that this drug cocktail proves to be quite explosive, imparting a very strong capacity for experiencing excitement and even bringing about new sexual practices.
Question: Can you speak a bit about drug-enhanced sex?
Dr. Aslan: We sexologists consider it to be a very particular type of sex. People who engage in it feel that the sex is very intense, with unbelievable experiences, and that they have a deeper connection with their partner. In fact, it’s a type of sex where taking these substances does away with the very principles of sexual physiology – in other words, desire followed by excitement, plateau, orgasm, and resolution. Little by little, one’s sexual partner is no longer going to exist in the sex session, and the benefit is a succession of partners whose sole purpose is to keep the fire of excitement burning, an excitement that’s also reinforced by the substances taken. It’s “sex” under the influence rather than a sexual encounter linked to desire.
Question: What impact does it have on health?
Dr. Aslan: This practice brings with it numerous complications, such as STIs, but also physical injuries, as these sessions can last for 24 to more than 48 hours. There are also psychological complications, because these drugs can bring about depression, paranoia, self-harm, and even episodes of decompensation. And then, it should be noted that later on, the spotlight gets pulled away from the sex – the pretext from the very beginning – and shifts toward the taking of drugs: The individuals will no longer be able to separate the sexual encounter from the taking of drugs. Then, in a few years, there’s no longer the sexual encounter, only the taking of drugs. In the United States, between 2021 and 2022, there was a decrease in the number of deaths caused by heroin and prescription opioids. On the other hand, since 2020, the overdoses that have exploded in number are those related to fentanyl, nonprescription opioids, and stimulants – cocaine and methamphetamine, which can come back into the practices particularly through the seemingly “playful” arena of sex.
Question: How is it that things have gone from being a practice that’s under control to full-on drug addiction?
Dr. Aslan: You still have people who manage to keep things under control. But the kinds of drugs that are taken are highly addictive and compel the individual to take even more. It’s one big circle: The exciting sexual relationship itself, to which you add substances that cause even more dopamine to be released, and a smartphone screen with excitatory pornographic images on it all the time. In all the patients we see, we notice a trajectory that looks like the trajectory of every drug. When they’re at the beginning – in other words, the first year – after a first experience that they consider to be explosive, they may not return to the scene right away, and then they do return to it. They realize that it’s perhaps not as marvelous as the first time, but they’re going to give it another try. During this novelty phase, a strategy is pursued whereby they adapt and make adjustments in an attempt to feel again what they felt the first time. At the end of a year or two, they become disillusioned and they refocus on all activities having to do with drug use. Our hospital department conducted a survey where we asked detailed questions to over 100 individuals. It showed that people noticed the negative consequences that chemsex had on their work (60%), on their private lives and sex lives (55%), and on their relationships with friends and family (63%). This means that people are well aware of the negative effects that this practice has in very important areas of their lives. But even if they notice all of that, even if they resolve to have a certain number of sexual relations without drugs involved, these substances are so powerful in releasing a rush of dopamine that that very fact can sweep away any capacity the individual may have had to make a decision and stick to it, and they’re going to feel practically “compelled” to use. This is what’s called a craving.
Question: How do you identify patients who engage in chemsex among the patients in your infectious diseases department?
Dr. Aslan: As a rule, all patients admitted to our department are asked a series of questions. Do you use drugs to engage in sexual relations? Which drug do you prefer? How do you take it? Do you have a good time? Do you find that it’s good for you? Are you okay with how much you’re using? We also ask patients to tell us when they last had drug-free sex. It’s a very important question, because if we can identify someone who has had 10 or so partners a month but hasn’t had drug-free sex for over a month, we’ll try to steer the conversation to where they’ll come to think that it might not be such a bad idea to talk about it.
Question: Should a physician be asking younger patients whether they’re engaging in chemsex?
