STIs

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There has been a large amount of news lately about dating online and dating apps. Probably the most common way younger people find potential partners is to go online and see who’s there that they might want to meet. 

Online dating is also notorious for being full of scammers. There are all kinds of people out there that you have to be careful of, who are trying to rip you off by saying, “Send me money, I’m in trouble,” or “Now that we have a relationship, will you support my particular entrepreneurial idea?” Certainly, dangers are there. 

Another danger we don’t talk much about is meeting people who have sexually transmitted diseases. That’s been a problem before websites and before dating apps. I think the opportunity of meeting more people — strangers, people you don’t really know — who may not tell you the truth about their health, and particularly their sexual health, is really out there. 

It’s always good medical advice to tell people to practice safe sex, and that often involves a man wearing a condom. It certainly is the case that we want to attend not just to the prevention of unwanted pregnancy but also to the transmission of diseases. I think it’s very important to tell women of reproductive age to get their HPV shot to try to reduce cancers in their reproductive systems, or sometimes in men — anal cancers, or even being a transmitter of disease. 

Even then, certainly one wants to recommend that, in an age where some people are going to meet many partners that they don’t know well or don’t have much background with, it’s wise to try to prevent diseases using the vaccines we’ve got, using the contraceptive methods that will prevent disease transmission, and reminding people to ask about sex life. 

I did come across a website that just startled me. It’s called HeHealth, and basically it says to men, if you are conscientious about your sex life, take a picture of your penis, send it to us, and we have doctors — I presume they’re US doctors but I don’t know — who will diagnose venereal diseases based on that picture. I presume women could also say, “Before we have sex, or now that we’re approaching that possibility, I want you to send a picture to this company on this website.” 

Now, a couple of reminders. I think we all know this, but just because you’re not manifesting symptoms on your reproductive organs doesn’t mean you don’t have a sexual disease. It’s not a reliable measure. Yes, maybe you could have somebody say: “Oh, that looks nasty. I’m not sure you ought to have sex right now, and maybe you should go get some treatment.” This is going to miss many cases and is not a reliable indicator that your partner is safe in terms of not transmitting diseases to you. 

It also isn’t clear what they do with these images. Do they keep them? Who can see them? Could they resell them? What sort of privacy protection have you got if you decide to use this? 

There’s another issue here, which is, if they misdiagnose someone and you do catch a sexual disease, who’s liable? Can you go after them for using doctors who weren’t competent or transmitting images that weren’t really adequate because you didn’t know how to take that picture properly when you sent that off to them? There are many unknowns. 

The bottom line is that we’re in a different world, I think, of romance. We’re in a world where some people are going to meet more partners. Some people are going to meet more strangers. One approach is to have us take pictures of ourselves, send them off to who knows where, and ask for a green light to go ahead and have sexual relations. I don’t think we’re anywhere close to being able to rely on that as a way to avoid the risks of unprotected sexual behavior. 

We do know what to do in dealing with patients who are sexually active. First, we have to ask them. Then we’ve got to recommend available vaccinations to prevent the transmission of some cancers, the HPV vaccine. Then they need that reminder about safe sexual practices not only to protect against unwanted pregnancy, but still, in this day and age, to protect against syphilis, which is on the rise, plus HIV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and other sexually transmissible diseases. 

I’m not going to rely on the penis picture to make the world safe for sex. I think we have to still use the old-fashioned techniques of education and prevention to do the best we can.

Dr. Caplan is director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He reported conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There has been a large amount of news lately about dating online and dating apps. Probably the most common way younger people find potential partners is to go online and see who’s there that they might want to meet. 

Online dating is also notorious for being full of scammers. There are all kinds of people out there that you have to be careful of, who are trying to rip you off by saying, “Send me money, I’m in trouble,” or “Now that we have a relationship, will you support my particular entrepreneurial idea?” Certainly, dangers are there. 

Another danger we don’t talk much about is meeting people who have sexually transmitted diseases. That’s been a problem before websites and before dating apps. I think the opportunity of meeting more people — strangers, people you don’t really know — who may not tell you the truth about their health, and particularly their sexual health, is really out there. 

It’s always good medical advice to tell people to practice safe sex, and that often involves a man wearing a condom. It certainly is the case that we want to attend not just to the prevention of unwanted pregnancy but also to the transmission of diseases. I think it’s very important to tell women of reproductive age to get their HPV shot to try to reduce cancers in their reproductive systems, or sometimes in men — anal cancers, or even being a transmitter of disease. 

