Sexual Health

For a decade, the number of babies born with syphilis in the United States has surged, undeterred. Data released Apr. 12 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows just how dire the outbreak has become.

In 2012, 332 babies were born infected with the disease. In 2021, that number had climbed nearly sevenfold, to at least 2,268, according to preliminary estimates. And 166 of those babies died.

About 7% of babies diagnosed with syphilis in recent years have died; thousands of others born with the disease have faced problems that include brain and bone malformations, blindness, and organ damage.

For public health officials, the situation is all the more heartbreaking, considering that congenital syphilis rates reached near-historic modern lows from 2000 to 2012 amid ambitious prevention and education efforts. By 2020, following a sharp erosion in funding and attention, the nationwide case rate was more than seven times that of 2012.

“The really depressing thing about it is we had this thing virtually eradicated back in the year 2000,” said William Andrews, a public information officer for Oklahoma’s sexual health and harm reduction service. “Now it’s back with a vengeance. We are really trying to get the message out that sexual health is health. It’s nothing to be ashamed of.”

Even as caseloads soar, the CDC budget for STD prevention – the primary funding source for most public health departments – has been largely stagnant for two decades, its purchasing power dragged even lower by inflation.

The CDC report on STD trends provides official data on congenital syphilis cases for 2020, as well as preliminary case counts for 2021 that are expected to increase. CDC data shows that congenital syphilis rates in 2020 continued to climb in already overwhelmed states like Texas, California, and Nevada and that the disease is now present in almost every state in the nation. All but three states – Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont – reported congenital syphilis cases in 2020.

From 2011 to 2020, congenital syphilis resulted in 633 documented stillbirths and infant deaths, according to the new CDC data.

Preventing congenital syphilis – the term used when syphilis is transferred to a fetus in utero – is from a medical standpoint exceedingly simple: If a pregnant woman is diagnosed at least a month before giving birth, just a few shots of penicillin have a near-perfect cure rate for mother and baby. But funding cuts and competing priorities in the nation’s fragmented public health care system have vastly narrowed access to such services.

The reasons pregnant people with syphilis go undiagnosed or untreated vary geographically, according to data collected by states and analyzed by the CDC.

In Western states, the largest share of cases involve women who have received little to no prenatal care and aren’t tested for syphilis until they give birth. Many have substance use disorders, primarily related to methamphetamines. “They’ve felt a lot of judgment and stigma by the medical community,” said Stephanie Pierce, MD, a maternal fetal medicine specialist at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, who runs a clinic for women with high-risk pregnancies.

In Southern states, a CDC study of 2018 data found that the largest share of congenital syphilis cases were among women who had been tested and diagnosed but hadn’t received treatment. That year, among Black moms who gave birth to a baby with syphilis, 37% had not been treated adequately even though they’d received a timely diagnosis. Among white moms, that number was 24%. Longstanding racism in medical care, poverty, transportation issues, poorly funded public health departments, and crowded clinics whose employees are too overworked to follow up with patients all contribute to the problem, according to infectious disease experts.

Doctors are also noticing a growing number of women who are treated for syphilis but reinfected during pregnancy. Amid rising cases and stagnant resources, some states have focused disease investigations on pregnant women of childbearing age; they can no longer prioritize treating sexual partners who are also infected.

Eric McGrath, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Wayne State University, Detroit, said that he’d seen several newborns in recent years whose mothers had been treated for syphilis but then were re-exposed during pregnancy by partners who hadn’t been treated.

Treating a newborn baby for syphilis isn’t trivial. Penicillin carries little risk, but delivering it to a baby often involves a lumbar puncture and other painful procedures. And treatment typically means keeping the baby in the hospital for 10 days, interrupting an important time for family bonding.

Dr. McGrath has seen a couple of babies in his career who weren’t diagnosed or treated at birth and later came to him with full-blown syphilis complications, including full-body rashes and inflamed livers. It was an awful experience he doesn’t want to repeat. The preferred course, he said, is to spare the baby the ordeal and treat parents early in the pregnancy.

But in some places, providers aren’t routinely testing for syphilis. Although most states mandate testing at some point during pregnancy, as of last year just 14 required it for everyone in the third trimester. The CDC recommends third-trimester testing in areas with high rates of syphilis, a growing share of the United States.

After Arizona declared a statewide outbreak in 2018, state health officials wanted to know whether widespread testing in the third trimester could have prevented infections. Looking at 18 months of data, analysts found that nearly three-quarters of the more than 200 pregnant women diagnosed with syphilis in 2017 and the first half of 2018 got treatment. That left 57 babies born with syphilis, nine of whom died. The analysts estimated that a third of the infections could have been prevented with testing in the third trimester.

Based on the numbers they saw in those 18 months, officials estimated that screening all women on Medicaid in the third trimester would cost the state $113,300 annually, and that treating all cases of syphilis that screening would catch could be done for just $113. Factoring in the hospitalization costs for infected infants, the officials concluded the additional testing would save the state money.

And yet prevention money has been hard to come by. Taking inflation into account, CDC prevention funding for STDs has fallen 41% since 2003, according to an analysis by the National Coalition of STD Directors. That’s even as cases have risen, leaving public health departments saddled with more work and far less money.

Janine Waters, STD program manager for the state of New Mexico, has watched the unraveling. When Ms. Waters started her career more than 20 years ago, she and her colleagues followed up on every case of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis reported, not only making sure that people got treatment but also getting in touch with their sexual partners, with the aim of stopping the spread of infection. In a 2019 interview with Kaiser Health News, she said her team was struggling to keep up with syphilis alone, even as they registered with dread congenital syphilis cases surging in neighboring Texas and Arizona.

By 2020, New Mexico had the highest rate of congenital syphilis in the country.

The COVID-19 pandemic drained the remaining resources. Half of health departments across the country discontinued STD fieldwork altogether, diverting their resources to COVID. In California, which for years has struggled with high rates of congenital syphilis, three-quarters of local health departments dispatched more than half of their STD staffers to work on COVID.

As the pandemic ebbs – at least in the short term – many public health departments are turning their attention back to syphilis and other diseases. And they are doing it with reinforcements. Although the Biden administration’s proposed STD prevention budget for 2023 remains flat, the American Rescue Plan Act included $200 million to help health departments boost contact tracing and surveillance for covid and other infectious diseases. Many departments are funneling that money toward STDs.

The money is an infusion that state health officials say will make a difference. But when taking inflation into account, it essentially brings STD prevention funding back to what it was in 2003, said Stephanie Arnold Pang of the National Coalition of STD Directors. And the American Rescue Plan money doesn’t cover some aspects of STD prevention, including clinical services.

The coalition wants to revive dedicated STD clinics, where people can drop in for testing and treatment at little to no cost. Advocates say that would fill a void that has plagued treatment efforts since public clinics closed en masse in the wake of the 2008 recession.

Texas, battling its own pervasive outbreak, will use its share of American Rescue Plan money to fill 94 new positions focused on various aspects of STD prevention. Those hires will bolster a range of measures the state put in place before the pandemic, including an updated data system to track infections, review boards in major cities that examine what went wrong for every case of congenital syphilis, and a requirement that providers test for syphilis during the third trimester of pregnancy. The suite of interventions seems to be working, but it could be a while before cases go down, said Amy Carter, the state’s congenital syphilis coordinator.

“The growth didn’t happen overnight,” Ms. Carter said. “So our prevention efforts aren’t going to have a direct impact overnight either.”

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

For a decade, the number of babies born with syphilis in the United States has surged, undeterred. Data released Apr. 12 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows just how dire the outbreak has become.

In 2012, 332 babies were born infected with the disease. In 2021, that number had climbed nearly sevenfold, to at least 2,268, according to preliminary estimates. And 166 of those babies died.

About 7% of babies diagnosed with syphilis in recent years have died; thousands of others born with the disease have faced problems that include brain and bone malformations, blindness, and organ damage.

For public health officials, the situation is all the more heartbreaking, considering that congenital syphilis rates reached near-historic modern lows from 2000 to 2012 amid ambitious prevention and education efforts. By 2020, following a sharp erosion in funding and attention, the nationwide case rate was more than seven times that of 2012.

“The really depressing thing about it is we had this thing virtually eradicated back in the year 2000,” said William Andrews, a public information officer for Oklahoma’s sexual health and harm reduction service. “Now it’s back with a vengeance. We are really trying to get the message out that sexual health is health. It’s nothing to be ashamed of.”

Even as caseloads soar, the CDC budget for STD prevention – the primary funding source for most public health departments – has been largely stagnant for two decades, its purchasing power dragged even lower by inflation.

The CDC report on STD trends provides official data on congenital syphilis cases for 2020, as well as preliminary case counts for 2021 that are expected to increase. CDC data shows that congenital syphilis rates in 2020 continued to climb in already overwhelmed states like Texas, California, and Nevada and that the disease is now present in almost every state in the nation. All but three states – Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont – reported congenital syphilis cases in 2020.

From 2011 to 2020, congenital syphilis resulted in 633 documented stillbirths and infant deaths, according to the new CDC data.

Preventing congenital syphilis – the term used when syphilis is transferred to a fetus in utero – is from a medical standpoint exceedingly simple: If a pregnant woman is diagnosed at least a month before giving birth, just a few shots of penicillin have a near-perfect cure rate for mother and baby. But funding cuts and competing priorities in the nation’s fragmented public health care system have vastly narrowed access to such services.

The reasons pregnant people with syphilis go undiagnosed or untreated vary geographically, according to data collected by states and analyzed by the CDC.

In Western states, the largest share of cases involve women who have received little to no prenatal care and aren’t tested for syphilis until they give birth. Many have substance use disorders, primarily related to methamphetamines. “They’ve felt a lot of judgment and stigma by the medical community,” said Stephanie Pierce, MD, a maternal fetal medicine specialist at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, who runs a clinic for women with high-risk pregnancies.

In Southern states, a CDC study of 2018 data found that the largest share of congenital syphilis cases were among women who had been tested and diagnosed but hadn’t received treatment. That year, among Black moms who gave birth to a baby with syphilis, 37% had not been treated adequately even though they’d received a timely diagnosis. Among white moms, that number was 24%. Longstanding racism in medical care, poverty, transportation issues, poorly funded public health departments, and crowded clinics whose employees are too overworked to follow up with patients all contribute to the problem, according to infectious disease experts.

Doctors are also noticing a growing number of women who are treated for syphilis but reinfected during pregnancy. Amid rising cases and stagnant resources, some states have focused disease investigations on pregnant women of childbearing age; they can no longer prioritize treating sexual partners who are also infected.

Eric McGrath, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Wayne State University, Detroit, said that he’d seen several newborns in recent years whose mothers had been treated for syphilis but then were re-exposed during pregnancy by partners who hadn’t been treated.

Treating a newborn baby for syphilis isn’t trivial. Penicillin carries little risk, but delivering it to a baby often involves a lumbar puncture and other painful procedures. And treatment typically means keeping the baby in the hospital for 10 days, interrupting an important time for family bonding.

Dr. McGrath has seen a couple of babies in his career who weren’t diagnosed or treated at birth and later came to him with full-blown syphilis complications, including full-body rashes and inflamed livers. It was an awful experience he doesn’t want to repeat. The preferred course, he said, is to spare the baby the ordeal and treat parents early in the pregnancy.

But in some places, providers aren’t routinely testing for syphilis. Although most states mandate testing at some point during pregnancy, as of last year just 14 required it for everyone in the third trimester. The CDC recommends third-trimester testing in areas with high rates of syphilis, a growing share of the United States.

After Arizona declared a statewide outbreak in 2018, state health officials wanted to know whether widespread testing in the third trimester could have prevented infections. Looking at 18 months of data, analysts found that nearly three-quarters of the more than 200 pregnant women diagnosed with syphilis in 2017 and the first half of 2018 got treatment. That left 57 babies born with syphilis, nine of whom died. The analysts estimated that a third of the infections could have been prevented with testing in the third trimester.

Based on the numbers they saw in those 18 months, officials estimated that screening all women on Medicaid in the third trimester would cost the state $113,300 annually, and that treating all cases of syphilis that screening would catch could be done for just $113. Factoring in the hospitalization costs for infected infants, the officials concluded the additional testing would save the state money.

And yet prevention money has been hard to come by. Taking inflation into account, CDC prevention funding for STDs has fallen 41% since 2003, according to an analysis by the National Coalition of STD Directors. That’s even as cases have risen, leaving public health departments saddled with more work and far less money.

Janine Waters, STD program manager for the state of New Mexico, has watched the unraveling. When Ms. Waters started her career more than 20 years ago, she and her colleagues followed up on every case of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis reported, not only making sure that people got treatment but also getting in touch with their sexual partners, with the aim of stopping the spread of infection. In a 2019 interview with Kaiser Health News, she said her team was struggling to keep up with syphilis alone, even as they registered with dread congenital syphilis cases surging in neighboring Texas and Arizona.

By 2020, New Mexico had the highest rate of congenital syphilis in the country.

The COVID-19 pandemic drained the remaining resources. Half of health departments across the country discontinued STD fieldwork altogether, diverting their resources to COVID. In California, which for years has struggled with high rates of congenital syphilis, three-quarters of local health departments dispatched more than half of their STD staffers to work on COVID.

As the pandemic ebbs – at least in the short term – many public health departments are turning their attention back to syphilis and other diseases. And they are doing it with reinforcements. Although the Biden administration’s proposed STD prevention budget for 2023 remains flat, the American Rescue Plan Act included $200 million to help health departments boost contact tracing and surveillance for covid and other infectious diseases. Many departments are funneling that money toward STDs.

The money is an infusion that state health officials say will make a difference. But when taking inflation into account, it essentially brings STD prevention funding back to what it was in 2003, said Stephanie Arnold Pang of the National Coalition of STD Directors. And the American Rescue Plan money doesn’t cover some aspects of STD prevention, including clinical services.

The coalition wants to revive dedicated STD clinics, where people can drop in for testing and treatment at little to no cost. Advocates say that would fill a void that has plagued treatment efforts since public clinics closed en masse in the wake of the 2008 recession.

Texas, battling its own pervasive outbreak, will use its share of American Rescue Plan money to fill 94 new positions focused on various aspects of STD prevention. Those hires will bolster a range of measures the state put in place before the pandemic, including an updated data system to track infections, review boards in major cities that examine what went wrong for every case of congenital syphilis, and a requirement that providers test for syphilis during the third trimester of pregnancy. The suite of interventions seems to be working, but it could be a while before cases go down, said Amy Carter, the state’s congenital syphilis coordinator.

“The growth didn’t happen overnight,” Ms. Carter said. “So our prevention efforts aren’t going to have a direct impact overnight either.”

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

For a decade, the number of babies born with syphilis in the United States has surged, undeterred. Data released Apr. 12 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows just how dire the outbreak has become.

In 2012, 332 babies were born infected with the disease. In 2021, that number had climbed nearly sevenfold, to at least 2,268, according to preliminary estimates. And 166 of those babies died.

About 7% of babies diagnosed with syphilis in recent years have died; thousands of others born with the disease have faced problems that include brain and bone malformations, blindness, and organ damage.

For public health officials, the situation is all the more heartbreaking, considering that congenital syphilis rates reached near-historic modern lows from 2000 to 2012 amid ambitious prevention and education efforts. By 2020, following a sharp erosion in funding and attention, the nationwide case rate was more than seven times that of 2012.

“The really depressing thing about it is we had this thing virtually eradicated back in the year 2000,” said William Andrews, a public information officer for Oklahoma’s sexual health and harm reduction service. “Now it’s back with a vengeance. We are really trying to get the message out that sexual health is health. It’s nothing to be ashamed of.”

Even as caseloads soar, the CDC budget for STD prevention – the primary funding source for most public health departments – has been largely stagnant for two decades, its purchasing power dragged even lower by inflation.

The CDC report on STD trends provides official data on congenital syphilis cases for 2020, as well as preliminary case counts for 2021 that are expected to increase. CDC data shows that congenital syphilis rates in 2020 continued to climb in already overwhelmed states like Texas, California, and Nevada and that the disease is now present in almost every state in the nation. All but three states – Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont – reported congenital syphilis cases in 2020.

From 2011 to 2020, congenital syphilis resulted in 633 documented stillbirths and infant deaths, according to the new CDC data.

Preventing congenital syphilis – the term used when syphilis is transferred to a fetus in utero – is from a medical standpoint exceedingly simple: If a pregnant woman is diagnosed at least a month before giving birth, just a few shots of penicillin have a near-perfect cure rate for mother and baby. But funding cuts and competing priorities in the nation’s fragmented public health care system have vastly narrowed access to such services.

The reasons pregnant people with syphilis go undiagnosed or untreated vary geographically, according to data collected by states and analyzed by the CDC.

In Western states, the largest share of cases involve women who have received little to no prenatal care and aren’t tested for syphilis until they give birth. Many have substance use disorders, primarily related to methamphetamines. “They’ve felt a lot of judgment and stigma by the medical community,” said Stephanie Pierce, MD, a maternal fetal medicine specialist at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, who runs a clinic for women with high-risk pregnancies.