Dr. Aslan: Yes, but the physician has to be very careful. We often have a tendency to believe that we’re capable of speaking with our patients about relevant matters related to sex. We see ourselves as that kind of person, not to mention we’re open-minded. Now, as in all fields of medicine, we have to educate ourselves about how best to approach patients – in this case, about their sexual health. Because sometimes, despite our best intentions, we can do harm. The idea that we have of our own sexual behavior does not necessarily help provide counsel regarding another person’s sexual behavior, particularly when there are differences between the two. If you’re interested in the issue, you need to be trained on all the answers that could come up. There are training courses online. There’s a module on sexual health and chemsex at a site designed to give private practice physicians guidance about PrEP. It’s at least a place to start. This way, physicians will know what questions they can ask and when they should reach out to a specialist, such as a sexologist with training in these specific issues.
Question: What is the treatment based on?
Dr. Aslan: The traditional approach taken by addiction medicine physicians may not be comprehensive enough. Likewise, a sexologist’s approach alone can only go so far. It’s impossible to get by thinking that a single discipline can hold the solution, all the answers. So, it’s a multidisciplinary sexual health treatment. There should be a psychiatrist or addiction medicine physician who knows the drugs and is capable of navigating through this landscape of psychiatric comorbidities (such as psychoses and ADHD).
There also has to be a sexologist for the treatment of any sexual dysfunctions there may be. At Saint-Louis Hospital, 60% of patients who engage in chemsex said that engaging in the practice was related to a sexual problem that they noted – but never went to see a doctor about – before the first time they used. Be that as it may, it’s still the case that if these patients had been able to see a sexologist – who would have treated the problem – the drug may perhaps not have taken hold.
There also has to be a practitioner who can focus on risk reduction. In other words, someone capable of helping the patient get to the desired level of use where the craving, the need for instant gratification, can be kept in check.
In practice, one can sometimes, in addition to all of that, turn to medical treatments to manage the craving or medical comorbidities, an approach based on sexology to provide care for the sexual dysfunction or even to help the person learn how to evoke sexual or erotic fantasies without drugs, and an approach based on addiction medicine or psychotherapy, as some of our patients experienced sexual abuse in childhood. In the end, chemsex is just the outer layer – a problem that only seems to pertain to sex but that, in reality, covers up a wide range of issues. And not only sexual issues or issues that are related to drugs like chemsex is.
Question: What are the outcomes of this multidisciplinary treatment?
Dr. Aslan: Before we finish, I must point out and just state that the patients, when they’re cared for and when they’re provided with the appropriate treatment, change their practices. Some of our patients, even those with more advanced cases in terms of frequency, how often they’re injecting drugs – every 30 minutes over the course of 24 or 48 hours, with complications such as thrombosis, sepsis, and abscesses – they’ve completely stopped after several months of treatment. They now lead lives that, as they’ve told us, work better for them. So, those of us in the health care industry, we have to get organized and set things up in a way that will allow us to focus our efforts on treating these patients.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.
Chemsex combines sex, drugs, and smartphones, and physicians know very little about it. Dedicated consultations were instituted in the fall of 2019 at the Infectious Diseases Department at the Saint-Louis Hospital in Paris. It’s estimated that 1,000 persons who were patients there practice chemsex.
Alexandre Aslan, MD, is one of the department’s physicians; he is also a sexologist and psychotherapist-psychoanalyst. At the ALBATROS International Congress of Addiction, which took place in the French capital in June, he presented the results of a study of patients who engage in chemsex and who regularly attend those consultations. Through this research, light is being shed on the phenomenon.
This news organization invited Dr. Aslan to discuss the issues connected with this practice.
Question: What exactly is chemsex, also known as party ‘n’ play (PnP)?
Dr. Aslan: Hearing the word “chemsex,” one would automatically think that it is what it sounds like it is: having sex while on drugs. That’s not really what it is. According to the definition that’s been published in the scientific literature, chemsex is a practice seen among men who have sex with men, where they take some very specific substances during sexual activity to sustain, enhance, or intensify the sexual experience, but also to “manage” issues related to intimacy, performance, and concerns about sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The substances are most commonly a cocktail of three drugs: GHB [gamma-hydroxybutyrate], cathinones, and crystal meth. In chemsex, smartphones play a central role as well, through the use of social networking and dating applications – those location-based apps that allow users to instantly find partners.
Question: In what ways does meeting through apps influence the sexual relationship and the use of substances?