Even then, certainly one wants to recommend that, in an age where some people are going to meet many partners that they don’t know well or don’t have much background with, it’s wise to try to prevent diseases using the vaccines we’ve got, using the contraceptive methods that will prevent disease transmission, and reminding people to ask about sex life. 

I did come across a website that just startled me. It’s called HeHealth, and basically it says to men, if you are conscientious about your sex life, take a picture of your penis, send it to us, and we have doctors — I presume they’re US doctors but I don’t know — who will diagnose venereal diseases based on that picture. I presume women could also say, “Before we have sex, or now that we’re approaching that possibility, I want you to send a picture to this company on this website.” 

Now, a couple of reminders. I think we all know this, but just because you’re not manifesting symptoms on your reproductive organs doesn’t mean you don’t have a sexual disease. It’s not a reliable measure. Yes, maybe you could have somebody say: “Oh, that looks nasty. I’m not sure you ought to have sex right now, and maybe you should go get some treatment.” This is going to miss many cases and is not a reliable indicator that your partner is safe in terms of not transmitting diseases to you. 

It also isn’t clear what they do with these images. Do they keep them? Who can see them? Could they resell them? What sort of privacy protection have you got if you decide to use this? 

There’s another issue here, which is, if they misdiagnose someone and you do catch a sexual disease, who’s liable? Can you go after them for using doctors who weren’t competent or transmitting images that weren’t really adequate because you didn’t know how to take that picture properly when you sent that off to them? There are many unknowns. 

The bottom line is that we’re in a different world, I think, of romance. We’re in a world where some people are going to meet more partners. Some people are going to meet more strangers. One approach is to have us take pictures of ourselves, send them off to who knows where, and ask for a green light to go ahead and have sexual relations. I don’t think we’re anywhere close to being able to rely on that as a way to avoid the risks of unprotected sexual behavior. 

We do know what to do in dealing with patients who are sexually active. First, we have to ask them. Then we’ve got to recommend available vaccinations to prevent the transmission of some cancers, the HPV vaccine. Then they need that reminder about safe sexual practices not only to protect against unwanted pregnancy, but still, in this day and age, to protect against syphilis, which is on the rise, plus HIV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and other sexually transmissible diseases. 

I’m not going to rely on the penis picture to make the world safe for sex. I think we have to still use the old-fashioned techniques of education and prevention to do the best we can.

Dr. Caplan is director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He reported conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There has been a large amount of news lately about dating online and dating apps. Probably the most common way younger people find potential partners is to go online and see who’s there that they might want to meet. 

Online dating is also notorious for being full of scammers. There are all kinds of people out there that you have to be careful of, who are trying to rip you off by saying, “Send me money, I’m in trouble,” or “Now that we have a relationship, will you support my particular entrepreneurial idea?” Certainly, dangers are there. 

Another danger we don’t talk much about is meeting people who have sexually transmitted diseases. That’s been a problem before websites and before dating apps. I think the opportunity of meeting more people — strangers, people you don’t really know — who may not tell you the truth about their health, and particularly their sexual health, is really out there. 

It’s always good medical advice to tell people to practice safe sex, and that often involves a man wearing a condom. It certainly is the case that we want to attend not just to the prevention of unwanted pregnancy but also to the transmission of diseases. I think it’s very important to tell women of reproductive age to get their HPV shot to try to reduce cancers in their reproductive systems, or sometimes in men — anal cancers, or even being a transmitter of disease. 

Even then, certainly one wants to recommend that, in an age where some people are going to meet many partners that they don’t know well or don’t have much background with, it’s wise to try to prevent diseases using the vaccines we’ve got, using the contraceptive methods that will prevent disease transmission, and reminding people to ask about sex life. 

I did come across a website that just startled me. It’s called HeHealth, and basically it says to men, if you are conscientious about your sex life, take a picture of your penis, send it to us, and we have doctors — I presume they’re US doctors but I don’t know — who will diagnose venereal diseases based on that picture. I presume women could also say, “Before we have sex, or now that we’re approaching that possibility, I want you to send a picture to this company on this website.” 