In Southern states, a CDC study of 2018 data found that the largest share of congenital syphilis cases were among women who had been tested and diagnosed but hadn’t received treatment. That year, among Black moms who gave birth to a baby with syphilis, 37% had not been treated adequately even though they’d received a timely diagnosis. Among white moms, that number was 24%. Longstanding racism in medical care, poverty, transportation issues, poorly funded public health departments, and crowded clinics whose employees are too overworked to follow up with patients all contribute to the problem, according to infectious disease experts.

Doctors are also noticing a growing number of women who are treated for syphilis but reinfected during pregnancy. Amid rising cases and stagnant resources, some states have focused disease investigations on pregnant women of childbearing age; they can no longer prioritize treating sexual partners who are also infected.

Eric McGrath, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Wayne State University, Detroit, said that he’d seen several newborns in recent years whose mothers had been treated for syphilis but then were re-exposed during pregnancy by partners who hadn’t been treated.

Treating a newborn baby for syphilis isn’t trivial. Penicillin carries little risk, but delivering it to a baby often involves a lumbar puncture and other painful procedures. And treatment typically means keeping the baby in the hospital for 10 days, interrupting an important time for family bonding.

Dr. McGrath has seen a couple of babies in his career who weren’t diagnosed or treated at birth and later came to him with full-blown syphilis complications, including full-body rashes and inflamed livers. It was an awful experience he doesn’t want to repeat. The preferred course, he said, is to spare the baby the ordeal and treat parents early in the pregnancy.

But in some places, providers aren’t routinely testing for syphilis. Although most states mandate testing at some point during pregnancy, as of last year just 14 required it for everyone in the third trimester. The CDC recommends third-trimester testing in areas with high rates of syphilis, a growing share of the United States.

After Arizona declared a statewide outbreak in 2018, state health officials wanted to know whether widespread testing in the third trimester could have prevented infections. Looking at 18 months of data, analysts found that nearly three-quarters of the more than 200 pregnant women diagnosed with syphilis in 2017 and the first half of 2018 got treatment. That left 57 babies born with syphilis, nine of whom died. The analysts estimated that a third of the infections could have been prevented with testing in the third trimester.

Based on the numbers they saw in those 18 months, officials estimated that screening all women on Medicaid in the third trimester would cost the state $113,300 annually, and that treating all cases of syphilis that screening would catch could be done for just $113. Factoring in the hospitalization costs for infected infants, the officials concluded the additional testing would save the state money.

And yet prevention money has been hard to come by. Taking inflation into account, CDC prevention funding for STDs has fallen 41% since 2003, according to an analysis by the National Coalition of STD Directors. That’s even as cases have risen, leaving public health departments saddled with more work and far less money.

Janine Waters, STD program manager for the state of New Mexico, has watched the unraveling. When Ms. Waters started her career more than 20 years ago, she and her colleagues followed up on every case of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis reported, not only making sure that people got treatment but also getting in touch with their sexual partners, with the aim of stopping the spread of infection. In a 2019 interview with Kaiser Health News, she said her team was struggling to keep up with syphilis alone, even as they registered with dread congenital syphilis cases surging in neighboring Texas and Arizona.

By 2020, New Mexico had the highest rate of congenital syphilis in the country.

The COVID-19 pandemic drained the remaining resources. Half of health departments across the country discontinued STD fieldwork altogether, diverting their resources to COVID. In California, which for years has struggled with high rates of congenital syphilis, three-quarters of local health departments dispatched more than half of their STD staffers to work on COVID.

As the pandemic ebbs – at least in the short term – many public health departments are turning their attention back to syphilis and other diseases. And they are doing it with reinforcements. Although the Biden administration’s proposed STD prevention budget for 2023 remains flat, the American Rescue Plan Act included $200 million to help health departments boost contact tracing and surveillance for covid and other infectious diseases. Many departments are funneling that money toward STDs.

The money is an infusion that state health officials say will make a difference. But when taking inflation into account, it essentially brings STD prevention funding back to what it was in 2003, said Stephanie Arnold Pang of the National Coalition of STD Directors. And the American Rescue Plan money doesn’t cover some aspects of STD prevention, including clinical services.

The coalition wants to revive dedicated STD clinics, where people can drop in for testing and treatment at little to no cost. Advocates say that would fill a void that has plagued treatment efforts since public clinics closed en masse in the wake of the 2008 recession.

Texas, battling its own pervasive outbreak, will use its share of American Rescue Plan money to fill 94 new positions focused on various aspects of STD prevention. Those hires will bolster a range of measures the state put in place before the pandemic, including an updated data system to track infections, review boards in major cities that examine what went wrong for every case of congenital syphilis, and a requirement that providers test for syphilis during the third trimester of pregnancy. The suite of interventions seems to be working, but it could be a while before cases go down, said Amy Carter, the state’s congenital syphilis coordinator.

“The growth didn’t happen overnight,” Ms. Carter said. “So our prevention efforts aren’t going to have a direct impact overnight either.”

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

A widely approved vaccine for meningitis may provide up to 40% protection against gonorrhea in young adults and adolescents, according to new research. This moderate efficacy paired with a targeted risk-based approach could reduce cases as well as lead to health care savings over 10 years, an additional modeling study showed.

The results – in three linked papers – were published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Gonorrhea, caused by the bacterium Neisseria gonorrhoeae, is the second most commonly reported sexually transmitted infection in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Globally, the World Health Organization estimates that there were 82.4 million new cases in people aged 15-49 in 2020. At the same time, it is becoming more difficult to treat the infection because of the increasing prevalence of drug-resistant strains of N. gonorrhoeae.

“New approaches, such as vaccination, are needed as long-term strategies to prevent gonorrhea and address the emerging threat of antimicrobial resistance,” Winston Abara, MD, PhD, Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and colleagues wrote.

While there is currently no vaccine for gonorrhea, observational studies have found an association between a meningococcal serogroup B vaccine and reduced gonorrhea cases. One study in New Zealand found that people vaccinated with the MeNZB vaccine, which was produced to control an outbreak of meningococcal disease in the country, were 31% less likely to contract gonorrhea.

This cross-reactivity comes about because Neisseria meningitidis, the bacterium that can cause meningitis, is closely related to N. gonorrhoeae, Joseph Alex Duncan, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, said in an interview. He was not involved with the research. The thought is that “a large proportion of the proteins that are in the vaccine also recognize proteins from Neisseria gonorrhea, because the bacteria are so similar at the genetic level,” he said.

To see if this association was still found for the four-component serogroup B meningococcal vaccine (MenB-4C), which is now widely available, Dr. Abara and colleagues looked through health records to identify laboratory-confirmed gonorrhea and chlamydia infections in adolescents and young adults in New York City and Philadelphia. All individuals included in the analysis were age 16-23 and all infections occurred between Jan. 1, 2016, and Dec. 31, 2018. These infections were then linked to vaccination records to determine individuals’ MenB-4C vaccination status. Complete vaccination was defined as two MenB-4C doses, delivered 30-180 days apart.

The research team identified over 167,700 infections, including 18,099 gonococcal infections, 124,876 chlamydial infections, and 24,731 coinfections, among 109,737 individuals. A total of 7,692 individuals had received at least one shot of the vaccine, and 3,660 people were fully vaccinated. Full MenB-4C vaccination was estimated to be 40% protective (APR 0.60; P < .0001) against gonorrhea, and partial vaccination was 26% protective (APR 0.74; P = .0012).

“The findings of our study add to the body of evidence that demonstrates that the MenB-4C may offer cross-protection against Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and it supports feasibility of an effective gonococcal vaccine with implications for gonorrhea prevention and control,” Dr. Abara told this news organization.

A second study conducted in South Australia looked at the effectiveness of the MenB-4C vaccine against meningitis and gonorrhea as part of a vaccination program. Using infection data from the Government of South Australia and vaccination records from the Australian Immunization Register, researchers identified individuals born between Feb. 1, 1998, and Feb. 1, 2005, with a documented gonorrhea or chlamydia infection between Feb. 1, 2019, and Jan. 31, 2021. Individuals with chlamydia served as the controls to account for similar sexual behavioral risks.

The analysis included 512 individuals with 575 cases of gonorrhea and 3,140 individuals with 3,847 episodes of chlamydia. In this group, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against gonorrhea was 32.7% (95% confidence interval, 8.3-50.6) in individuals who were fully vaccinated and 32.6% (95% CI, 10.6-49.1) in those who had received at least one dose of the MenB-4C.

While these findings are “confirmatory” because they showed results similar to those in previous observational studies, they are still exciting, Dr. Duncan said. “Up until now, we really haven’t had any real progress in knowing what type of immune responses could actually be protective from the disease,” he said. “These observational studies have really reinvigorated the Neisseria gonorrhea vaccine research community.”

A vaccine with moderate efficacy – like the protection demonstrated in both studies – could lead to a significant reduction in cases, he noted. A 2015 Australian modeling study estimated that a nonwaning vaccine with 20% efficacy could reduce cases by 40% over 20 years. Focusing on vaccinating higher-risk groups could also have an “outsize impact,” said Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, director, Division of Infectious Diseases, UAB Medicine, Birmingham, Alabama, in an interview. In the third study published in The Lancet, researchers estimated the possible reduction of cases and the potential health care cost savings in England in a vaccination effort focusing on men who have sex with men (MSM) at high risk for gonorrhea infection. They predicted that a vaccine with 31% efficacy could prevent 110,200 cases in MSM and save about £8 million ($10.4 million) over 10 years.

Both Dr. Duncan and Dr. Marrazzo agreed that clinical trials are needed to tease out whether the decrease in gonorrhea cases is due to the MenB-4C vaccine or the association is incidental. There are two ongoing clinical trials, one in Australia and one in the United States. Dr. Marrazzo leads the U.S. multicenter study, which also has two locations in Bangkok. The trial will also look at whether vaccination protection varies by the location of gonococcal infection: urethra, rectum, cervix, or pharynx. The two new observational studies did not distinguish the different sites of infection.

Dr. Marrazzo’s trial has enrolled almost 500 individuals so far, with the goal of enrolling over 2,000 participants in total. She hopes to see results by late 2023. “It’s a pretty ambitious effort, but I’m hoping it will give us not only a definitive answer in terms of reduction in infection by anatomic site,” she said, but “also give us a lot of information about how the immune response works to protect you from getting gonorrhea if you do get the vaccine.”

Dr. Duncan has received research grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Marrazzo leads a clinical trial of the MenB-4C vaccine sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

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

A widely approved vaccine for meningitis may provide up to 40% protection against gonorrhea in young adults and adolescents, according to new research. This moderate efficacy paired with a targeted risk-based approach could reduce cases as well as lead to health care savings over 10 years, an additional modeling study showed.

The results – in three linked papers – were published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Gonorrhea, caused by the bacterium Neisseria gonorrhoeae, is the second most commonly reported sexually transmitted infection in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Globally, the World Health Organization estimates that there were 82.4 million new cases in people aged 15-49 in 2020. At the same time, it is becoming more difficult to treat the infection because of the increasing prevalence of drug-resistant strains of N. gonorrhoeae.

“New approaches, such as vaccination, are needed as long-term strategies to prevent gonorrhea and address the emerging threat of antimicrobial resistance,” Winston Abara, MD, PhD, Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and colleagues wrote.

While there is currently no vaccine for gonorrhea, observational studies have found an association between a meningococcal serogroup B vaccine and reduced gonorrhea cases. One study in New Zealand found that people vaccinated with the MeNZB vaccine, which was produced to control an outbreak of meningococcal disease in the country, were 31% less likely to contract gonorrhea.

This cross-reactivity comes about because Neisseria meningitidis, the bacterium that can cause meningitis, is closely related to N. gonorrhoeae, Joseph Alex Duncan, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, said in an interview. He was not involved with the research. The thought is that “a large proportion of the proteins that are in the vaccine also recognize proteins from Neisseria gonorrhea, because the bacteria are so similar at the genetic level,” he said.

To see if this association was still found for the four-component serogroup B meningococcal vaccine (MenB-4C), which is now widely available, Dr. Abara and colleagues looked through health records to identify laboratory-confirmed gonorrhea and chlamydia infections in adolescents and young adults in New York City and Philadelphia. All individuals included in the analysis were age 16-23 and all infections occurred between Jan. 1, 2016, and Dec. 31, 2018. These infections were then linked to vaccination records to determine individuals’ MenB-4C vaccination status. Complete vaccination was defined as two MenB-4C doses, delivered 30-180 days apart.

The research team identified over 167,700 infections, including 18,099 gonococcal infections, 124,876 chlamydial infections, and 24,731 coinfections, among 109,737 individuals. A total of 7,692 individuals had received at least one shot of the vaccine, and 3,660 people were fully vaccinated. Full MenB-4C vaccination was estimated to be 40% protective (APR 0.60; P < .0001) against gonorrhea, and partial vaccination was 26% protective (APR 0.74; P = .0012).

“The findings of our study add to the body of evidence that demonstrates that the MenB-4C may offer cross-protection against Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and it supports feasibility of an effective gonococcal vaccine with implications for gonorrhea prevention and control,” Dr. Abara told this news organization.

A second study conducted in South Australia looked at the effectiveness of the MenB-4C vaccine against meningitis and gonorrhea as part of a vaccination program. Using infection data from the Government of South Australia and vaccination records from the Australian Immunization Register, researchers identified individuals born between Feb. 1, 1998, and Feb. 1, 2005, with a documented gonorrhea or chlamydia infection between Feb. 1, 2019, and Jan. 31, 2021. Individuals with chlamydia served as the controls to account for similar sexual behavioral risks.

The analysis included 512 individuals with 575 cases of gonorrhea and 3,140 individuals with 3,847 episodes of chlamydia. In this group, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against gonorrhea was 32.7% (95% confidence interval, 8.3-50.6) in individuals who were fully vaccinated and 32.6% (95% CI, 10.6-49.1) in those who had received at least one dose of the MenB-4C.

While these findings are “confirmatory” because they showed results similar to those in previous observational studies, they are still exciting, Dr. Duncan said. “Up until now, we really haven’t had any real progress in knowing what type of immune responses could actually be protective from the disease,” he said. “These observational studies have really reinvigorated the Neisseria gonorrhea vaccine research community.”

A vaccine with moderate efficacy – like the protection demonstrated in both studies – could lead to a significant reduction in cases, he noted. A 2015 Australian modeling study estimated that a nonwaning vaccine with 20% efficacy could reduce cases by 40% over 20 years. Focusing on vaccinating higher-risk groups could also have an “outsize impact,” said Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, director, Division of Infectious Diseases, UAB Medicine, Birmingham, Alabama, in an interview. In the third study published in The Lancet, researchers estimated the possible reduction of cases and the potential health care cost savings in England in a vaccination effort focusing on men who have sex with men (MSM) at high risk for gonorrhea infection. They predicted that a vaccine with 31% efficacy could prevent 110,200 cases in MSM and save about £8 million ($10.4 million) over 10 years.

Both Dr. Duncan and Dr. Marrazzo agreed that clinical trials are needed to tease out whether the decrease in gonorrhea cases is due to the MenB-4C vaccine or the association is incidental. There are two ongoing clinical trials, one in Australia and one in the United States. Dr. Marrazzo leads the U.S. multicenter study, which also has two locations in Bangkok. The trial will also look at whether vaccination protection varies by the location of gonococcal infection: urethra, rectum, cervix, or pharynx. The two new observational studies did not distinguish the different sites of infection.

Dr. Marrazzo’s trial has enrolled almost 500 individuals so far, with the goal of enrolling over 2,000 participants in total. She hopes to see results by late 2023. “It’s a pretty ambitious effort, but I’m hoping it will give us not only a definitive answer in terms of reduction in infection by anatomic site,” she said, but “also give us a lot of information about how the immune response works to protect you from getting gonorrhea if you do get the vaccine.”

Dr. Duncan has received research grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Marrazzo leads a clinical trial of the MenB-4C vaccine sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

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

A widely approved vaccine for meningitis may provide up to 40% protection against gonorrhea in young adults and adolescents, according to new research. This moderate efficacy paired with a targeted risk-based approach could reduce cases as well as lead to health care savings over 10 years, an additional modeling study showed.

The results – in three linked papers – were published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Gonorrhea, caused by the bacterium Neisseria gonorrhoeae, is the second most commonly reported sexually transmitted infection in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Globally, the World Health Organization estimates that there were 82.4 million new cases in people aged 15-49 in 2020. At the same time, it is becoming more difficult to treat the infection because of the increasing prevalence of drug-resistant strains of N. gonorrhoeae.

“New approaches, such as vaccination, are needed as long-term strategies to prevent gonorrhea and address the emerging threat of antimicrobial resistance,” Winston Abara, MD, PhD, Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and colleagues wrote.

While there is currently no vaccine for gonorrhea, observational studies have found an association between a meningococcal serogroup B vaccine and reduced gonorrhea cases. One study in New Zealand found that people vaccinated with the MeNZB vaccine, which was produced to control an outbreak of meningococcal disease in the country, were 31% less likely to contract gonorrhea.