Dr. Aslan: Because the plan to meet up for sex is being made through these kinds of apps, the promise to have sex is often implied – and this is before the individuals even meet up in real life. Let me explain. It’s not an encounter or a person that’s going to trigger sexual desire. Instead, it’s something within – the sexual “urge” inside of the individual – that’s going to drive them toward sexual activity. Now, finding yourself promising to have sex with someone – someone you don’t know, haven’t spoken to, and haven’t actually met – in an environment where it’s possible that you’ll meet several people and where the moments in which the sexual acts take place are predominantly characterized by pornography-related performance scripts: This can push you to take substances so you can “let go” and get to the point where you’re able to adapt to the requirements of the situation. Seeking to perform well and to not be overly inhibited, these individuals have found that this drug cocktail proves to be quite explosive, imparting a very strong capacity for experiencing excitement and even bringing about new sexual practices.
Question: Can you speak a bit about drug-enhanced sex?
Dr. Aslan: We sexologists consider it to be a very particular type of sex. People who engage in it feel that the sex is very intense, with unbelievable experiences, and that they have a deeper connection with their partner. In fact, it’s a type of sex where taking these substances does away with the very principles of sexual physiology – in other words, desire followed by excitement, plateau, orgasm, and resolution. Little by little, one’s sexual partner is no longer going to exist in the sex session, and the benefit is a succession of partners whose sole purpose is to keep the fire of excitement burning, an excitement that’s also reinforced by the substances taken. It’s “sex” under the influence rather than a sexual encounter linked to desire.
Question: What impact does it have on health?
Dr. Aslan: This practice brings with it numerous complications, such as STIs, but also physical injuries, as these sessions can last for 24 to more than 48 hours. There are also psychological complications, because these drugs can bring about depression, paranoia, self-harm, and even episodes of decompensation. And then, it should be noted that later on, the spotlight gets pulled away from the sex – the pretext from the very beginning – and shifts toward the taking of drugs: The individuals will no longer be able to separate the sexual encounter from the taking of drugs. Then, in a few years, there’s no longer the sexual encounter, only the taking of drugs. In the United States, between 2021 and 2022, there was a decrease in the number of deaths caused by heroin and prescription opioids. On the other hand, since 2020, the overdoses that have exploded in number are those related to fentanyl, nonprescription opioids, and stimulants – cocaine and methamphetamine, which can come back into the practices particularly through the seemingly “playful” arena of sex.
Question: How is it that things have gone from being a practice that’s under control to full-on drug addiction?
Dr. Aslan: You still have people who manage to keep things under control. But the kinds of drugs that are taken are highly addictive and compel the individual to take even more. It’s one big circle: The exciting sexual relationship itself, to which you add substances that cause even more dopamine to be released, and a smartphone screen with excitatory pornographic images on it all the time. In all the patients we see, we notice a trajectory that looks like the trajectory of every drug. When they’re at the beginning – in other words, the first year – after a first experience that they consider to be explosive, they may not return to the scene right away, and then they do return to it. They realize that it’s perhaps not as marvelous as the first time, but they’re going to give it another try. During this novelty phase, a strategy is pursued whereby they adapt and make adjustments in an attempt to feel again what they felt the first time. At the end of a year or two, they become disillusioned and they refocus on all activities having to do with drug use. Our hospital department conducted a survey where we asked detailed questions to over 100 individuals. It showed that people noticed the negative consequences that chemsex had on their work (60%), on their private lives and sex lives (55%), and on their relationships with friends and family (63%). This means that people are well aware of the negative effects that this practice has in very important areas of their lives. But even if they notice all of that, even if they resolve to have a certain number of sexual relations without drugs involved, these substances are so powerful in releasing a rush of dopamine that that very fact can sweep away any capacity the individual may have had to make a decision and stick to it, and they’re going to feel practically “compelled” to use. This is what’s called a craving.
Question: How do you identify patients who engage in chemsex among the patients in your infectious diseases department?