Now, a couple of reminders. I think we all know this, but just because you’re not manifesting symptoms on your reproductive organs doesn’t mean you don’t have a sexual disease. It’s not a reliable measure. Yes, maybe you could have somebody say: “Oh, that looks nasty. I’m not sure you ought to have sex right now, and maybe you should go get some treatment.” This is going to miss many cases and is not a reliable indicator that your partner is safe in terms of not transmitting diseases to you. 

It also isn’t clear what they do with these images. Do they keep them? Who can see them? Could they resell them? What sort of privacy protection have you got if you decide to use this? 

There’s another issue here, which is, if they misdiagnose someone and you do catch a sexual disease, who’s liable? Can you go after them for using doctors who weren’t competent or transmitting images that weren’t really adequate because you didn’t know how to take that picture properly when you sent that off to them? There are many unknowns. 

The bottom line is that we’re in a different world, I think, of romance. We’re in a world where some people are going to meet more partners. Some people are going to meet more strangers. One approach is to have us take pictures of ourselves, send them off to who knows where, and ask for a green light to go ahead and have sexual relations. I don’t think we’re anywhere close to being able to rely on that as a way to avoid the risks of unprotected sexual behavior. 

We do know what to do in dealing with patients who are sexually active. First, we have to ask them. Then we’ve got to recommend available vaccinations to prevent the transmission of some cancers, the HPV vaccine. Then they need that reminder about safe sexual practices not only to protect against unwanted pregnancy, but still, in this day and age, to protect against syphilis, which is on the rise, plus HIV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and other sexually transmissible diseases. 

I’m not going to rely on the penis picture to make the world safe for sex. I think we have to still use the old-fashioned techniques of education and prevention to do the best we can.

Dr. Caplan is director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He reported conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

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

British Columbia (BC) could eliminate cervical cancer within the next 20 years if the province shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV)–based screening before the end of the decade, data suggested. To achieve this goal, the province will also need to reach historically underscreened, equity-seeking populations (ie, Black, indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ, and disabled patients, and those with sexual trauma) through mailed self-screening HPV tests.

The adoption of both these strategies is essential, according to a modeling study that was published on June 3 in CMAJ, especially because the true impact of HPV vaccination has yet to be fully realized.

“In BC, we have a school-based program to increase vaccine coverage in boys and girls starting in grade 6,” study author Reka Pataky, PhD, a senior research health economist at the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. Dr. Pataky noted that this immunization program was launched in 2008 and that some of the initial cohorts haven›t yet reached the average age of diagnosis, which is between 30 and 59 years.

Three’s a Charm

The investigators undertook a modeling study to determine when and how BC might achieve the elimination of cervical cancer following a transition to HPV-based screening. Elimination was defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate of < 4.0 per 100,000 women.

Modeling scenarios were developed using the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s priority targets, which include increasing HPV vaccination through school-based coverage from 70% to 90%, increasing the probability of ever receiving a screening test from 90% to 95%, increasing the rate of on-time screening from 70% to 90%, and improving follow-up to 95% for colposcopy (currently 88%) and HPV testing (currently 80%). Modeling simulated HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer in the Canadian population and relied upon two reference scenarios: One using BC’s cytology-based screening at the time of analysis, and the other an HPV base-case scenario.

The researchers found that with the status quo (ie, cytology-based screening and no change to vaccination or screening participation rates), BC would not eliminate cervical cancer until 2045. Implementation of HPV-based screening at the current 70% participation rate would achieve elimination in 2034 and prevent 942 cases compared with cytology screening. Increasing the proportion of patients who were ever screened or increasing vaccination coverage would result in cervical cancer elimination by 2033. The time line would be shortened even further (to 2031) through a combination of three strategies (ie, improving recruitment, on-time screening, and follow-up compliance).

Low Incidence, Strained System

The incidence of cervical cancer in Canada is relatively low, accounting for 1.3% of all new female cancers and 1.1% of all female cancer deaths.

“The reason that we have such low rates is because we have organized screening programs,” explained Rachel Kupets, MD, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto. She was not involved in the study.

“We’re starting to see what happens when the system gets strained with lower participation rates. I am starting to see a lot more women with invasive cervical cancer. They’re younger, and their cancers are less curable and less treatable,” she said.

Difficulties with access, interest, and education have contributed to low cervical screening rates among equity-seeking populations, according to Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets.