This cross-reactivity comes about because Neisseria meningitidis, the bacterium that can cause meningitis, is closely related to N. gonorrhoeae, Joseph Alex Duncan, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, said in an interview. He was not involved with the research. The thought is that “a large proportion of the proteins that are in the vaccine also recognize proteins from Neisseria gonorrhea, because the bacteria are so similar at the genetic level,” he said.

To see if this association was still found for the four-component serogroup B meningococcal vaccine (MenB-4C), which is now widely available, Dr. Abara and colleagues looked through health records to identify laboratory-confirmed gonorrhea and chlamydia infections in adolescents and young adults in New York City and Philadelphia. All individuals included in the analysis were age 16-23 and all infections occurred between Jan. 1, 2016, and Dec. 31, 2018. These infections were then linked to vaccination records to determine individuals’ MenB-4C vaccination status. Complete vaccination was defined as two MenB-4C doses, delivered 30-180 days apart.

The research team identified over 167,700 infections, including 18,099 gonococcal infections, 124,876 chlamydial infections, and 24,731 coinfections, among 109,737 individuals. A total of 7,692 individuals had received at least one shot of the vaccine, and 3,660 people were fully vaccinated. Full MenB-4C vaccination was estimated to be 40% protective (APR 0.60; P < .0001) against gonorrhea, and partial vaccination was 26% protective (APR 0.74; P = .0012).

“The findings of our study add to the body of evidence that demonstrates that the MenB-4C may offer cross-protection against Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and it supports feasibility of an effective gonococcal vaccine with implications for gonorrhea prevention and control,” Dr. Abara told this news organization.

A second study conducted in South Australia looked at the effectiveness of the MenB-4C vaccine against meningitis and gonorrhea as part of a vaccination program. Using infection data from the Government of South Australia and vaccination records from the Australian Immunization Register, researchers identified individuals born between Feb. 1, 1998, and Feb. 1, 2005, with a documented gonorrhea or chlamydia infection between Feb. 1, 2019, and Jan. 31, 2021. Individuals with chlamydia served as the controls to account for similar sexual behavioral risks.

The analysis included 512 individuals with 575 cases of gonorrhea and 3,140 individuals with 3,847 episodes of chlamydia. In this group, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against gonorrhea was 32.7% (95% confidence interval, 8.3-50.6) in individuals who were fully vaccinated and 32.6% (95% CI, 10.6-49.1) in those who had received at least one dose of the MenB-4C.

While these findings are “confirmatory” because they showed results similar to those in previous observational studies, they are still exciting, Dr. Duncan said. “Up until now, we really haven’t had any real progress in knowing what type of immune responses could actually be protective from the disease,” he said. “These observational studies have really reinvigorated the Neisseria gonorrhea vaccine research community.”

A vaccine with moderate efficacy – like the protection demonstrated in both studies – could lead to a significant reduction in cases, he noted. A 2015 Australian modeling study estimated that a nonwaning vaccine with 20% efficacy could reduce cases by 40% over 20 years. Focusing on vaccinating higher-risk groups could also have an “outsize impact,” said Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, director, Division of Infectious Diseases, UAB Medicine, Birmingham, Alabama, in an interview. In the third study published in The Lancet, researchers estimated the possible reduction of cases and the potential health care cost savings in England in a vaccination effort focusing on men who have sex with men (MSM) at high risk for gonorrhea infection. They predicted that a vaccine with 31% efficacy could prevent 110,200 cases in MSM and save about £8 million ($10.4 million) over 10 years.

Both Dr. Duncan and Dr. Marrazzo agreed that clinical trials are needed to tease out whether the decrease in gonorrhea cases is due to the MenB-4C vaccine or the association is incidental. There are two ongoing clinical trials, one in Australia and one in the United States. Dr. Marrazzo leads the U.S. multicenter study, which also has two locations in Bangkok. The trial will also look at whether vaccination protection varies by the location of gonococcal infection: urethra, rectum, cervix, or pharynx. The two new observational studies did not distinguish the different sites of infection.

Dr. Marrazzo’s trial has enrolled almost 500 individuals so far, with the goal of enrolling over 2,000 participants in total. She hopes to see results by late 2023. “It’s a pretty ambitious effort, but I’m hoping it will give us not only a definitive answer in terms of reduction in infection by anatomic site,” she said, but “also give us a lot of information about how the immune response works to protect you from getting gonorrhea if you do get the vaccine.”

Dr. Duncan has received research grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Marrazzo leads a clinical trial of the MenB-4C vaccine sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

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

Approximately 20% of sexually active high schoolers reported testing for a sexually transmitted infection in the previous year, based on data from 2,501 respondents to the 2019 national Youth Risk Behavior Survey.

Data suggest that half of all new STIs in the United States occur in youth aged 15-24 years, and that 25% of sexually active young women in the United States have an STI, wrote Nicole Liddon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues.

Although organizations including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommend varying degrees of routine STI screening for adolescents, data on the prevalence of testing in this population are limited, the researchers said.

However, the addition in 2019 of a question on STI testing to the national Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) provided an opportunity to assess prevalence of STI testing, identify potential barriers, and increase screening rates, they wrote.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from the 2019 national YRBS, an anonymous survey administered biannually to public and private high school students across the United States.

The study population included 2,501 individuals who reported sexual activity with at least one person during the 3 months prior to the survey.

Overall, 20.4% of the respondents reported being tested for an STI in the previous year, including significantly more females than males (26.1% vs. 13.7%).

The prevalence of testing among females was not significantly different according to race/ethnicity, sexual identity, or the sex of sexual contacts, but the prevalence increased with age; 12.6%, 22.8%, 28.5%, and 36.9% for females aged 15 years and younger, 16 years, 17 years, and 18 years, respectively.

Among males, no significant differences in STI testing were noted according to race/ethnicity, age, sexual identity, or sex of sexual contacts.

The researchers also analyzed prevalence of STI tested based on sexual behaviors. Among female students, the prevalence of STI testing was higher among those who reported the following behaviors, compared with those who did not: nonuse of condoms at last sexual intercourse (34.1% vs. 18.2%), substance use at last sexual intercourse (32.0% vs. 24.7%), and having four or more lifetime sex partners (31.9% vs. 24.7%).

Among male students, the prevalence of STI testing was higher among those who reported the following behaviors, compared with those who did not: sex before age 13 years (27.1% vs. 12.1%), having two or more recent sex partners (22.4% vs. 10.4%), having four or more lifetime sex partners (22.3% vs. 9.5%), and substance use at last sexual intercourse (19.2% vs. 12.1%).

The low prevalence of STI testing in teens has become more urgent in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, the researchers wrote. “These prevalence estimates were derived before the possible profound impacts of the pandemic on adolescent sexual behavior and access to and use of health care services.”

Current guidelines allow health care providers the options for opt-out STI screening as a strategy to improve screening rates and testing; however, this option does not eliminate the need for conversations with adolescent patients about sexual activity, they emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several other factors including the inability to directly assess adherence to screening recommendations specifically, the inability to determine whether low testing rates resulted from limited access to health care or missed screening opportunities at visits, and the inclusion only of high school students but not out-of-school youth who may have more limited access to testing.

However, the results highlight the need to improve STI testing services for adolescents, and to address barriers at the individual and clinic level, they said. The addition of a question about past-year STI testing to the 2019 and future YRBS survey will promote ongoing monitoring of efforts to increase testing rates.

Teen sexual health goes beyond testing

The current study shows that routine testing for STIs according to published guidelines is low, Cynthia Holland-Hall, MD, and Andrea E. Bonny, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital and Ohio State University, both in Columbus, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Notably, sexually active females and males who had sex with male partners, two groups for whom annual testing is specifically recommended by multiple organizations, had testing rates of less than 30%, they said. The authors highlighted the study’s lack of information on which specific barriers, such as lack of access to the health care system, lack of knowledge, and fear of disclosure, contributed to overall low rates of testing.

However, STI testing is only one element of sexual and reproductive health care. Although opt-out testing may improve detection rates, the editorialists emphasized the need for patient-provider conversations about sex, citing recent studies showing that adolescents who spent some time alone with providers were more likely to receive sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services in the past year.

“Resources such as confidentiality policies, checklists, and written screening tools may facilitate SRH discussions,” Dr. Holland-Hall and Dr. Bonny said. “With a little practice, respect, and intention, a caring provider can take the awkward out of discussing sexual health but must not opt out of the conversation.”
 

Privacy and time issues exacerbate low testing rates

The current study is especially important at this time because many adolescents have likely missed well visits, and therefore important STI screens, because of disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

“I was surprised that the rate of screening was only one in five,” said Dr. Kinsella. “I knew it would be suboptimal, but not that low.”

According to Dr. Kinsella, there are two major barriers to increasing STI testing in adolescents in primary care. One barrier is that insurance companies will often state on the bill what the testing was for, which will lead to an uncomfortable conversation at a later date for the adolescent and parent when the bill arrives in the mail. A second barrier is when to test during a visit,. “If we obtain urine samples on all adolescents and many of them are not sexually active, we are wasting a lot of time in the short visit to obtain urine,” she explained. “If testing is scheduled for the end of the visit, they often leave without providing a urine sample.”

Overall, the study is an important reminder to general pediatricians about STI testing for sexually active teens, she emphasized. 

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Approximately 20% of sexually active high schoolers reported testing for a sexually transmitted infection in the previous year, based on data from 2,501 respondents to the 2019 national Youth Risk Behavior Survey.

Data suggest that half of all new STIs in the United States occur in youth aged 15-24 years, and that 25% of sexually active young women in the United States have an STI, wrote Nicole Liddon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues.

Although organizations including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommend varying degrees of routine STI screening for adolescents, data on the prevalence of testing in this population are limited, the researchers said.

However, the addition in 2019 of a question on STI testing to the national Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) provided an opportunity to assess prevalence of STI testing, identify potential barriers, and increase screening rates, they wrote.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from the 2019 national YRBS, an anonymous survey administered biannually to public and private high school students across the United States.

The study population included 2,501 individuals who reported sexual activity with at least one person during the 3 months prior to the survey.

Overall, 20.4% of the respondents reported being tested for an STI in the previous year, including significantly more females than males (26.1% vs. 13.7%).

The prevalence of testing among females was not significantly different according to race/ethnicity, sexual identity, or the sex of sexual contacts, but the prevalence increased with age; 12.6%, 22.8%, 28.5%, and 36.9% for females aged 15 years and younger, 16 years, 17 years, and 18 years, respectively.

Among males, no significant differences in STI testing were noted according to race/ethnicity, age, sexual identity, or sex of sexual contacts.

The researchers also analyzed prevalence of STI tested based on sexual behaviors. Among female students, the prevalence of STI testing was higher among those who reported the following behaviors, compared with those who did not: nonuse of condoms at last sexual intercourse (34.1% vs. 18.2%), substance use at last sexual intercourse (32.0% vs. 24.7%), and having four or more lifetime sex partners (31.9% vs. 24.7%).

Among male students, the prevalence of STI testing was higher among those who reported the following behaviors, compared with those who did not: sex before age 13 years (27.1% vs. 12.1%), having two or more recent sex partners (22.4% vs. 10.4%), having four or more lifetime sex partners (22.3% vs. 9.5%), and substance use at last sexual intercourse (19.2% vs. 12.1%).

The low prevalence of STI testing in teens has become more urgent in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, the researchers wrote. “These prevalence estimates were derived before the possible profound impacts of the pandemic on adolescent sexual behavior and access to and use of health care services.”

Current guidelines allow health care providers the options for opt-out STI screening as a strategy to improve screening rates and testing; however, this option does not eliminate the need for conversations with adolescent patients about sexual activity, they emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several other factors including the inability to directly assess adherence to screening recommendations specifically, the inability to determine whether low testing rates resulted from limited access to health care or missed screening opportunities at visits, and the inclusion only of high school students but not out-of-school youth who may have more limited access to testing.

However, the results highlight the need to improve STI testing services for adolescents, and to address barriers at the individual and clinic level, they said. The addition of a question about past-year STI testing to the 2019 and future YRBS survey will promote ongoing monitoring of efforts to increase testing rates.

Teen sexual health goes beyond testing

The current study shows that routine testing for STIs according to published guidelines is low, Cynthia Holland-Hall, MD, and Andrea E. Bonny, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital and Ohio State University, both in Columbus, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Notably, sexually active females and males who had sex with male partners, two groups for whom annual testing is specifically recommended by multiple organizations, had testing rates of less than 30%, they said. The authors highlighted the study’s lack of information on which specific barriers, such as lack of access to the health care system, lack of knowledge, and fear of disclosure, contributed to overall low rates of testing.

However, STI testing is only one element of sexual and reproductive health care. Although opt-out testing may improve detection rates, the editorialists emphasized the need for patient-provider conversations about sex, citing recent studies showing that adolescents who spent some time alone with providers were more likely to receive sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services in the past year.

“Resources such as confidentiality policies, checklists, and written screening tools may facilitate SRH discussions,” Dr. Holland-Hall and Dr. Bonny said. “With a little practice, respect, and intention, a caring provider can take the awkward out of discussing sexual health but must not opt out of the conversation.”
 

Privacy and time issues exacerbate low testing rates

The current study is especially important at this time because many adolescents have likely missed well visits, and therefore important STI screens, because of disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

“I was surprised that the rate of screening was only one in five,” said Dr. Kinsella. “I knew it would be suboptimal, but not that low.”

According to Dr. Kinsella, there are two major barriers to increasing STI testing in adolescents in primary care. One barrier is that insurance companies will often state on the bill what the testing was for, which will lead to an uncomfortable conversation at a later date for the adolescent and parent when the bill arrives in the mail. A second barrier is when to test during a visit,. “If we obtain urine samples on all adolescents and many of them are not sexually active, we are wasting a lot of time in the short visit to obtain urine,” she explained. “If testing is scheduled for the end of the visit, they often leave without providing a urine sample.”

Overall, the study is an important reminder to general pediatricians about STI testing for sexually active teens, she emphasized. 

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Approximately 20% of sexually active high schoolers reported testing for a sexually transmitted infection in the previous year, based on data from 2,501 respondents to the 2019 national Youth Risk Behavior Survey.

Data suggest that half of all new STIs in the United States occur in youth aged 15-24 years, and that 25% of sexually active young women in the United States have an STI, wrote Nicole Liddon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues.

Although organizations including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommend varying degrees of routine STI screening for adolescents, data on the prevalence of testing in this population are limited, the researchers said.

However, the addition in 2019 of a question on STI testing to the national Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) provided an opportunity to assess prevalence of STI testing, identify potential barriers, and increase screening rates, they wrote.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from the 2019 national YRBS, an anonymous survey administered biannually to public and private high school students across the United States.

The study population included 2,501 individuals who reported sexual activity with at least one person during the 3 months prior to the survey.

Overall, 20.4% of the respondents reported being tested for an STI in the previous year, including significantly more females than males (26.1% vs. 13.7%).

The prevalence of testing among females was not significantly different according to race/ethnicity, sexual identity, or the sex of sexual contacts, but the prevalence increased with age; 12.6%, 22.8%, 28.5%, and 36.9% for females aged 15 years and younger, 16 years, 17 years, and 18 years, respectively.

Among males, no significant differences in STI testing were noted according to race/ethnicity, age, sexual identity, or sex of sexual contacts.

The researchers also analyzed prevalence of STI tested based on sexual behaviors. Among female students, the prevalence of STI testing was higher among those who reported the following behaviors, compared with those who did not: nonuse of condoms at last sexual intercourse (34.1% vs. 18.2%), substance use at last sexual intercourse (32.0% vs. 24.7%), and having four or more lifetime sex partners (31.9% vs. 24.7%).

Among male students, the prevalence of STI testing was higher among those who reported the following behaviors, compared with those who did not: sex before age 13 years (27.1% vs. 12.1%), having two or more recent sex partners (22.4% vs. 10.4%), having four or more lifetime sex partners (22.3% vs. 9.5%), and substance use at last sexual intercourse (19.2% vs. 12.1%).

The low prevalence of STI testing in teens has become more urgent in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, the researchers wrote. “These prevalence estimates were derived before the possible profound impacts of the pandemic on adolescent sexual behavior and access to and use of health care services.”

Current guidelines allow health care providers the options for opt-out STI screening as a strategy to improve screening rates and testing; however, this option does not eliminate the need for conversations with adolescent patients about sexual activity, they emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several other factors including the inability to directly assess adherence to screening recommendations specifically, the inability to determine whether low testing rates resulted from limited access to health care or missed screening opportunities at visits, and the inclusion only of high school students but not out-of-school youth who may have more limited access to testing.

However, the results highlight the need to improve STI testing services for adolescents, and to address barriers at the individual and clinic level, they said. The addition of a question about past-year STI testing to the 2019 and future YRBS survey will promote ongoing monitoring of efforts to increase testing rates.