Dr. Aslan: As a rule, all patients admitted to our department are asked a series of questions. Do you use drugs to engage in sexual relations? Which drug do you prefer? How do you take it? Do you have a good time? Do you find that it’s good for you? Are you okay with how much you’re using? We also ask patients to tell us when they last had drug-free sex. It’s a very important question, because if we can identify someone who has had 10 or so partners a month but hasn’t had drug-free sex for over a month, we’ll try to steer the conversation to where they’ll come to think that it might not be such a bad idea to talk about it.
Question: Should a physician be asking younger patients whether they’re engaging in chemsex?
Dr. Aslan: Yes, but the physician has to be very careful. We often have a tendency to believe that we’re capable of speaking with our patients about relevant matters related to sex. We see ourselves as that kind of person, not to mention we’re open-minded. Now, as in all fields of medicine, we have to educate ourselves about how best to approach patients – in this case, about their sexual health. Because sometimes, despite our best intentions, we can do harm. The idea that we have of our own sexual behavior does not necessarily help provide counsel regarding another person’s sexual behavior, particularly when there are differences between the two. If you’re interested in the issue, you need to be trained on all the answers that could come up. There are training courses online. There’s a module on sexual health and chemsex at a site designed to give private practice physicians guidance about PrEP. It’s at least a place to start. This way, physicians will know what questions they can ask and when they should reach out to a specialist, such as a sexologist with training in these specific issues.
Question: What is the treatment based on?
Dr. Aslan: The traditional approach taken by addiction medicine physicians may not be comprehensive enough. Likewise, a sexologist’s approach alone can only go so far. It’s impossible to get by thinking that a single discipline can hold the solution, all the answers. So, it’s a multidisciplinary sexual health treatment. There should be a psychiatrist or addiction medicine physician who knows the drugs and is capable of navigating through this landscape of psychiatric comorbidities (such as psychoses and ADHD).
There also has to be a sexologist for the treatment of any sexual dysfunctions there may be. At Saint-Louis Hospital, 60% of patients who engage in chemsex said that engaging in the practice was related to a sexual problem that they noted – but never went to see a doctor about – before the first time they used. Be that as it may, it’s still the case that if these patients had been able to see a sexologist – who would have treated the problem – the drug may perhaps not have taken hold.
There also has to be a practitioner who can focus on risk reduction. In other words, someone capable of helping the patient get to the desired level of use where the craving, the need for instant gratification, can be kept in check.
In practice, one can sometimes, in addition to all of that, turn to medical treatments to manage the craving or medical comorbidities, an approach based on sexology to provide care for the sexual dysfunction or even to help the person learn how to evoke sexual or erotic fantasies without drugs, and an approach based on addiction medicine or psychotherapy, as some of our patients experienced sexual abuse in childhood. In the end, chemsex is just the outer layer – a problem that only seems to pertain to sex but that, in reality, covers up a wide range of issues. And not only sexual issues or issues that are related to drugs like chemsex is.
Question: What are the outcomes of this multidisciplinary treatment?
Dr. Aslan: Before we finish, I must point out and just state that the patients, when they’re cared for and when they’re provided with the appropriate treatment, change their practices. Some of our patients, even those with more advanced cases in terms of frequency, how often they’re injecting drugs – every 30 minutes over the course of 24 or 48 hours, with complications such as thrombosis, sepsis, and abscesses – they’ve completely stopped after several months of treatment. They now lead lives that, as they’ve told us, work better for them. So, those of us in the health care industry, we have to get organized and set things up in a way that will allow us to focus our efforts on treating these patients.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.
Chemsex combines sex, drugs, and smartphones, and physicians know very little about it. Dedicated consultations were instituted in the fall of 2019 at the Infectious Diseases Department at the Saint-Louis Hospital in Paris. It’s estimated that 1,000 persons who were patients there practice chemsex.
Alexandre Aslan, MD, is one of the department’s physicians; he is also a sexologist and psychotherapist-psychoanalyst. At the ALBATROS International Congress of Addiction, which took place in the French capital in June, he presented the results of a study of patients who engage in chemsex and who regularly attend those consultations. Through this research, light is being shed on the phenomenon.
This news organization invited Dr. Aslan to discuss the issues connected with this practice.
Question: What exactly is chemsex, also known as party ‘n’ play (PnP)?