“Self-screening is another tool that can incrementally benefit those folks who wouldn’t otherwise undergo screening or don’t want an invasive test,” said Dr. Kupets. It can also play an increasing role, while current access to primary care services in Canada is at an all-time low. Community outreach through centers, mobile coaches, and nursing stations might help ensure participation by at-risk populations. These measures also could boost follow-up for and education about positive results, said Dr. Kupets.

In a related editorial, Shannon Charlebois, MD, medical editor of CMAJ, and Sarah Kean, MD, assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, emphasized the need for mailed HPV self-screening kits to be paid for and integrated into provincial cervical cancer screening programs across Canada to support earlier cervical cancer detection and lower invasive cancer rates.

Dr. Pataky concurred. “There have been discussions about making the big transition from traditional cytology to implementing HPV self-screening,” she said. “We have really effective tools for preventing cervical cancer, and it’s important to not lose sight of that goal.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

British Columbia (BC) could eliminate cervical cancer within the next 20 years if the province shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV)–based screening before the end of the decade, data suggested. To achieve this goal, the province will also need to reach historically underscreened, equity-seeking populations (ie, Black, indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ, and disabled patients, and those with sexual trauma) through mailed self-screening HPV tests.

The adoption of both these strategies is essential, according to a modeling study that was published on June 3 in CMAJ, especially because the true impact of HPV vaccination has yet to be fully realized.

“In BC, we have a school-based program to increase vaccine coverage in boys and girls starting in grade 6,” study author Reka Pataky, PhD, a senior research health economist at the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. Dr. Pataky noted that this immunization program was launched in 2008 and that some of the initial cohorts haven›t yet reached the average age of diagnosis, which is between 30 and 59 years.

Three’s a Charm

The investigators undertook a modeling study to determine when and how BC might achieve the elimination of cervical cancer following a transition to HPV-based screening. Elimination was defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate of < 4.0 per 100,000 women.

Modeling scenarios were developed using the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s priority targets, which include increasing HPV vaccination through school-based coverage from 70% to 90%, increasing the probability of ever receiving a screening test from 90% to 95%, increasing the rate of on-time screening from 70% to 90%, and improving follow-up to 95% for colposcopy (currently 88%) and HPV testing (currently 80%). Modeling simulated HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer in the Canadian population and relied upon two reference scenarios: One using BC’s cytology-based screening at the time of analysis, and the other an HPV base-case scenario.

The researchers found that with the status quo (ie, cytology-based screening and no change to vaccination or screening participation rates), BC would not eliminate cervical cancer until 2045. Implementation of HPV-based screening at the current 70% participation rate would achieve elimination in 2034 and prevent 942 cases compared with cytology screening. Increasing the proportion of patients who were ever screened or increasing vaccination coverage would result in cervical cancer elimination by 2033. The time line would be shortened even further (to 2031) through a combination of three strategies (ie, improving recruitment, on-time screening, and follow-up compliance).

Low Incidence, Strained System

The incidence of cervical cancer in Canada is relatively low, accounting for 1.3% of all new female cancers and 1.1% of all female cancer deaths.

“The reason that we have such low rates is because we have organized screening programs,” explained Rachel Kupets, MD, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto. She was not involved in the study.

“We’re starting to see what happens when the system gets strained with lower participation rates. I am starting to see a lot more women with invasive cervical cancer. They’re younger, and their cancers are less curable and less treatable,” she said.

Difficulties with access, interest, and education have contributed to low cervical screening rates among equity-seeking populations, according to Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets.

“Self-screening is another tool that can incrementally benefit those folks who wouldn’t otherwise undergo screening or don’t want an invasive test,” said Dr. Kupets. It can also play an increasing role, while current access to primary care services in Canada is at an all-time low. Community outreach through centers, mobile coaches, and nursing stations might help ensure participation by at-risk populations. These measures also could boost follow-up for and education about positive results, said Dr. Kupets.

In a related editorial, Shannon Charlebois, MD, medical editor of CMAJ, and Sarah Kean, MD, assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, emphasized the need for mailed HPV self-screening kits to be paid for and integrated into provincial cervical cancer screening programs across Canada to support earlier cervical cancer detection and lower invasive cancer rates.