Teen sexual health goes beyond testing

The current study shows that routine testing for STIs according to published guidelines is low, Cynthia Holland-Hall, MD, and Andrea E. Bonny, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital and Ohio State University, both in Columbus, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Notably, sexually active females and males who had sex with male partners, two groups for whom annual testing is specifically recommended by multiple organizations, had testing rates of less than 30%, they said. The authors highlighted the study’s lack of information on which specific barriers, such as lack of access to the health care system, lack of knowledge, and fear of disclosure, contributed to overall low rates of testing.

However, STI testing is only one element of sexual and reproductive health care. Although opt-out testing may improve detection rates, the editorialists emphasized the need for patient-provider conversations about sex, citing recent studies showing that adolescents who spent some time alone with providers were more likely to receive sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services in the past year.

“Resources such as confidentiality policies, checklists, and written screening tools may facilitate SRH discussions,” Dr. Holland-Hall and Dr. Bonny said. “With a little practice, respect, and intention, a caring provider can take the awkward out of discussing sexual health but must not opt out of the conversation.”
 

Privacy and time issues exacerbate low testing rates

The current study is especially important at this time because many adolescents have likely missed well visits, and therefore important STI screens, because of disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

“I was surprised that the rate of screening was only one in five,” said Dr. Kinsella. “I knew it would be suboptimal, but not that low.”

According to Dr. Kinsella, there are two major barriers to increasing STI testing in adolescents in primary care. One barrier is that insurance companies will often state on the bill what the testing was for, which will lead to an uncomfortable conversation at a later date for the adolescent and parent when the bill arrives in the mail. A second barrier is when to test during a visit,. “If we obtain urine samples on all adolescents and many of them are not sexually active, we are wasting a lot of time in the short visit to obtain urine,” she explained. “If testing is scheduled for the end of the visit, they often leave without providing a urine sample.”

Overall, the study is an important reminder to general pediatricians about STI testing for sexually active teens, she emphasized. 

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Vaginal estradiol tablets promoted significant changes in the vaginal microbiota in postmenopausal women compared with vaginal moisturizer or placebo, but reduction in bothersome symptoms were similar, based on data from 144 individuals.

“In the Menopause Strategies–Finding Lasting Answers and Health (MsFLASH) trial network’s Vaginal Health Trial of treatment for moderate to severe vaginal symptoms of menopause, there were no significant differences in reduction of vaginal symptoms among women using the estradiol vaginal tablet or vaginal moisturizer compared to women using the placebo regimen; all three groups had a reduction in vaginal symptoms,” lead author Sujatha Srinivasan, PhD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, said in an interview.

“However, the impact of these treatments on the vaginal microenvironment are poorly understood,” she said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Srinivasan and colleagues conducted a secondary analysis to examine the effects of estradiol or a low-pH vaginal moisturizer on the vaginal microbiota, metabolome, and pH after 12 weeks of treatment vs. a low-pH placebo.

“Changes, or lack thereof, in the vaginal microenvironment might have implications beyond symptoms, and might be linked to risk for cervical cancer, genital infections, or other outcomes, though our study did not evaluate those associations,” Dr. Srinivasan said in an interview. Dr. Srinivasan’s comments were corroborated by coauthor Caroline M. Mitchell, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The study population included postmenopausal women with moderate to severe genitourinary symptoms who were enrolled in a randomized, controlled trial between April 2016 and February 2017. The average age of the women was 61 years, and 90% were White. The women were randomized to 10 mcg vaginal estradiol plus placebo gel, placebo tablet plus vaginal moisturizer, or a dual placebo.

The primary outcome in the original study was a change in the reported most bothersome symptoms (MBS) selected by the participants at the time of study enrollment; these included pain with penetration, vaginal dryness, and vulvovaginal irritation, itching, and pain. The main outcomes in the secondary analysis were changes in the diversity and composition of the vaginal microbiota, changes in the metabolome, and pH. Microbiota diversity was calculated via the Shannon Diversity Index (SDI).

After 12 weeks, the bacterial microbiota were dominated by Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium in 80% of the estradiol group, 36% of the moisturizer group, and 26% of the placebo group (P < .001).

In addition, diversity analysis showed significant changes in bacterial composition in women in the estradiol group compared with the placebo group, but no significant differences between the moisturizer and placebo groups.

The composition of vaginal fluid small molecule metabolites changed significantly in 90 of 171 metabolites measured in the estradiol group from baseline to 12 weeks. Changes in the moisturizer and placebo groups were not significant.

Vaginal pH among women in the estradiol group was significantly lower than placebo at 12 weeks, with a median of 5 vs. 6 (P = .005). No significant difference in pH occurred for women in the moisturizer group. “However, pH significantly decreased over 12 weeks within each treatment group, reflecting the low-pH formulations of both the moisturizer and the placebo,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, women with high-diversity bacterial communities at baseline showed a greater median change in pH compared with women with low-diversity communities (median change of −1 vs. −0.3, P = .007).

Improvement in MBS symptoms by at least 2 points occurred in 53% of the estradiol group, 44% of the moisturizer group, and 49% of the placebo group. The similarity in severe symptom improvement among the groups confirms the lack of a causal association between microbiota and postmenopausal vaginal symptom severity, the researchers wrote.

“This study demonstrated that a decrease in vaginal pH alone was insufficient to change the vaginal microbiota,” Dr. Srinivasan said. “While the changes with estrogen were somewhat expected, the observation that low-pH vaginal products don’t change the vaginal microbiota is contrary to some expectations, and suggests that “low-pH” products may not be as helpful as their marketing claims,” she added. “A vaginal microbiota with an abundance of lactobacilli, a vaginal microenvironment with high concentrations of lactate, and a low vaginal pH is associated with health in premenopausal women. We also know that such a microenvironment is typically associated with low inflammation,” said Dr. Srinivasan. “At this time, we don’t have specific information as to how this is beneficial to postmenopausal women,” she noted. However, “If we extrapolate from the data on premenopausal women, the data from this secondary analysis suggests that vaginal estradiol may have positive impacts on the vaginal microenvironment regardless of impact on symptoms,” she said.

“Future areas of investigation should focus on understanding potential benefits of a Lactobacillus-dominant microbiota in postmenopausal women,” Dr. Srinivasan said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively small number of participants, and collection of data samples at only three time periods, as well as the lack of data on whether the observed changes are durable over longer treatment times, the researchers noted.

“The need to increase participant diversity in studies of postmenopausal women is highlighted by our finding that the 6 Black women in our analysis were all categorized in the low-diversity subgroup; data from premenopausal women suggest that Black women have diverse bacterial communities,” they added.

However, the results suggest that “a significant decrease in pH over the course of a trial may not reflect the same underlying biological processes among different interventions, and thus, lowering pH should not be a primary goal,” they concluded.
 

Estradiol may have limited clinical impact

“For postmenopausal women with dyspareunia, vaginal dryness, and/or burning/itching/irritation, the question of appropriate treatment is common,” Constance Bohon, MD, a gynecologist in private practice in Washington, said in an interview. “It is helpful to have a study that focuses on the benefit of a moisturizer as compared with vaginal estrogen for these women,” she said.

Dr. Bohon said she was not surprised with the benefits of the moisturizer for dyspareunia and vaginal dryness. “What did surprise me was that the complaint of vaginal itch, burn, or irritation was not significantly improved in the vaginal estrogen group compared with the moisturizer group. I assumed that estrogen would have been more beneficial in this group because these symptoms are more likely to be caused by a vaginal infection that would not be improved with moisturizer alone,” she said. “I expected that the change in the vaginal flora to increase Lactobacillus would have had a greater impact on an infection than the moisturizer, which did not significantly change the flora.”

For clinicians, the take-home message is that, for these patients, use of a moisturizer may be sufficient, Dr. Bohon said.

“Additional research should be done to assess each issue,” she noted. “For example, in the women who have pain with sex, what is the frequency of intercourse?” she asked. Other research should address the questions of whether women who have intercourse at least once a week have less dyspareunia than those who have less frequent sex, and whether a lubricant decreases dyspareunia as well as a moisturizer or vaginal estrogen, she added.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Srinivasan disclosed personal fees from Lupin unrelated to the current study. Dr. Bohon had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn. News.

Vaginal estradiol tablets promoted significant changes in the vaginal microbiota in postmenopausal women compared with vaginal moisturizer or placebo, but reduction in bothersome symptoms were similar, based on data from 144 individuals.

“In the Menopause Strategies–Finding Lasting Answers and Health (MsFLASH) trial network’s Vaginal Health Trial of treatment for moderate to severe vaginal symptoms of menopause, there were no significant differences in reduction of vaginal symptoms among women using the estradiol vaginal tablet or vaginal moisturizer compared to women using the placebo regimen; all three groups had a reduction in vaginal symptoms,” lead author Sujatha Srinivasan, PhD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, said in an interview.

“However, the impact of these treatments on the vaginal microenvironment are poorly understood,” she said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Srinivasan and colleagues conducted a secondary analysis to examine the effects of estradiol or a low-pH vaginal moisturizer on the vaginal microbiota, metabolome, and pH after 12 weeks of treatment vs. a low-pH placebo.

“Changes, or lack thereof, in the vaginal microenvironment might have implications beyond symptoms, and might be linked to risk for cervical cancer, genital infections, or other outcomes, though our study did not evaluate those associations,” Dr. Srinivasan said in an interview. Dr. Srinivasan’s comments were corroborated by coauthor Caroline M. Mitchell, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The study population included postmenopausal women with moderate to severe genitourinary symptoms who were enrolled in a randomized, controlled trial between April 2016 and February 2017. The average age of the women was 61 years, and 90% were White. The women were randomized to 10 mcg vaginal estradiol plus placebo gel, placebo tablet plus vaginal moisturizer, or a dual placebo.

The primary outcome in the original study was a change in the reported most bothersome symptoms (MBS) selected by the participants at the time of study enrollment; these included pain with penetration, vaginal dryness, and vulvovaginal irritation, itching, and pain. The main outcomes in the secondary analysis were changes in the diversity and composition of the vaginal microbiota, changes in the metabolome, and pH. Microbiota diversity was calculated via the Shannon Diversity Index (SDI).

After 12 weeks, the bacterial microbiota were dominated by Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium in 80% of the estradiol group, 36% of the moisturizer group, and 26% of the placebo group (P < .001).

In addition, diversity analysis showed significant changes in bacterial composition in women in the estradiol group compared with the placebo group, but no significant differences between the moisturizer and placebo groups.

The composition of vaginal fluid small molecule metabolites changed significantly in 90 of 171 metabolites measured in the estradiol group from baseline to 12 weeks. Changes in the moisturizer and placebo groups were not significant.

Vaginal pH among women in the estradiol group was significantly lower than placebo at 12 weeks, with a median of 5 vs. 6 (P = .005). No significant difference in pH occurred for women in the moisturizer group. “However, pH significantly decreased over 12 weeks within each treatment group, reflecting the low-pH formulations of both the moisturizer and the placebo,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, women with high-diversity bacterial communities at baseline showed a greater median change in pH compared with women with low-diversity communities (median change of −1 vs. −0.3, P = .007).

Improvement in MBS symptoms by at least 2 points occurred in 53% of the estradiol group, 44% of the moisturizer group, and 49% of the placebo group. The similarity in severe symptom improvement among the groups confirms the lack of a causal association between microbiota and postmenopausal vaginal symptom severity, the researchers wrote.

“This study demonstrated that a decrease in vaginal pH alone was insufficient to change the vaginal microbiota,” Dr. Srinivasan said. “While the changes with estrogen were somewhat expected, the observation that low-pH vaginal products don’t change the vaginal microbiota is contrary to some expectations, and suggests that “low-pH” products may not be as helpful as their marketing claims,” she added. “A vaginal microbiota with an abundance of lactobacilli, a vaginal microenvironment with high concentrations of lactate, and a low vaginal pH is associated with health in premenopausal women. We also know that such a microenvironment is typically associated with low inflammation,” said Dr. Srinivasan. “At this time, we don’t have specific information as to how this is beneficial to postmenopausal women,” she noted. However, “If we extrapolate from the data on premenopausal women, the data from this secondary analysis suggests that vaginal estradiol may have positive impacts on the vaginal microenvironment regardless of impact on symptoms,” she said.

“Future areas of investigation should focus on understanding potential benefits of a Lactobacillus-dominant microbiota in postmenopausal women,” Dr. Srinivasan said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively small number of participants, and collection of data samples at only three time periods, as well as the lack of data on whether the observed changes are durable over longer treatment times, the researchers noted.

“The need to increase participant diversity in studies of postmenopausal women is highlighted by our finding that the 6 Black women in our analysis were all categorized in the low-diversity subgroup; data from premenopausal women suggest that Black women have diverse bacterial communities,” they added.

However, the results suggest that “a significant decrease in pH over the course of a trial may not reflect the same underlying biological processes among different interventions, and thus, lowering pH should not be a primary goal,” they concluded.
 

Estradiol may have limited clinical impact

“For postmenopausal women with dyspareunia, vaginal dryness, and/or burning/itching/irritation, the question of appropriate treatment is common,” Constance Bohon, MD, a gynecologist in private practice in Washington, said in an interview. “It is helpful to have a study that focuses on the benefit of a moisturizer as compared with vaginal estrogen for these women,” she said.

Dr. Bohon said she was not surprised with the benefits of the moisturizer for dyspareunia and vaginal dryness. “What did surprise me was that the complaint of vaginal itch, burn, or irritation was not significantly improved in the vaginal estrogen group compared with the moisturizer group. I assumed that estrogen would have been more beneficial in this group because these symptoms are more likely to be caused by a vaginal infection that would not be improved with moisturizer alone,” she said. “I expected that the change in the vaginal flora to increase Lactobacillus would have had a greater impact on an infection than the moisturizer, which did not significantly change the flora.”

For clinicians, the take-home message is that, for these patients, use of a moisturizer may be sufficient, Dr. Bohon said.

“Additional research should be done to assess each issue,” she noted. “For example, in the women who have pain with sex, what is the frequency of intercourse?” she asked. Other research should address the questions of whether women who have intercourse at least once a week have less dyspareunia than those who have less frequent sex, and whether a lubricant decreases dyspareunia as well as a moisturizer or vaginal estrogen, she added.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Srinivasan disclosed personal fees from Lupin unrelated to the current study. Dr. Bohon had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn. News.

Vaginal estradiol tablets promoted significant changes in the vaginal microbiota in postmenopausal women compared with vaginal moisturizer or placebo, but reduction in bothersome symptoms were similar, based on data from 144 individuals.

“In the Menopause Strategies–Finding Lasting Answers and Health (MsFLASH) trial network’s Vaginal Health Trial of treatment for moderate to severe vaginal symptoms of menopause, there were no significant differences in reduction of vaginal symptoms among women using the estradiol vaginal tablet or vaginal moisturizer compared to women using the placebo regimen; all three groups had a reduction in vaginal symptoms,” lead author Sujatha Srinivasan, PhD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, said in an interview.

“However, the impact of these treatments on the vaginal microenvironment are poorly understood,” she said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Srinivasan and colleagues conducted a secondary analysis to examine the effects of estradiol or a low-pH vaginal moisturizer on the vaginal microbiota, metabolome, and pH after 12 weeks of treatment vs. a low-pH placebo.

“Changes, or lack thereof, in the vaginal microenvironment might have implications beyond symptoms, and might be linked to risk for cervical cancer, genital infections, or other outcomes, though our study did not evaluate those associations,” Dr. Srinivasan said in an interview. Dr. Srinivasan’s comments were corroborated by coauthor Caroline M. Mitchell, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The study population included postmenopausal women with moderate to severe genitourinary symptoms who were enrolled in a randomized, controlled trial between April 2016 and February 2017. The average age of the women was 61 years, and 90% were White. The women were randomized to 10 mcg vaginal estradiol plus placebo gel, placebo tablet plus vaginal moisturizer, or a dual placebo.

The primary outcome in the original study was a change in the reported most bothersome symptoms (MBS) selected by the participants at the time of study enrollment; these included pain with penetration, vaginal dryness, and vulvovaginal irritation, itching, and pain. The main outcomes in the secondary analysis were changes in the diversity and composition of the vaginal microbiota, changes in the metabolome, and pH. Microbiota diversity was calculated via the Shannon Diversity Index (SDI).

After 12 weeks, the bacterial microbiota were dominated by Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium in 80% of the estradiol group, 36% of the moisturizer group, and 26% of the placebo group (P < .001).

In addition, diversity analysis showed significant changes in bacterial composition in women in the estradiol group compared with the placebo group, but no significant differences between the moisturizer and placebo groups.

The composition of vaginal fluid small molecule metabolites changed significantly in 90 of 171 metabolites measured in the estradiol group from baseline to 12 weeks. Changes in the moisturizer and placebo groups were not significant.

Vaginal pH among women in the estradiol group was significantly lower than placebo at 12 weeks, with a median of 5 vs. 6 (P = .005). No significant difference in pH occurred for women in the moisturizer group. “However, pH significantly decreased over 12 weeks within each treatment group, reflecting the low-pH formulations of both the moisturizer and the placebo,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, women with high-diversity bacterial communities at baseline showed a greater median change in pH compared with women with low-diversity communities (median change of −1 vs. −0.3, P = .007).