Dr. Aslan: Hearing the word “chemsex,” one would automatically think that it is what it sounds like it is: having sex while on drugs. That’s not really what it is. According to the definition that’s been published in the scientific literature, chemsex is a practice seen among men who have sex with men, where they take some very specific substances during sexual activity to sustain, enhance, or intensify the sexual experience, but also to “manage” issues related to intimacy, performance, and concerns about sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The substances are most commonly a cocktail of three drugs: GHB [gamma-hydroxybutyrate], cathinones, and crystal meth. In chemsex, smartphones play a central role as well, through the use of social networking and dating applications – those location-based apps that allow users to instantly find partners.
Question: In what ways does meeting through apps influence the sexual relationship and the use of substances?
Dr. Aslan: Because the plan to meet up for sex is being made through these kinds of apps, the promise to have sex is often implied – and this is before the individuals even meet up in real life. Let me explain. It’s not an encounter or a person that’s going to trigger sexual desire. Instead, it’s something within – the sexual “urge” inside of the individual – that’s going to drive them toward sexual activity. Now, finding yourself promising to have sex with someone – someone you don’t know, haven’t spoken to, and haven’t actually met – in an environment where it’s possible that you’ll meet several people and where the moments in which the sexual acts take place are predominantly characterized by pornography-related performance scripts: This can push you to take substances so you can “let go” and get to the point where you’re able to adapt to the requirements of the situation. Seeking to perform well and to not be overly inhibited, these individuals have found that this drug cocktail proves to be quite explosive, imparting a very strong capacity for experiencing excitement and even bringing about new sexual practices.
Question: Can you speak a bit about drug-enhanced sex?
Dr. Aslan: We sexologists consider it to be a very particular type of sex. People who engage in it feel that the sex is very intense, with unbelievable experiences, and that they have a deeper connection with their partner. In fact, it’s a type of sex where taking these substances does away with the very principles of sexual physiology – in other words, desire followed by excitement, plateau, orgasm, and resolution. Little by little, one’s sexual partner is no longer going to exist in the sex session, and the benefit is a succession of partners whose sole purpose is to keep the fire of excitement burning, an excitement that’s also reinforced by the substances taken. It’s “sex” under the influence rather than a sexual encounter linked to desire.
Question: What impact does it have on health?
Dr. Aslan: This practice brings with it numerous complications, such as STIs, but also physical injuries, as these sessions can last for 24 to more than 48 hours. There are also psychological complications, because these drugs can bring about depression, paranoia, self-harm, and even episodes of decompensation. And then, it should be noted that later on, the spotlight gets pulled away from the sex – the pretext from the very beginning – and shifts toward the taking of drugs: The individuals will no longer be able to separate the sexual encounter from the taking of drugs. Then, in a few years, there’s no longer the sexual encounter, only the taking of drugs. In the United States, between 2021 and 2022, there was a decrease in the number of deaths caused by heroin and prescription opioids. On the other hand, since 2020, the overdoses that have exploded in number are those related to fentanyl, nonprescription opioids, and stimulants – cocaine and methamphetamine, which can come back into the practices particularly through the seemingly “playful” arena of sex.
Question: How is it that things have gone from being a practice that’s under control to full-on drug addiction?
Dr. Aslan: You still have people who manage to keep things under control. But the kinds of drugs that are taken are highly addictive and compel the individual to take even more. It’s one big circle: The exciting sexual relationship itself, to which you add substances that cause even more dopamine to be released, and a smartphone screen with excitatory pornographic images on it all the time. In all the patients we see, we notice a trajectory that looks like the trajectory of every drug. When they’re at the beginning – in other words, the first year – after a first experience that they consider to be explosive, they may not return to the scene right away, and then they do return to it. They realize that it’s perhaps not as marvelous as the first time, but they’re going to give it another try. During this novelty phase, a strategy is pursued whereby they adapt and make adjustments in an attempt to feel again what they felt the first time. At the end of a year or two, they become disillusioned and they refocus on all activities having to do with drug use. Our hospital department conducted a survey where we asked detailed questions to over 100 individuals. It showed that people noticed the negative consequences that chemsex had on their work (60%), on their private lives and sex lives (55%), and on their relationships with friends and family (63%). This means that people are well aware of the negative effects that this practice has in very important areas of their lives. But even if they notice all of that, even if they resolve to have a certain number of sexual relations without drugs involved, these substances are so powerful in releasing a rush of dopamine that that very fact can sweep away any capacity the individual may have had to make a decision and stick to it, and they’re going to feel practically “compelled” to use. This is what’s called a craving.