Improvement in MBS symptoms by at least 2 points occurred in 53% of the estradiol group, 44% of the moisturizer group, and 49% of the placebo group. The similarity in severe symptom improvement among the groups confirms the lack of a causal association between microbiota and postmenopausal vaginal symptom severity, the researchers wrote.

“This study demonstrated that a decrease in vaginal pH alone was insufficient to change the vaginal microbiota,” Dr. Srinivasan said. “While the changes with estrogen were somewhat expected, the observation that low-pH vaginal products don’t change the vaginal microbiota is contrary to some expectations, and suggests that “low-pH” products may not be as helpful as their marketing claims,” she added. “A vaginal microbiota with an abundance of lactobacilli, a vaginal microenvironment with high concentrations of lactate, and a low vaginal pH is associated with health in premenopausal women. We also know that such a microenvironment is typically associated with low inflammation,” said Dr. Srinivasan. “At this time, we don’t have specific information as to how this is beneficial to postmenopausal women,” she noted. However, “If we extrapolate from the data on premenopausal women, the data from this secondary analysis suggests that vaginal estradiol may have positive impacts on the vaginal microenvironment regardless of impact on symptoms,” she said.

“Future areas of investigation should focus on understanding potential benefits of a Lactobacillus-dominant microbiota in postmenopausal women,” Dr. Srinivasan said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively small number of participants, and collection of data samples at only three time periods, as well as the lack of data on whether the observed changes are durable over longer treatment times, the researchers noted.

“The need to increase participant diversity in studies of postmenopausal women is highlighted by our finding that the 6 Black women in our analysis were all categorized in the low-diversity subgroup; data from premenopausal women suggest that Black women have diverse bacterial communities,” they added.

However, the results suggest that “a significant decrease in pH over the course of a trial may not reflect the same underlying biological processes among different interventions, and thus, lowering pH should not be a primary goal,” they concluded.
 

Estradiol may have limited clinical impact

“For postmenopausal women with dyspareunia, vaginal dryness, and/or burning/itching/irritation, the question of appropriate treatment is common,” Constance Bohon, MD, a gynecologist in private practice in Washington, said in an interview. “It is helpful to have a study that focuses on the benefit of a moisturizer as compared with vaginal estrogen for these women,” she said.

Dr. Bohon said she was not surprised with the benefits of the moisturizer for dyspareunia and vaginal dryness. “What did surprise me was that the complaint of vaginal itch, burn, or irritation was not significantly improved in the vaginal estrogen group compared with the moisturizer group. I assumed that estrogen would have been more beneficial in this group because these symptoms are more likely to be caused by a vaginal infection that would not be improved with moisturizer alone,” she said. “I expected that the change in the vaginal flora to increase Lactobacillus would have had a greater impact on an infection than the moisturizer, which did not significantly change the flora.”

For clinicians, the take-home message is that, for these patients, use of a moisturizer may be sufficient, Dr. Bohon said.

“Additional research should be done to assess each issue,” she noted. “For example, in the women who have pain with sex, what is the frequency of intercourse?” she asked. Other research should address the questions of whether women who have intercourse at least once a week have less dyspareunia than those who have less frequent sex, and whether a lubricant decreases dyspareunia as well as a moisturizer or vaginal estrogen, she added.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Srinivasan disclosed personal fees from Lupin unrelated to the current study. Dr. Bohon had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn. News.

As family medicine physicians it is our duty to help facilitate patients’ health care based on what is in patients’ best interests and aligns with the goals they have for their lives.

I am aware of how intersecting social, economic, familial, and environmental factors influence what is best for patient’s lives, and I consider having this awareness to be part of being a family medicine physician.

People being able to make choices about their reproductive health and their reproductive futures without unnecessary and harmful barriers is a part of a person’s overall health that family medicine physicians should recognize and prioritize. Helping people achieve their reproductive health care goals includes helping patients access abortion care if that is the care that they decide that they need.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 2021 was “the worst year for abortion rights in almost half a century” as 108 abortion restrictions were enacted throughout the country. The most damaging restriction was introduced in Texas in the fall of 2021 called SB8, which has virtually stopped all abortion care in person for any person with a pregnancy greater than 6 weeks’ gestation. Now, in 2022 we are seeing several other states, including Idaho and Oklahoma, set to pass similar laws that will essentially halt most abortion care in the clinical setting in those states.

Abortion access had already been a problem in much of the country prior to 2021 because of burdensome and not medically necessary restrictions. Based on current political trends we are getting to a place where it is not hard to imagine that up to half of the states in this country will not allow their communities to access abortion care in the clinical setting at all in the very near future. This is not reproductive freedom, and I am outraged that people are being forced to travel hundreds of miles for their abortion care, forced to continue pregnancies that they don’t want, or forced to find other ways to obtain medication abortion pills.

While obtaining medication abortion pills online and managing the abortion process at home is safe and recognized as safe by the World Health Organization, no one should be forced to utilize a certain type of care based on their state of residence, in my opinion.

Providing evidence-based medicine to patients is ‘my duty’

Abortion care is health care and is primary care. One in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45, and we know that transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people also have abortions. That means on any given day as family medicine physicians we are likely taking care of more than one person who has had an abortion, will have an abortion, and/or is considering an abortion. Therefore, all family medicine physicians need to be prepared to counsel patients about all of their pregnancy options, answer questions about pregnancy and abortion, and help people get the compassionate care that they deserve.

Our patients turn to us as trusted sources of information. When they reach out to us, I consider providing evidence-based medicine to patients – that includes factual information about abortion care if and when our patients need it – to be my duty as a family medicine physician.
 

Resources on abortion care for family medicine physicians

For family medicine physicians who did not have adequate exposure to abortion care during residency, there are many evidence-based resources to review in order to become more knowledgeable in abortion care.

In many areas of medicine, we have to continue to learn and seek out references, and abortion care is no different. One could argue that understanding abortion care and providing patients with factual information about their options and abortion care is even more important because of stigma surrounding abortion care and the rampant lies about abortion care that are easily accessible and that even other medical professionals and politicians spread. There are even fake clinics, often called “crisis pregnancy centers”, that intimidate, lie about abortion, and coerce patients to make decisions that are against their desires. Thus, being that trusted source of factual information about abortion care is even more important in the face of so many lies.

There are several organizations that are dedicated to education surrounding abortion care, in particular within the primary care setting. The Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP), Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine (RHEDI), and Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare (TEACH) all provide free resources on abortion care, how to incorporate abortion care into primary care, and how to teach medical students and residents about abortion care.

In addition, the National Network of Abortion Funds connects people to community-led organizations that provide assistance related to direct financial and logistical support for obtaining abortion care. I believe it is critical that we familiarize ourselves with our local abortion funds and share what we learn about these resources with our patients.

As abortion access continues to be further stripped away from many people that we take care of, I think standing up for what is right and what is our duty as physicians becomes more important. That duty is to provide our patients with evidence-based medicine and compassionate care so that our communities can obtain reproductive health outcomes and freedom that are best for their lives.
 

Dr. Lockley is a family physician currently living in Harlem, N.Y., and a member of the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. She currently works for Public Health Solutions’ Sexual and Reproductive Health Centers in Brooklyn, providing primary care and reproductive health care services there, and as an abortion provider throughout the New York region. She completed both medical school and residency in Philadelphia and then did a fellowship in reproductive health care and advocacy through the Family Health Center of Harlem and the Reproductive Health Access Project. She can be reached at fpnews@mdedge.com.

As family medicine physicians it is our duty to help facilitate patients’ health care based on what is in patients’ best interests and aligns with the goals they have for their lives.

I am aware of how intersecting social, economic, familial, and environmental factors influence what is best for patient’s lives, and I consider having this awareness to be part of being a family medicine physician.

People being able to make choices about their reproductive health and their reproductive futures without unnecessary and harmful barriers is a part of a person’s overall health that family medicine physicians should recognize and prioritize. Helping people achieve their reproductive health care goals includes helping patients access abortion care if that is the care that they decide that they need.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 2021 was “the worst year for abortion rights in almost half a century” as 108 abortion restrictions were enacted throughout the country. The most damaging restriction was introduced in Texas in the fall of 2021 called SB8, which has virtually stopped all abortion care in person for any person with a pregnancy greater than 6 weeks’ gestation. Now, in 2022 we are seeing several other states, including Idaho and Oklahoma, set to pass similar laws that will essentially halt most abortion care in the clinical setting in those states.

Abortion access had already been a problem in much of the country prior to 2021 because of burdensome and not medically necessary restrictions. Based on current political trends we are getting to a place where it is not hard to imagine that up to half of the states in this country will not allow their communities to access abortion care in the clinical setting at all in the very near future. This is not reproductive freedom, and I am outraged that people are being forced to travel hundreds of miles for their abortion care, forced to continue pregnancies that they don’t want, or forced to find other ways to obtain medication abortion pills.

While obtaining medication abortion pills online and managing the abortion process at home is safe and recognized as safe by the World Health Organization, no one should be forced to utilize a certain type of care based on their state of residence, in my opinion.

Providing evidence-based medicine to patients is ‘my duty’

Abortion care is health care and is primary care. One in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45, and we know that transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people also have abortions. That means on any given day as family medicine physicians we are likely taking care of more than one person who has had an abortion, will have an abortion, and/or is considering an abortion. Therefore, all family medicine physicians need to be prepared to counsel patients about all of their pregnancy options, answer questions about pregnancy and abortion, and help people get the compassionate care that they deserve.

Our patients turn to us as trusted sources of information. When they reach out to us, I consider providing evidence-based medicine to patients – that includes factual information about abortion care if and when our patients need it – to be my duty as a family medicine physician.
 

Resources on abortion care for family medicine physicians

For family medicine physicians who did not have adequate exposure to abortion care during residency, there are many evidence-based resources to review in order to become more knowledgeable in abortion care.

In many areas of medicine, we have to continue to learn and seek out references, and abortion care is no different. One could argue that understanding abortion care and providing patients with factual information about their options and abortion care is even more important because of stigma surrounding abortion care and the rampant lies about abortion care that are easily accessible and that even other medical professionals and politicians spread. There are even fake clinics, often called “crisis pregnancy centers”, that intimidate, lie about abortion, and coerce patients to make decisions that are against their desires. Thus, being that trusted source of factual information about abortion care is even more important in the face of so many lies.

There are several organizations that are dedicated to education surrounding abortion care, in particular within the primary care setting. The Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP), Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine (RHEDI), and Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare (TEACH) all provide free resources on abortion care, how to incorporate abortion care into primary care, and how to teach medical students and residents about abortion care.

In addition, the National Network of Abortion Funds connects people to community-led organizations that provide assistance related to direct financial and logistical support for obtaining abortion care. I believe it is critical that we familiarize ourselves with our local abortion funds and share what we learn about these resources with our patients.

As abortion access continues to be further stripped away from many people that we take care of, I think standing up for what is right and what is our duty as physicians becomes more important. That duty is to provide our patients with evidence-based medicine and compassionate care so that our communities can obtain reproductive health outcomes and freedom that are best for their lives.
 

Dr. Lockley is a family physician currently living in Harlem, N.Y., and a member of the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. She currently works for Public Health Solutions’ Sexual and Reproductive Health Centers in Brooklyn, providing primary care and reproductive health care services there, and as an abortion provider throughout the New York region. She completed both medical school and residency in Philadelphia and then did a fellowship in reproductive health care and advocacy through the Family Health Center of Harlem and the Reproductive Health Access Project. She can be reached at fpnews@mdedge.com.

As family medicine physicians it is our duty to help facilitate patients’ health care based on what is in patients’ best interests and aligns with the goals they have for their lives.

I am aware of how intersecting social, economic, familial, and environmental factors influence what is best for patient’s lives, and I consider having this awareness to be part of being a family medicine physician.

People being able to make choices about their reproductive health and their reproductive futures without unnecessary and harmful barriers is a part of a person’s overall health that family medicine physicians should recognize and prioritize. Helping people achieve their reproductive health care goals includes helping patients access abortion care if that is the care that they decide that they need.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 2021 was “the worst year for abortion rights in almost half a century” as 108 abortion restrictions were enacted throughout the country. The most damaging restriction was introduced in Texas in the fall of 2021 called SB8, which has virtually stopped all abortion care in person for any person with a pregnancy greater than 6 weeks’ gestation. Now, in 2022 we are seeing several other states, including Idaho and Oklahoma, set to pass similar laws that will essentially halt most abortion care in the clinical setting in those states.

Abortion access had already been a problem in much of the country prior to 2021 because of burdensome and not medically necessary restrictions. Based on current political trends we are getting to a place where it is not hard to imagine that up to half of the states in this country will not allow their communities to access abortion care in the clinical setting at all in the very near future. This is not reproductive freedom, and I am outraged that people are being forced to travel hundreds of miles for their abortion care, forced to continue pregnancies that they don’t want, or forced to find other ways to obtain medication abortion pills.

While obtaining medication abortion pills online and managing the abortion process at home is safe and recognized as safe by the World Health Organization, no one should be forced to utilize a certain type of care based on their state of residence, in my opinion.

Providing evidence-based medicine to patients is ‘my duty’

Abortion care is health care and is primary care. One in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45, and we know that transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people also have abortions. That means on any given day as family medicine physicians we are likely taking care of more than one person who has had an abortion, will have an abortion, and/or is considering an abortion. Therefore, all family medicine physicians need to be prepared to counsel patients about all of their pregnancy options, answer questions about pregnancy and abortion, and help people get the compassionate care that they deserve.

Our patients turn to us as trusted sources of information. When they reach out to us, I consider providing evidence-based medicine to patients – that includes factual information about abortion care if and when our patients need it – to be my duty as a family medicine physician.
 

Resources on abortion care for family medicine physicians

For family medicine physicians who did not have adequate exposure to abortion care during residency, there are many evidence-based resources to review in order to become more knowledgeable in abortion care.

In many areas of medicine, we have to continue to learn and seek out references, and abortion care is no different. One could argue that understanding abortion care and providing patients with factual information about their options and abortion care is even more important because of stigma surrounding abortion care and the rampant lies about abortion care that are easily accessible and that even other medical professionals and politicians spread. There are even fake clinics, often called “crisis pregnancy centers”, that intimidate, lie about abortion, and coerce patients to make decisions that are against their desires. Thus, being that trusted source of factual information about abortion care is even more important in the face of so many lies.

There are several organizations that are dedicated to education surrounding abortion care, in particular within the primary care setting. The Reproductive Health Access Project (RHAP), Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine (RHEDI), and Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare (TEACH) all provide free resources on abortion care, how to incorporate abortion care into primary care, and how to teach medical students and residents about abortion care.

In addition, the National Network of Abortion Funds connects people to community-led organizations that provide assistance related to direct financial and logistical support for obtaining abortion care. I believe it is critical that we familiarize ourselves with our local abortion funds and share what we learn about these resources with our patients.

As abortion access continues to be further stripped away from many people that we take care of, I think standing up for what is right and what is our duty as physicians becomes more important. That duty is to provide our patients with evidence-based medicine and compassionate care so that our communities can obtain reproductive health outcomes and freedom that are best for their lives.
 

Dr. Lockley is a family physician currently living in Harlem, N.Y., and a member of the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. She currently works for Public Health Solutions’ Sexual and Reproductive Health Centers in Brooklyn, providing primary care and reproductive health care services there, and as an abortion provider throughout the New York region. She completed both medical school and residency in Philadelphia and then did a fellowship in reproductive health care and advocacy through the Family Health Center of Harlem and the Reproductive Health Access Project. She can be reached at fpnews@mdedge.com.

Over the past 200 years, identification of the specific organism causing an infection has evolved from a reliance on patient history and physical examination to the use of microscopic examination of relevant biological samples to the rise of microbial culture and immunological testing as the gold standards for diagnosis. More recently, advances in nucleic acid testing have made nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) a primary method for identifying the specific organism causing an infection.

The evolution of the diagnosis of gonorrhea in clinical practice is a good example of the inexorable evolution of diagnostic techniques from physical examination to microscopic analysis to culture and finally to NAAT. Neiseer discovered Neisseria gonorrhea in 1879.¹ In 19th century general medical practice gonorrhea was often diagnosed based on history and physical examination and sometimes microscopy was also utilized.² In the mid-20th century, it was realized that culture was a superior approach to diagnosis of gonorrhea, and it became the gold standard for diagnosis in general practice.³ NAAT has now replaced culture as the gold standard for the diagnosis of gonorrhea because of its superior performance in clinical practice.⁴ It may now be time to consider using NAAT rather than microscopy and culture in general practice for the identification of specific microorganisms causing vaginitis.

Trichomoniasis

Vaginitis caused by Trichomonas vaginalis is characterized by a discharge that is foamy and green-yellow in color, with a vaginal pH that is >4.5. Microscopy of a vaginal specimen has low sensitivity, in the range of 50%, for detecting T vaginalis.^5-7 There are many factors that make microscopy a poor approach to the diagnosis of T vaginalis, including the rapid decrease in protozoan motility once a vaginal specimen is placed on a glass slide and the similar size of non-motile T vaginalis and other cells in the vagina.

Given the low sensitivity of microscopy for the diagnosis of trichomoniasis, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends NAAT as a primary approach to test for T vaginalis, with culture or NAAT testing as alternative approaches.⁸ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that if a wet mount is negative for T vaginalis that NAAT should be utilized.⁹

In this 2-step testing process, the first step is to test the vaginal pH and perform a microscopic examination of a vaginal specimen for T vaginalis. If T vaginalis organisms are detected, the diagnosis of trichomoniasis is confirmed. If organisms are not detected the second step would be to send a vaginal or urine specimen for NAAT for T vaginalis or for culture. An advantage of NAAT over culture is that urine specimens can be used for diagnosis of T vaginalis while urine specimens are not suitable for culture because of low sensitivity. For patients diagnosed with trichomoniasis, the CDC recommends that testing be repeated in 3 months because of high rates of reinfection. NAAT would be an optimal test to use in this situation.

Continue to: Bacterial vaginosis and candidiasis...

Bacterial vaginosis and candidiasis

ACOG recommends using Amsel criteria or Nugent scoring of a specimen colorized with a Gram stain for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis and microscopy or culture for the diagnosis of candidiasis.⁸ Recent research reports that NAAT testing for bacterial vaginosis and candidiasis may be more sensitive than standard office-based approaches for detecting these two causes of vaginitis. In a study of approximately 1,740 patients with symptoms of vaginitis, vaginal specimens were analyzed using NAAT or standard office approaches to diagnosis.¹⁰ In this study the diagnostic gold standards were Nugent scoring with Amsel criteria to resolve intermediate Nugent scores for bacterial vaginosis and culture for Candida. The study demonstrated the superiority of NAAT testing over standard office approaches for the identification of the cause of the vaginitis. NAAT testing was reported to have superior sensitivity for diagnosing bacterial vaginosis compared with the original Amsel criteria (93% vs 76%, respectively (P <.0001), with similar respective specificities of 92% and 94% .¹⁰ NAAT testing also had superior sensitivity for diagnosing Candidiasis compared with microscopy after potassium hydroxide treatment of a vaginal specimen (91% vs 58%, respectively (P <.0001).¹⁰ NAAT testing also had superior specificity compared with microscopy after potassium hydroxide treatment of a vaginal specimen (94% vs 89%, respectively (P < .0005).¹⁰

In another study comparing NAAT with clinical diagnosis for 466 patients with symptoms of vaginitis, standard office approaches to the diagnosis of vaginitis resulted in the failure to identify the correct infection in a large number of cases. For the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis, clinicians missed 42% of the cases identified by NAAT. For the diagnosis of Candida, clinicians missed 46% of the cases identified by NAAT. For T vaginalis diagnosis, clinicians missed 72% of the cases identified by NAAT. Clearly, this resulted in clinicians not treating many infections detected by NAAT.¹¹

Continue to: One in 5 patients with symptoms of vaginitis have 2 causes of vaginitis...

In a recent study, 1,471 patients with a symptom of vaginitis (abnormal vaginal discharge, itching or irritation, or odor) self-collected a vaginal swab and had a vaginal swab collected by a clinician.¹² The swabs were placed in buffer and the samples were tested by NAAT using the BD Max system (Franklin Lakes, New Jersey) for the presence of nucleic acid sequences of the microorganisms responsible for the most common causes of vaginitis. In this cohort, using the clinician collected vaginal swabs for NAAT, the investigators reported the following pattern of detection of nucleic acid sequences: 36.1%, bacterial vaginosis pattern; 16.2%, Candida spp.; 1.6%, T vaginalis; 0.7%, Candida glabrata; and 0.1%, Candida krusei. Nucleic acid sequences of multiple organisms were detected in 21.7% of patients, including 13.9% with bacterial vaginosis pattern plus Candida spp., 4.9% with bacterial vaginosis pattern plus T vaginalis, 0.3% with Candida spp. plus T vaginalis, 0.2% with Candida spp. plus Candida glabrata, 0.2% with bacterial vaginosis pattern plus Candida glabrata, and 2.2% with all 3 organisms. A total of 23.8% of the women had no detectable nucleic acid sequences associated with organisms known to cause vaginitis.

In another study of 1,491 patients with a symptom of vaginitis, clinician-collected vaginal swabs were tested by NAAT using the Aptima BV and Aptima Candida/Trichomonas systems (Hologic, Marlborough, Massachusetts) for the presence of nucleic acid sequences of microorganisms responsible for most cases of vaginitis.¹³ The investigators reported the following pattern of detection of nucleic acid sequences: 28.6%, bacterial vaginosis pattern; 14.2%, Candida spp.; 3%, T vaginalis; 1.9%, Candida glabrata.¹³ Nucleic acid sequences from multiple organisms were detected in 23.3% of patients. Nucleic acid sequences suggesting the presence of two different causes of vaginitis were detected among 20.8% of patients, including bacterial vaginosis plus Candida spp., 11.1%; bacterial vaginosis plus T vaginalis, 7.2%; Candida spp. plus T vaginalis, 1.0%; Candida spp. plus Candida glabrata, 0.9%; bacterial vaginosis plus Candida spp., 0.5%; Candida glabrata plus T vaginalis, 0.1%. Nucleic acid sequences suggesting the presence of 3 different causes of vaginitis were detected in 2.4% of patients, the most common being the combination of bacterial vaginosis plus Candida spp. plus T vaginalis, 1.7% and bacterial vaginosis plus Candida spp. plus Candida glabrata, 0.5%. Nucleic acid sequences suggesting the presence of 4 different causes of vaginitis were detected in 0.1% of patients. A total of 28.8% of the women had no detectable nucleic acid sequences associated with organisms known to cause vaginitis.¹³

In clinical practice it is uncommon to see the diagnosis of multiple causes of vaginitis recorded in the medical record of a patient. This suggests that we are not effectively identifying the 20% of patients with multiple causes of vaginitis.

When multiple organisms that cause vaginitis are present, NAAT is superior to clinical evaluation for diagnosis

In a study of 1,264 patients with symptoms of vaginitis who had an identified microbial cause, more than 20% had multiple organisms detected by NAAT.¹⁰ The reference methods for diagnosis in this study were Nugent scoring with Amsel criteria to resolve intermediate Nugent scores for bacterial vaginosis, culture for Candida, and culture for T vaginalis. Compared with the reference method for diagnosis, the sensitivities for NAAT and clinician detection of cases of bacterial vaginosis plus Candida were 74% and 18%, respectively (P <.0001). Compared with the reference method for diagnosis, the sensitivities for NAAT and clinician detection of cases of bacterial vaginosis plus T vaginalis were 72% and 21%, respectively (P <.0001). Compared with the reference method for diagnosis, the sensitivities for NAAT and clinician detection of cases of bacterial vaginosis plus Candida plus T vaginalis were 80% and 10%, respectively (P <.0005).¹⁰ Based on this one study, it appears that clinicians are not very effective at diagnosing a case of vaginitis caused by multiple different microorganisms.

Patient collection of a vaginal swab for NAAT

Multiple studies have reported that collection of a vaginal swab for NAAT by the patient or a clinician results in similar excellent test performance.^4,12,13 This observation might catalyze the development of clinical protocols where patients with vaginitis could collect the swab for NAAT analysis, without needing to have a speculum examination by a clinician.

When collecting a vaginal specimen for NAAT it is important that no vaginal lubricants or creams contaminate the collection swab. Vaginal lubricants and creams may inhibit the polymerase chain reaction enzymes resulting in a false negative. The swab may be directly inserted into the vagina to collect the specimen or a speculum without a lubricant, except water can be used to facilitate specimen collection. To collect a specimen without a speculum the swab is inserted 2 inches into the vagina and rotated for 10 to 15 seconds.

What should clinicians do while waiting for a NAAT result?

A major problem with NAAT testing for vaginitis is that the results are not available at the initial patient visit, impacting the ability to make an immediate diagnosis and provide targeted antibiotic treatment. Given that bacterial vaginosis and Candida species are the most common causes of infectious vaginitis in many populations of gynecology patients, one approach is to initiate treatment with one dose of an oral antifungal agent and a multiday course of vaginal metronidazole. Once the NAAT test results are available, the treatment can be refined to specific infectious agents identified by the test, or the antibiotics can be discontinued if no relevant microorganisms are detected. Another approach would be to wait until the NAAT test is completed and then prescribe the appropriate antibiotic. My sense is that most patients would not favor this wait and see approach.

Barriers to the use of NAAT for vaginitis

A barrier to the use of NAAT for the diagnosis of vaginitis is that leading organizations do not currently recommend NAAT as a primary approach to diagnosis, favoring microscopy and measurement of vaginal pH.⁹ In addition, clinicians and patients may be rightfully concerned about the cost of NAAT, which can be substantial.

Vaginitis, especially when it is recurrent, can be stressful¹⁴ and have an impact on a patient’s quality of life^15,16 and sexual health.¹⁷ Arguably, our current practice algorithms for diagnosing the cause of vaginitis are not optimized.¹⁸ Our failure to accurately diagnose the cause of vaginitis contributes to inappropriate antibiotic treatment and return visits because of inadequate initial treatment.¹⁸ We can improve and simplify our approach to the diagnosis of vaginitis by prioritizing the use of NAAT.¹⁹ In turn, reliably making the right diagnosis will result in the optimization of treatment. ●

Over the past 200 years, identification of the specific organism causing an infection has evolved from a reliance on patient history and physical examination to the use of microscopic examination of relevant biological samples to the rise of microbial culture and immunological testing as the gold standards for diagnosis. More recently, advances in nucleic acid testing have made nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) a primary method for identifying the specific organism causing an infection.

The evolution of the diagnosis of gonorrhea in clinical practice is a good example of the inexorable evolution of diagnostic techniques from physical examination to microscopic analysis to culture and finally to NAAT. Neiseer discovered Neisseria gonorrhea in 1879.¹ In 19th century general medical practice gonorrhea was often diagnosed based on history and physical examination and sometimes microscopy was also utilized.² In the mid-20th century, it was realized that culture was a superior approach to diagnosis of gonorrhea, and it became the gold standard for diagnosis in general practice.³ NAAT has now replaced culture as the gold standard for the diagnosis of gonorrhea because of its superior performance in clinical practice.⁴ It may now be time to consider using NAAT rather than microscopy and culture in general practice for the identification of specific microorganisms causing vaginitis.

Trichomoniasis

Vaginitis caused by Trichomonas vaginalis is characterized by a discharge that is foamy and green-yellow in color, with a vaginal pH that is >4.5. Microscopy of a vaginal specimen has low sensitivity, in the range of 50%, for detecting T vaginalis.^5-7 There are many factors that make microscopy a poor approach to the diagnosis of T vaginalis, including the rapid decrease in protozoan motility once a vaginal specimen is placed on a glass slide and the similar size of non-motile T vaginalis and other cells in the vagina.

Given the low sensitivity of microscopy for the diagnosis of trichomoniasis, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends NAAT as a primary approach to test for T vaginalis, with culture or NAAT testing as alternative approaches.⁸ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that if a wet mount is negative for T vaginalis that NAAT should be utilized.⁹

In this 2-step testing process, the first step is to test the vaginal pH and perform a microscopic examination of a vaginal specimen for T vaginalis. If T vaginalis organisms are detected, the diagnosis of trichomoniasis is confirmed. If organisms are not detected the second step would be to send a vaginal or urine specimen for NAAT for T vaginalis or for culture. An advantage of NAAT over culture is that urine specimens can be used for diagnosis of T vaginalis while urine specimens are not suitable for culture because of low sensitivity. For patients diagnosed with trichomoniasis, the CDC recommends that testing be repeated in 3 months because of high rates of reinfection. NAAT would be an optimal test to use in this situation.

Continue to: Bacterial vaginosis and candidiasis...

Bacterial vaginosis and candidiasis

ACOG recommends using Amsel criteria or Nugent scoring of a specimen colorized with a Gram stain for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis and microscopy or culture for the diagnosis of candidiasis.⁸ Recent research reports that NAAT testing for bacterial vaginosis and candidiasis may be more sensitive than standard office-based approaches for detecting these two causes of vaginitis. In a study of approximately 1,740 patients with symptoms of vaginitis, vaginal specimens were analyzed using NAAT or standard office approaches to diagnosis.¹⁰ In this study the diagnostic gold standards were Nugent scoring with Amsel criteria to resolve intermediate Nugent scores for bacterial vaginosis and culture for Candida. The study demonstrated the superiority of NAAT testing over standard office approaches for the identification of the cause of the vaginitis. NAAT testing was reported to have superior sensitivity for diagnosing bacterial vaginosis compared with the original Amsel criteria (93% vs 76%, respectively (P <.0001), with similar respective specificities of 92% and 94% .¹⁰ NAAT testing also had superior sensitivity for diagnosing Candidiasis compared with microscopy after potassium hydroxide treatment of a vaginal specimen (91% vs 58%, respectively (P <.0001).¹⁰ NAAT testing also had superior specificity compared with microscopy after potassium hydroxide treatment of a vaginal specimen (94% vs 89%, respectively (P < .0005).¹⁰

In another study comparing NAAT with clinical diagnosis for 466 patients with symptoms of vaginitis, standard office approaches to the diagnosis of vaginitis resulted in the failure to identify the correct infection in a large number of cases. For the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis, clinicians missed 42% of the cases identified by NAAT. For the diagnosis of Candida, clinicians missed 46% of the cases identified by NAAT. For T vaginalis diagnosis, clinicians missed 72% of the cases identified by NAAT. Clearly, this resulted in clinicians not treating many infections detected by NAAT.¹¹

Continue to: One in 5 patients with symptoms of vaginitis have 2 causes of vaginitis...

In a recent study, 1,471 patients with a symptom of vaginitis (abnormal vaginal discharge, itching or irritation, or odor) self-collected a vaginal swab and had a vaginal swab collected by a clinician.¹² The swabs were placed in buffer and the samples were tested by NAAT using the BD Max system (Franklin Lakes, New Jersey) for the presence of nucleic acid sequences of the microorganisms responsible for the most common causes of vaginitis. In this cohort, using the clinician collected vaginal swabs for NAAT, the investigators reported the following pattern of detection of nucleic acid sequences: 36.1%, bacterial vaginosis pattern; 16.2%, Candida spp.; 1.6%, T vaginalis; 0.7%, Candida glabrata; and 0.1%, Candida krusei. Nucleic acid sequences of multiple organisms were detected in 21.7% of patients, including 13.9% with bacterial vaginosis pattern plus Candida spp., 4.9% with bacterial vaginosis pattern plus T vaginalis, 0.3% with Candida spp. plus T vaginalis, 0.2% with Candida spp. plus Candida glabrata, 0.2% with bacterial vaginosis pattern plus Candida glabrata, and 2.2% with all 3 organisms. A total of 23.8% of the women had no detectable nucleic acid sequences associated with organisms known to cause vaginitis.

In another study of 1,491 patients with a symptom of vaginitis, clinician-collected vaginal swabs were tested by NAAT using the Aptima BV and Aptima Candida/Trichomonas systems (Hologic, Marlborough, Massachusetts) for the presence of nucleic acid sequences of microorganisms responsible for most cases of vaginitis.¹³ The investigators reported the following pattern of detection of nucleic acid sequences: 28.6%, bacterial vaginosis pattern; 14.2%, Candida spp.; 3%, T vaginalis; 1.9%, Candida glabrata.¹³ Nucleic acid sequences from multiple organisms were detected in 23.3% of patients. Nucleic acid sequences suggesting the presence of two different causes of vaginitis were detected among 20.8% of patients, including bacterial vaginosis plus Candida spp., 11.1%; bacterial vaginosis plus T vaginalis, 7.2%; Candida spp. plus T vaginalis, 1.0%; Candida spp. plus Candida glabrata, 0.9%; bacterial vaginosis plus Candida spp., 0.5%; Candida glabrata plus T vaginalis, 0.1%. Nucleic acid sequences suggesting the presence of 3 different causes of vaginitis were detected in 2.4% of patients, the most common being the combination of bacterial vaginosis plus Candida spp. plus T vaginalis, 1.7% and bacterial vaginosis plus Candida spp. plus Candida glabrata, 0.5%. Nucleic acid sequences suggesting the presence of 4 different causes of vaginitis were detected in 0.1% of patients. A total of 28.8% of the women had no detectable nucleic acid sequences associated with organisms known to cause vaginitis.¹³

In clinical practice it is uncommon to see the diagnosis of multiple causes of vaginitis recorded in the medical record of a patient. This suggests that we are not effectively identifying the 20% of patients with multiple causes of vaginitis.