Question: How do you identify patients who engage in chemsex among the patients in your infectious diseases department?
Dr. Aslan: As a rule, all patients admitted to our department are asked a series of questions. Do you use drugs to engage in sexual relations? Which drug do you prefer? How do you take it? Do you have a good time? Do you find that it’s good for you? Are you okay with how much you’re using? We also ask patients to tell us when they last had drug-free sex. It’s a very important question, because if we can identify someone who has had 10 or so partners a month but hasn’t had drug-free sex for over a month, we’ll try to steer the conversation to where they’ll come to think that it might not be such a bad idea to talk about it.
Question: Should a physician be asking younger patients whether they’re engaging in chemsex?
Dr. Aslan: Yes, but the physician has to be very careful. We often have a tendency to believe that we’re capable of speaking with our patients about relevant matters related to sex. We see ourselves as that kind of person, not to mention we’re open-minded. Now, as in all fields of medicine, we have to educate ourselves about how best to approach patients – in this case, about their sexual health. Because sometimes, despite our best intentions, we can do harm. The idea that we have of our own sexual behavior does not necessarily help provide counsel regarding another person’s sexual behavior, particularly when there are differences between the two. If you’re interested in the issue, you need to be trained on all the answers that could come up. There are training courses online. There’s a module on sexual health and chemsex at a site designed to give private practice physicians guidance about PrEP. It’s at least a place to start. This way, physicians will know what questions they can ask and when they should reach out to a specialist, such as a sexologist with training in these specific issues.
Question: What is the treatment based on?
Dr. Aslan: The traditional approach taken by addiction medicine physicians may not be comprehensive enough. Likewise, a sexologist’s approach alone can only go so far. It’s impossible to get by thinking that a single discipline can hold the solution, all the answers. So, it’s a multidisciplinary sexual health treatment. There should be a psychiatrist or addiction medicine physician who knows the drugs and is capable of navigating through this landscape of psychiatric comorbidities (such as psychoses and ADHD).
There also has to be a sexologist for the treatment of any sexual dysfunctions there may be. At Saint-Louis Hospital, 60% of patients who engage in chemsex said that engaging in the practice was related to a sexual problem that they noted – but never went to see a doctor about – before the first time they used. Be that as it may, it’s still the case that if these patients had been able to see a sexologist – who would have treated the problem – the drug may perhaps not have taken hold.
There also has to be a practitioner who can focus on risk reduction. In other words, someone capable of helping the patient get to the desired level of use where the craving, the need for instant gratification, can be kept in check.
In practice, one can sometimes, in addition to all of that, turn to medical treatments to manage the craving or medical comorbidities, an approach based on sexology to provide care for the sexual dysfunction or even to help the person learn how to evoke sexual or erotic fantasies without drugs, and an approach based on addiction medicine or psychotherapy, as some of our patients experienced sexual abuse in childhood. In the end, chemsex is just the outer layer – a problem that only seems to pertain to sex but that, in reality, covers up a wide range of issues. And not only sexual issues or issues that are related to drugs like chemsex is.
Question: What are the outcomes of this multidisciplinary treatment?
Dr. Aslan: Before we finish, I must point out and just state that the patients, when they’re cared for and when they’re provided with the appropriate treatment, change their practices. Some of our patients, even those with more advanced cases in terms of frequency, how often they’re injecting drugs – every 30 minutes over the course of 24 or 48 hours, with complications such as thrombosis, sepsis, and abscesses – they’ve completely stopped after several months of treatment. They now lead lives that, as they’ve told us, work better for them. So, those of us in the health care industry, we have to get organized and set things up in a way that will allow us to focus our efforts on treating these patients.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.