When multiple organisms that cause vaginitis are present, NAAT is superior to clinical evaluation for diagnosis

In a study of 1,264 patients with symptoms of vaginitis who had an identified microbial cause, more than 20% had multiple organisms detected by NAAT.¹⁰ The reference methods for diagnosis in this study were Nugent scoring with Amsel criteria to resolve intermediate Nugent scores for bacterial vaginosis, culture for Candida, and culture for T vaginalis. Compared with the reference method for diagnosis, the sensitivities for NAAT and clinician detection of cases of bacterial vaginosis plus Candida were 74% and 18%, respectively (P <.0001). Compared with the reference method for diagnosis, the sensitivities for NAAT and clinician detection of cases of bacterial vaginosis plus T vaginalis were 72% and 21%, respectively (P <.0001). Compared with the reference method for diagnosis, the sensitivities for NAAT and clinician detection of cases of bacterial vaginosis plus Candida plus T vaginalis were 80% and 10%, respectively (P <.0005).¹⁰ Based on this one study, it appears that clinicians are not very effective at diagnosing a case of vaginitis caused by multiple different microorganisms.

Patient collection of a vaginal swab for NAAT

Multiple studies have reported that collection of a vaginal swab for NAAT by the patient or a clinician results in similar excellent test performance.^4,12,13 This observation might catalyze the development of clinical protocols where patients with vaginitis could collect the swab for NAAT analysis, without needing to have a speculum examination by a clinician.

When collecting a vaginal specimen for NAAT it is important that no vaginal lubricants or creams contaminate the collection swab. Vaginal lubricants and creams may inhibit the polymerase chain reaction enzymes resulting in a false negative. The swab may be directly inserted into the vagina to collect the specimen or a speculum without a lubricant, except water can be used to facilitate specimen collection. To collect a specimen without a speculum the swab is inserted 2 inches into the vagina and rotated for 10 to 15 seconds.

What should clinicians do while waiting for a NAAT result?

A major problem with NAAT testing for vaginitis is that the results are not available at the initial patient visit, impacting the ability to make an immediate diagnosis and provide targeted antibiotic treatment. Given that bacterial vaginosis and Candida species are the most common causes of infectious vaginitis in many populations of gynecology patients, one approach is to initiate treatment with one dose of an oral antifungal agent and a multiday course of vaginal metronidazole. Once the NAAT test results are available, the treatment can be refined to specific infectious agents identified by the test, or the antibiotics can be discontinued if no relevant microorganisms are detected. Another approach would be to wait until the NAAT test is completed and then prescribe the appropriate antibiotic. My sense is that most patients would not favor this wait and see approach.

Barriers to the use of NAAT for vaginitis

A barrier to the use of NAAT for the diagnosis of vaginitis is that leading organizations do not currently recommend NAAT as a primary approach to diagnosis, favoring microscopy and measurement of vaginal pH.⁹ In addition, clinicians and patients may be rightfully concerned about the cost of NAAT, which can be substantial.

Vaginitis, especially when it is recurrent, can be stressful¹⁴ and have an impact on a patient’s quality of life^15,16 and sexual health.¹⁷ Arguably, our current practice algorithms for diagnosing the cause of vaginitis are not optimized.¹⁸ Our failure to accurately diagnose the cause of vaginitis contributes to inappropriate antibiotic treatment and return visits because of inadequate initial treatment.¹⁸ We can improve and simplify our approach to the diagnosis of vaginitis by prioritizing the use of NAAT.¹⁹ In turn, reliably making the right diagnosis will result in the optimization of treatment. ●

Over the past 200 years, identification of the specific organism causing an infection has evolved from a reliance on patient history and physical examination to the use of microscopic examination of relevant biological samples to the rise of microbial culture and immunological testing as the gold standards for diagnosis. More recently, advances in nucleic acid testing have made nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) a primary method for identifying the specific organism causing an infection.

The evolution of the diagnosis of gonorrhea in clinical practice is a good example of the inexorable evolution of diagnostic techniques from physical examination to microscopic analysis to culture and finally to NAAT. Neiseer discovered Neisseria gonorrhea in 1879.¹ In 19th century general medical practice gonorrhea was often diagnosed based on history and physical examination and sometimes microscopy was also utilized.² In the mid-20th century, it was realized that culture was a superior approach to diagnosis of gonorrhea, and it became the gold standard for diagnosis in general practice.³ NAAT has now replaced culture as the gold standard for the diagnosis of gonorrhea because of its superior performance in clinical practice.⁴ It may now be time to consider using NAAT rather than microscopy and culture in general practice for the identification of specific microorganisms causing vaginitis.

Trichomoniasis

Vaginitis caused by Trichomonas vaginalis is characterized by a discharge that is foamy and green-yellow in color, with a vaginal pH that is >4.5. Microscopy of a vaginal specimen has low sensitivity, in the range of 50%, for detecting T vaginalis.^5-7 There are many factors that make microscopy a poor approach to the diagnosis of T vaginalis, including the rapid decrease in protozoan motility once a vaginal specimen is placed on a glass slide and the similar size of non-motile T vaginalis and other cells in the vagina.

Given the low sensitivity of microscopy for the diagnosis of trichomoniasis, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends NAAT as a primary approach to test for T vaginalis, with culture or NAAT testing as alternative approaches.⁸ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that if a wet mount is negative for T vaginalis that NAAT should be utilized.⁹

In this 2-step testing process, the first step is to test the vaginal pH and perform a microscopic examination of a vaginal specimen for T vaginalis. If T vaginalis organisms are detected, the diagnosis of trichomoniasis is confirmed. If organisms are not detected the second step would be to send a vaginal or urine specimen for NAAT for T vaginalis or for culture. An advantage of NAAT over culture is that urine specimens can be used for diagnosis of T vaginalis while urine specimens are not suitable for culture because of low sensitivity. For patients diagnosed with trichomoniasis, the CDC recommends that testing be repeated in 3 months because of high rates of reinfection. NAAT would be an optimal test to use in this situation.

Continue to: Bacterial vaginosis and candidiasis...

Bacterial vaginosis and candidiasis

ACOG recommends using Amsel criteria or Nugent scoring of a specimen colorized with a Gram stain for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis and microscopy or culture for the diagnosis of candidiasis.⁸ Recent research reports that NAAT testing for bacterial vaginosis and candidiasis may be more sensitive than standard office-based approaches for detecting these two causes of vaginitis. In a study of approximately 1,740 patients with symptoms of vaginitis, vaginal specimens were analyzed using NAAT or standard office approaches to diagnosis.¹⁰ In this study the diagnostic gold standards were Nugent scoring with Amsel criteria to resolve intermediate Nugent scores for bacterial vaginosis and culture for Candida. The study demonstrated the superiority of NAAT testing over standard office approaches for the identification of the cause of the vaginitis. NAAT testing was reported to have superior sensitivity for diagnosing bacterial vaginosis compared with the original Amsel criteria (93% vs 76%, respectively (P <.0001), with similar respective specificities of 92% and 94% .¹⁰ NAAT testing also had superior sensitivity for diagnosing Candidiasis compared with microscopy after potassium hydroxide treatment of a vaginal specimen (91% vs 58%, respectively (P <.0001).¹⁰ NAAT testing also had superior specificity compared with microscopy after potassium hydroxide treatment of a vaginal specimen (94% vs 89%, respectively (P < .0005).¹⁰

In another study comparing NAAT with clinical diagnosis for 466 patients with symptoms of vaginitis, standard office approaches to the diagnosis of vaginitis resulted in the failure to identify the correct infection in a large number of cases. For the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis, clinicians missed 42% of the cases identified by NAAT. For the diagnosis of Candida, clinicians missed 46% of the cases identified by NAAT. For T vaginalis diagnosis, clinicians missed 72% of the cases identified by NAAT. Clearly, this resulted in clinicians not treating many infections detected by NAAT.¹¹

Continue to: One in 5 patients with symptoms of vaginitis have 2 causes of vaginitis...

In a recent study, 1,471 patients with a symptom of vaginitis (abnormal vaginal discharge, itching or irritation, or odor) self-collected a vaginal swab and had a vaginal swab collected by a clinician.¹² The swabs were placed in buffer and the samples were tested by NAAT using the BD Max system (Franklin Lakes, New Jersey) for the presence of nucleic acid sequences of the microorganisms responsible for the most common causes of vaginitis. In this cohort, using the clinician collected vaginal swabs for NAAT, the investigators reported the following pattern of detection of nucleic acid sequences: 36.1%, bacterial vaginosis pattern; 16.2%, Candida spp.; 1.6%, T vaginalis; 0.7%, Candida glabrata; and 0.1%, Candida krusei. Nucleic acid sequences of multiple organisms were detected in 21.7% of patients, including 13.9% with bacterial vaginosis pattern plus Candida spp., 4.9% with bacterial vaginosis pattern plus T vaginalis, 0.3% with Candida spp. plus T vaginalis, 0.2% with Candida spp. plus Candida glabrata, 0.2% with bacterial vaginosis pattern plus Candida glabrata, and 2.2% with all 3 organisms. A total of 23.8% of the women had no detectable nucleic acid sequences associated with organisms known to cause vaginitis.

In another study of 1,491 patients with a symptom of vaginitis, clinician-collected vaginal swabs were tested by NAAT using the Aptima BV and Aptima Candida/Trichomonas systems (Hologic, Marlborough, Massachusetts) for the presence of nucleic acid sequences of microorganisms responsible for most cases of vaginitis.¹³ The investigators reported the following pattern of detection of nucleic acid sequences: 28.6%, bacterial vaginosis pattern; 14.2%, Candida spp.; 3%, T vaginalis; 1.9%, Candida glabrata.¹³ Nucleic acid sequences from multiple organisms were detected in 23.3% of patients. Nucleic acid sequences suggesting the presence of two different causes of vaginitis were detected among 20.8% of patients, including bacterial vaginosis plus Candida spp., 11.1%; bacterial vaginosis plus T vaginalis, 7.2%; Candida spp. plus T vaginalis, 1.0%; Candida spp. plus Candida glabrata, 0.9%; bacterial vaginosis plus Candida spp., 0.5%; Candida glabrata plus T vaginalis, 0.1%. Nucleic acid sequences suggesting the presence of 3 different causes of vaginitis were detected in 2.4% of patients, the most common being the combination of bacterial vaginosis plus Candida spp. plus T vaginalis, 1.7% and bacterial vaginosis plus Candida spp. plus Candida glabrata, 0.5%. Nucleic acid sequences suggesting the presence of 4 different causes of vaginitis were detected in 0.1% of patients. A total of 28.8% of the women had no detectable nucleic acid sequences associated with organisms known to cause vaginitis.¹³

In clinical practice it is uncommon to see the diagnosis of multiple causes of vaginitis recorded in the medical record of a patient. This suggests that we are not effectively identifying the 20% of patients with multiple causes of vaginitis.

When multiple organisms that cause vaginitis are present, NAAT is superior to clinical evaluation for diagnosis

In a study of 1,264 patients with symptoms of vaginitis who had an identified microbial cause, more than 20% had multiple organisms detected by NAAT.¹⁰ The reference methods for diagnosis in this study were Nugent scoring with Amsel criteria to resolve intermediate Nugent scores for bacterial vaginosis, culture for Candida, and culture for T vaginalis. Compared with the reference method for diagnosis, the sensitivities for NAAT and clinician detection of cases of bacterial vaginosis plus Candida were 74% and 18%, respectively (P <.0001). Compared with the reference method for diagnosis, the sensitivities for NAAT and clinician detection of cases of bacterial vaginosis plus T vaginalis were 72% and 21%, respectively (P <.0001). Compared with the reference method for diagnosis, the sensitivities for NAAT and clinician detection of cases of bacterial vaginosis plus Candida plus T vaginalis were 80% and 10%, respectively (P <.0005).¹⁰ Based on this one study, it appears that clinicians are not very effective at diagnosing a case of vaginitis caused by multiple different microorganisms.

Patient collection of a vaginal swab for NAAT

Multiple studies have reported that collection of a vaginal swab for NAAT by the patient or a clinician results in similar excellent test performance.^4,12,13 This observation might catalyze the development of clinical protocols where patients with vaginitis could collect the swab for NAAT analysis, without needing to have a speculum examination by a clinician.

When collecting a vaginal specimen for NAAT it is important that no vaginal lubricants or creams contaminate the collection swab. Vaginal lubricants and creams may inhibit the polymerase chain reaction enzymes resulting in a false negative. The swab may be directly inserted into the vagina to collect the specimen or a speculum without a lubricant, except water can be used to facilitate specimen collection. To collect a specimen without a speculum the swab is inserted 2 inches into the vagina and rotated for 10 to 15 seconds.

What should clinicians do while waiting for a NAAT result?

A major problem with NAAT testing for vaginitis is that the results are not available at the initial patient visit, impacting the ability to make an immediate diagnosis and provide targeted antibiotic treatment. Given that bacterial vaginosis and Candida species are the most common causes of infectious vaginitis in many populations of gynecology patients, one approach is to initiate treatment with one dose of an oral antifungal agent and a multiday course of vaginal metronidazole. Once the NAAT test results are available, the treatment can be refined to specific infectious agents identified by the test, or the antibiotics can be discontinued if no relevant microorganisms are detected. Another approach would be to wait until the NAAT test is completed and then prescribe the appropriate antibiotic. My sense is that most patients would not favor this wait and see approach.

Barriers to the use of NAAT for vaginitis

A barrier to the use of NAAT for the diagnosis of vaginitis is that leading organizations do not currently recommend NAAT as a primary approach to diagnosis, favoring microscopy and measurement of vaginal pH.⁹ In addition, clinicians and patients may be rightfully concerned about the cost of NAAT, which can be substantial.

Vaginitis, especially when it is recurrent, can be stressful¹⁴ and have an impact on a patient’s quality of life^15,16 and sexual health.¹⁷ Arguably, our current practice algorithms for diagnosing the cause of vaginitis are not optimized.¹⁸ Our failure to accurately diagnose the cause of vaginitis contributes to inappropriate antibiotic treatment and return visits because of inadequate initial treatment.¹⁸ We can improve and simplify our approach to the diagnosis of vaginitis by prioritizing the use of NAAT.¹⁹ In turn, reliably making the right diagnosis will result in the optimization of treatment. ●

The first condom specifically designed for use during anal sex has gained Food and Drug Administration approval.

Anal intercourse is considered to be much riskier than vaginal sex for the transmission of infections such as HIV and HPV, a risk factor for anal cancer, agency officials said in a statement Feb. 23 announcing the decision. And though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long encouraged the use of a condom during anal intercourse, the FDA had not until now deemed this practice safe.

The latex ONE Male Condom, from prophylactic maker Global Protection Corp. of Boston, has already been available for vaginal sex. The FDA action now allows the company to market the product for anal intercourse.

“This authorization helps us accomplish our priority to advance health equity through the development of safe and effective products that meet the needs of diverse populations,” Courtney Lias, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Office of GastroRenal, ObGyn, General Hospital, and Urology Devices, said in a statement.

The FDA said it relied on an Emory University clinical study of condom safety of more than 500 men. Those who took part in the study were evenly divided between men who have sex with men and men who have sex with women. The condom failure rate, meaning that a condom either broke or slipped, was less than 1% during anal sex. The failure rate was 3 times higher during vaginal intercourse.

The Emory researchers also found that roughly 70% of men who have sex with men would be more likely to use condoms marked as safe for anal sex, according to a survey of 10,000 people.

ONE Male Condoms sell for between $3.48 for a three-pack and $14.48 for a 24-pack, according to Milla Impola, Global Protection’s director of marketing and communications. The FDA said the condom should be used with a condom-compatible lubricant when used during anal sex.

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

The first condom specifically designed for use during anal sex has gained Food and Drug Administration approval.

Anal intercourse is considered to be much riskier than vaginal sex for the transmission of infections such as HIV and HPV, a risk factor for anal cancer, agency officials said in a statement Feb. 23 announcing the decision. And though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long encouraged the use of a condom during anal intercourse, the FDA had not until now deemed this practice safe.

The latex ONE Male Condom, from prophylactic maker Global Protection Corp. of Boston, has already been available for vaginal sex. The FDA action now allows the company to market the product for anal intercourse.

“This authorization helps us accomplish our priority to advance health equity through the development of safe and effective products that meet the needs of diverse populations,” Courtney Lias, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Office of GastroRenal, ObGyn, General Hospital, and Urology Devices, said in a statement.

The FDA said it relied on an Emory University clinical study of condom safety of more than 500 men. Those who took part in the study were evenly divided between men who have sex with men and men who have sex with women. The condom failure rate, meaning that a condom either broke or slipped, was less than 1% during anal sex. The failure rate was 3 times higher during vaginal intercourse.

The Emory researchers also found that roughly 70% of men who have sex with men would be more likely to use condoms marked as safe for anal sex, according to a survey of 10,000 people.

ONE Male Condoms sell for between $3.48 for a three-pack and $14.48 for a 24-pack, according to Milla Impola, Global Protection’s director of marketing and communications. The FDA said the condom should be used with a condom-compatible lubricant when used during anal sex.

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

The first condom specifically designed for use during anal sex has gained Food and Drug Administration approval.

Anal intercourse is considered to be much riskier than vaginal sex for the transmission of infections such as HIV and HPV, a risk factor for anal cancer, agency officials said in a statement Feb. 23 announcing the decision. And though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long encouraged the use of a condom during anal intercourse, the FDA had not until now deemed this practice safe.

The latex ONE Male Condom, from prophylactic maker Global Protection Corp. of Boston, has already been available for vaginal sex. The FDA action now allows the company to market the product for anal intercourse.

“This authorization helps us accomplish our priority to advance health equity through the development of safe and effective products that meet the needs of diverse populations,” Courtney Lias, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Office of GastroRenal, ObGyn, General Hospital, and Urology Devices, said in a statement.

The FDA said it relied on an Emory University clinical study of condom safety of more than 500 men. Those who took part in the study were evenly divided between men who have sex with men and men who have sex with women. The condom failure rate, meaning that a condom either broke or slipped, was less than 1% during anal sex. The failure rate was 3 times higher during vaginal intercourse.

The Emory researchers also found that roughly 70% of men who have sex with men would be more likely to use condoms marked as safe for anal sex, according to a survey of 10,000 people.

ONE Male Condoms sell for between $3.48 for a three-pack and $14.48 for a 24-pack, according to Milla Impola, Global Protection’s director of marketing and communications. The FDA said the condom should be used with a condom-compatible lubricant when used during anal sex.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved secnidazole for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis (BV) and trichomoniasis in patients aged 12 years and older.

The antimicrobial agent, marketed as Solosec, was first approved in 2017 as a treatment for BV in adult women. In 2021, it was approved for the treatment of trichomoniasis in adult men and women.

Lupin Pharmaceuticals, which manufactures the drug, announced the expanded approval for adolescents in a news release.

The medication is meant to be taken as a single dose. It comes in a packet that should be sprinkled onto applesauce, yogurt, or pudding and consumed without chewing or crunching.

The treatment option may help “address gaps in care related to adherence,” said Tom Merriam, an executive director with Lupin.

Bacterial vaginosis is a common vaginal infection. Trichomoniasis is the most common nonviral, curable STI in the United States. Sexual partners of patients with trichomoniasis can be treated at the same time.

Vulvovaginal candidiasis is one of the possible side effects of secnidazole treatment, the drug’s label notes.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved secnidazole for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis (BV) and trichomoniasis in patients aged 12 years and older.

The antimicrobial agent, marketed as Solosec, was first approved in 2017 as a treatment for BV in adult women. In 2021, it was approved for the treatment of trichomoniasis in adult men and women.

Lupin Pharmaceuticals, which manufactures the drug, announced the expanded approval for adolescents in a news release.

The medication is meant to be taken as a single dose. It comes in a packet that should be sprinkled onto applesauce, yogurt, or pudding and consumed without chewing or crunching.

The treatment option may help “address gaps in care related to adherence,” said Tom Merriam, an executive director with Lupin.

Bacterial vaginosis is a common vaginal infection. Trichomoniasis is the most common nonviral, curable STI in the United States. Sexual partners of patients with trichomoniasis can be treated at the same time.

Vulvovaginal candidiasis is one of the possible side effects of secnidazole treatment, the drug’s label notes.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved secnidazole for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis (BV) and trichomoniasis in patients aged 12 years and older.

The antimicrobial agent, marketed as Solosec, was first approved in 2017 as a treatment for BV in adult women. In 2021, it was approved for the treatment of trichomoniasis in adult men and women.

Lupin Pharmaceuticals, which manufactures the drug, announced the expanded approval for adolescents in a news release.

The medication is meant to be taken as a single dose. It comes in a packet that should be sprinkled onto applesauce, yogurt, or pudding and consumed without chewing or crunching.

The treatment option may help “address gaps in care related to adherence,” said Tom Merriam, an executive director with Lupin.

Bacterial vaginosis is a common vaginal infection. Trichomoniasis is the most common nonviral, curable STI in the United States. Sexual partners of patients with trichomoniasis can be treated at the same time.

Vulvovaginal candidiasis is one of the possible side effects of secnidazole treatment, the drug’s label notes.

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

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

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

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

Vagina-specific protection from HIV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘America sneezes and Africa catches a cold’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vagina-specific protection from HIV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘America sneezes and Africa catches a cold’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vagina-specific protection from HIV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘America sneezes and Africa catches a cold’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A novel twist on the concept of “meeting people where they are” may hold the key to retaining new HIV patients, and even bringing the elusive goal of ending the AIDS epidemic a bit closer. While the concept commonly refers to community outreach and engagement, understanding patient experiences and expectations and personal life stressors in the actual clinic setting may improve overall outcomes, according to new research.

In fact, accounting for both expectations and life stressors may help physicians predict which patients will be lost to follow-up (LTFU) in the first year of HIV care.

“Medical science is not necessarily [at the forefront] of where we want to focus our efforts right now,” Emmanuel Guajardo, MD, lead study author and instructor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization. 

Rather, “we need to focus on retention in care and adherence to medications. Doubling down on these efforts could really go a long way toward ending the HIV epidemic,” he said. 

Study findings were published online Jan. 5, 2022, in AIDS and Behavior.
 

First time’s a charm

A total of 450 patients attending an HIV clinic in Houston were asked to complete a postvisit survey detailing their experience with the HIV clinician, as well as personal life stressors in the preceding 6 months. Study participants were predominantly non-Hispanic Black (54.2%) or Hispanic (30.7%) and mostly men who have sex with men (MSM), populations that mimic the patients seen at Dr. Guajardo’s clinic. Patients were given the option of survey completion while awaiting discharge, within 2 weeks at the clinic, or (as a last resort) by phone.

Overall scores were based on a composite of validated scales: patient experience scores were defined dichotomously (best experience, most positive experience vs. not the best experience), and life stressor events (death, relationship, economic) were assigned weighted scores based on life change impact (for example, death of a spouse received a score of 100 while moved/changed living location was assigned a score of 25).

“We found that patients who reported better initial experiences with their provider at the first visit were less likely to be lost to follow-up at 6 and 12 months,” explained Dr. Guajardo. “Having fewer life stressors at the first visit [was] also [protective].”

At 6 months, mean overall patient experience scores were 8.60 for those LTFU versus and 8.98 for those not LTFU (P = .011); corresponding mean scores at 12 months were 8.43 and 8.98 respectively (P = .001).

For the dichotomized scoring, patients reporting the best experience with the health care professional were significantly less likely to be LTFU at 6 months (adjusted odd ratio, 0.866; P = .038) and 12 months (aOR, 1.263; P = .029) versus those not reporting the best experience.

Mean life change scores appeared to portend patient drop-off; patients reporting more stressful life events were likelier to be LTFU at 6 months (mean life change score, 129 vs. 100 for those retained in care) and at 12 months (126 vs. 101). 

Corresponding multivariate logistic regression models controlling for age, baseline CD4 cell count less than 200, and diagnosis of at least 3 months showed that patients with higher life stressor burdens were significantly more likely to be LTFU at both 6 months (aOR, 1.232, P = .037) and 12 months (aOR, 1.263, P = .029).
 

Approach matters

“The [study] really hits the nail on the head in terms of identifying a couple of these very salient issues that affect people’s care, especially concerning HIV,” Philip A. Chan, MD, infectious disease specialist and associate professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I, told this news organization.

“It highlights things that we see on the ground that can interfere with HIV care or [pre-exposure prophylaxis] care, just health care in general, certainly one’s relationship with the physician or provider, and also, you know, real-life stressors,” said Dr. Chan, who was not involved with the study.

Relationship building is especially important for historically underserved populations, a point that’s hardly lost on either Dr. Chan or Dr. Guajardo, who both pointed to higher levels of mistrust among certain patient populations because of their mistreatment by the health care system. The answer? Let the patient lead the initial discussion, allow them to feel comfortable and participate in their care in ways that are most beneficial to them. 

“There’s so much miscommunication, misunderstanding, and stigma related to HIV out in the community. So, it’s important to really open the floor for whatever they want to talk about first, before I push any agenda on a new patient.” Dr. Guajardo said. Thereafter, he relies on open-ended questions such as ‘tell me about your sexual partners?’ or ‘what sort of sexual practices do you engage in?’ 

“At the end of the day, you just need someone dedicated, who can be respectful and listening and caring, and dedicate time to patients to help keep them in care, to listen, and to navigate our incredibly, incredibly complex health care system,” Dr. Chan added.

This study was partly supported by use of the facilities and resources of the Houston Veterans Affairs Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety and Harris Health System. Support for the study was also provided by the National Institute of Mental Health and the University of Texas MD Anderson Foundation Chair at Baylor College of Medicine. Dr. Guajardo and Dr. Chan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A novel twist on the concept of “meeting people where they are” may hold the key to retaining new HIV patients, and even bringing the elusive goal of ending the AIDS epidemic a bit closer. While the concept commonly refers to community outreach and engagement, understanding patient experiences and expectations and personal life stressors in the actual clinic setting may improve overall outcomes, according to new research.

In fact, accounting for both expectations and life stressors may help physicians predict which patients will be lost to follow-up (LTFU) in the first year of HIV care.

“Medical science is not necessarily [at the forefront] of where we want to focus our efforts right now,” Emmanuel Guajardo, MD, lead study author and instructor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization. 

Rather, “we need to focus on retention in care and adherence to medications. Doubling down on these efforts could really go a long way toward ending the HIV epidemic,” he said. 

Study findings were published online Jan. 5, 2022, in AIDS and Behavior.
 

First time’s a charm

A total of 450 patients attending an HIV clinic in Houston were asked to complete a postvisit survey detailing their experience with the HIV clinician, as well as personal life stressors in the preceding 6 months. Study participants were predominantly non-Hispanic Black (54.2%) or Hispanic (30.7%) and mostly men who have sex with men (MSM), populations that mimic the patients seen at Dr. Guajardo’s clinic. Patients were given the option of survey completion while awaiting discharge, within 2 weeks at the clinic, or (as a last resort) by phone.

Overall scores were based on a composite of validated scales: patient experience scores were defined dichotomously (best experience, most positive experience vs. not the best experience), and life stressor events (death, relationship, economic) were assigned weighted scores based on life change impact (for example, death of a spouse received a score of 100 while moved/changed living location was assigned a score of 25).

“We found that patients who reported better initial experiences with their provider at the first visit were less likely to be lost to follow-up at 6 and 12 months,” explained Dr. Guajardo. “Having fewer life stressors at the first visit [was] also [protective].”

At 6 months, mean overall patient experience scores were 8.60 for those LTFU versus and 8.98 for those not LTFU (P = .011); corresponding mean scores at 12 months were 8.43 and 8.98 respectively (P = .001).

For the dichotomized scoring, patients reporting the best experience with the health care professional were significantly less likely to be LTFU at 6 months (adjusted odd ratio, 0.866; P = .038) and 12 months (aOR, 1.263; P = .029) versus those not reporting the best experience.

Mean life change scores appeared to portend patient drop-off; patients reporting more stressful life events were likelier to be LTFU at 6 months (mean life change score, 129 vs. 100 for those retained in care) and at 12 months (126 vs. 101). 

Corresponding multivariate logistic regression models controlling for age, baseline CD4 cell count less than 200, and diagnosis of at least 3 months showed that patients with higher life stressor burdens were significantly more likely to be LTFU at both 6 months (aOR, 1.232, P = .037) and 12 months (aOR, 1.263, P = .029).
 

Approach matters

“The [study] really hits the nail on the head in terms of identifying a couple of these very salient issues that affect people’s care, especially concerning HIV,” Philip A. Chan, MD, infectious disease specialist and associate professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I, told this news organization.

“It highlights things that we see on the ground that can interfere with HIV care or [pre-exposure prophylaxis] care, just health care in general, certainly one’s relationship with the physician or provider, and also, you know, real-life stressors,” said Dr. Chan, who was not involved with the study.

Relationship building is especially important for historically underserved populations, a point that’s hardly lost on either Dr. Chan or Dr. Guajardo, who both pointed to higher levels of mistrust among certain patient populations because of their mistreatment by the health care system. The answer? Let the patient lead the initial discussion, allow them to feel comfortable and participate in their care in ways that are most beneficial to them. 

“There’s so much miscommunication, misunderstanding, and stigma related to HIV out in the community. So, it’s important to really open the floor for whatever they want to talk about first, before I push any agenda on a new patient.” Dr. Guajardo said. Thereafter, he relies on open-ended questions such as ‘tell me about your sexual partners?’ or ‘what sort of sexual practices do you engage in?’ 

“At the end of the day, you just need someone dedicated, who can be respectful and listening and caring, and dedicate time to patients to help keep them in care, to listen, and to navigate our incredibly, incredibly complex health care system,” Dr. Chan added.

This study was partly supported by use of the facilities and resources of the Houston Veterans Affairs Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety and Harris Health System. Support for the study was also provided by the National Institute of Mental Health and the University of Texas MD Anderson Foundation Chair at Baylor College of Medicine. Dr. Guajardo and Dr. Chan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A novel twist on the concept of “meeting people where they are” may hold the key to retaining new HIV patients, and even bringing the elusive goal of ending the AIDS epidemic a bit closer. While the concept commonly refers to community outreach and engagement, understanding patient experiences and expectations and personal life stressors in the actual clinic setting may improve overall outcomes, according to new research.

In fact, accounting for both expectations and life stressors may help physicians predict which patients will be lost to follow-up (LTFU) in the first year of HIV care.

“Medical science is not necessarily [at the forefront] of where we want to focus our efforts right now,” Emmanuel Guajardo, MD, lead study author and instructor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization. 

Rather, “we need to focus on retention in care and adherence to medications. Doubling down on these efforts could really go a long way toward ending the HIV epidemic,” he said. 

Study findings were published online Jan. 5, 2022, in AIDS and Behavior.
 

First time’s a charm

A total of 450 patients attending an HIV clinic in Houston were asked to complete a postvisit survey detailing their experience with the HIV clinician, as well as personal life stressors in the preceding 6 months. Study participants were predominantly non-Hispanic Black (54.2%) or Hispanic (30.7%) and mostly men who have sex with men (MSM), populations that mimic the patients seen at Dr. Guajardo’s clinic. Patients were given the option of survey completion while awaiting discharge, within 2 weeks at the clinic, or (as a last resort) by phone.

Overall scores were based on a composite of validated scales: patient experience scores were defined dichotomously (best experience, most positive experience vs. not the best experience), and life stressor events (death, relationship, economic) were assigned weighted scores based on life change impact (for example, death of a spouse received a score of 100 while moved/changed living location was assigned a score of 25).

“We found that patients who reported better initial experiences with their provider at the first visit were less likely to be lost to follow-up at 6 and 12 months,” explained Dr. Guajardo. “Having fewer life stressors at the first visit [was] also [protective].”

At 6 months, mean overall patient experience scores were 8.60 for those LTFU versus and 8.98 for those not LTFU (P = .011); corresponding mean scores at 12 months were 8.43 and 8.98 respectively (P = .001).

For the dichotomized scoring, patients reporting the best experience with the health care professional were significantly less likely to be LTFU at 6 months (adjusted odd ratio, 0.866; P = .038) and 12 months (aOR, 1.263; P = .029) versus those not reporting the best experience.

Mean life change scores appeared to portend patient drop-off; patients reporting more stressful life events were likelier to be LTFU at 6 months (mean life change score, 129 vs. 100 for those retained in care) and at 12 months (126 vs. 101). 

Corresponding multivariate logistic regression models controlling for age, baseline CD4 cell count less than 200, and diagnosis of at least 3 months showed that patients with higher life stressor burdens were significantly more likely to be LTFU at both 6 months (aOR, 1.232, P = .037) and 12 months (aOR, 1.263, P = .029).
 

Approach matters

“The [study] really hits the nail on the head in terms of identifying a couple of these very salient issues that affect people’s care, especially concerning HIV,” Philip A. Chan, MD, infectious disease specialist and associate professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I, told this news organization.

“It highlights things that we see on the ground that can interfere with HIV care or [pre-exposure prophylaxis] care, just health care in general, certainly one’s relationship with the physician or provider, and also, you know, real-life stressors,” said Dr. Chan, who was not involved with the study.

Relationship building is especially important for historically underserved populations, a point that’s hardly lost on either Dr. Chan or Dr. Guajardo, who both pointed to higher levels of mistrust among certain patient populations because of their mistreatment by the health care system. The answer? Let the patient lead the initial discussion, allow them to feel comfortable and participate in their care in ways that are most beneficial to them. 

“There’s so much miscommunication, misunderstanding, and stigma related to HIV out in the community. So, it’s important to really open the floor for whatever they want to talk about first, before I push any agenda on a new patient.” Dr. Guajardo said. Thereafter, he relies on open-ended questions such as ‘tell me about your sexual partners?’ or ‘what sort of sexual practices do you engage in?’ 

“At the end of the day, you just need someone dedicated, who can be respectful and listening and caring, and dedicate time to patients to help keep them in care, to listen, and to navigate our incredibly, incredibly complex health care system,” Dr. Chan added.

This study was partly supported by use of the facilities and resources of the Houston Veterans Affairs Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety and Harris Health System. Support for the study was also provided by the National Institute of Mental Health and the University of Texas MD Anderson Foundation Chair at Baylor College of Medicine. Dr. Guajardo and Dr. Chan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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