Dr. Pataky concurred. “There have been discussions about making the big transition from traditional cytology to implementing HPV self-screening,” she said. “We have really effective tools for preventing cervical cancer, and it’s important to not lose sight of that goal.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

British Columbia (BC) could eliminate cervical cancer within the next 20 years if the province shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV)–based screening before the end of the decade, data suggested. To achieve this goal, the province will also need to reach historically underscreened, equity-seeking populations (ie, Black, indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ, and disabled patients, and those with sexual trauma) through mailed self-screening HPV tests.

The adoption of both these strategies is essential, according to a modeling study that was published on June 3 in CMAJ, especially because the true impact of HPV vaccination has yet to be fully realized.

“In BC, we have a school-based program to increase vaccine coverage in boys and girls starting in grade 6,” study author Reka Pataky, PhD, a senior research health economist at the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. Dr. Pataky noted that this immunization program was launched in 2008 and that some of the initial cohorts haven›t yet reached the average age of diagnosis, which is between 30 and 59 years.

Three’s a Charm

The investigators undertook a modeling study to determine when and how BC might achieve the elimination of cervical cancer following a transition to HPV-based screening. Elimination was defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate of < 4.0 per 100,000 women.

Modeling scenarios were developed using the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s priority targets, which include increasing HPV vaccination through school-based coverage from 70% to 90%, increasing the probability of ever receiving a screening test from 90% to 95%, increasing the rate of on-time screening from 70% to 90%, and improving follow-up to 95% for colposcopy (currently 88%) and HPV testing (currently 80%). Modeling simulated HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer in the Canadian population and relied upon two reference scenarios: One using BC’s cytology-based screening at the time of analysis, and the other an HPV base-case scenario.

The researchers found that with the status quo (ie, cytology-based screening and no change to vaccination or screening participation rates), BC would not eliminate cervical cancer until 2045. Implementation of HPV-based screening at the current 70% participation rate would achieve elimination in 2034 and prevent 942 cases compared with cytology screening. Increasing the proportion of patients who were ever screened or increasing vaccination coverage would result in cervical cancer elimination by 2033. The time line would be shortened even further (to 2031) through a combination of three strategies (ie, improving recruitment, on-time screening, and follow-up compliance).

Low Incidence, Strained System

The incidence of cervical cancer in Canada is relatively low, accounting for 1.3% of all new female cancers and 1.1% of all female cancer deaths.

“The reason that we have such low rates is because we have organized screening programs,” explained Rachel Kupets, MD, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto. She was not involved in the study.

“We’re starting to see what happens when the system gets strained with lower participation rates. I am starting to see a lot more women with invasive cervical cancer. They’re younger, and their cancers are less curable and less treatable,” she said.

Difficulties with access, interest, and education have contributed to low cervical screening rates among equity-seeking populations, according to Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets.

“Self-screening is another tool that can incrementally benefit those folks who wouldn’t otherwise undergo screening or don’t want an invasive test,” said Dr. Kupets. It can also play an increasing role, while current access to primary care services in Canada is at an all-time low. Community outreach through centers, mobile coaches, and nursing stations might help ensure participation by at-risk populations. These measures also could boost follow-up for and education about positive results, said Dr. Kupets.

In a related editorial, Shannon Charlebois, MD, medical editor of CMAJ, and Sarah Kean, MD, assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, emphasized the need for mailed HPV self-screening kits to be paid for and integrated into provincial cervical cancer screening programs across Canada to support earlier cervical cancer detection and lower invasive cancer rates.

Dr. Pataky concurred. “There have been discussions about making the big transition from traditional cytology to implementing HPV self-screening,” she said. “We have really effective tools for preventing cervical cancer, and it’s important to not lose sight of that goal.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) is an effective way to prevent HPV infection and cancers typically caused by HPV, including cervical cancer and head and neck cancers, new research showed.

The analysis, featured at a press briefing ahead of the presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting, notably found that men who received the HPV vaccine had a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers.

“We’ve known for a long time that having the HPV vaccine can prevent the development of HPV infection, yes, but importantly, cancer,” primarily cervical cancer, said briefing moderator and ASCO president Lynn Schuchter, MD, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “This is a really important study that extends the information about the impact.”

Using the US TriNetX database, lead investigator Jefferson DeKloe, BS, a research fellow with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and colleagues created a matched cohort of 760,540 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated men and 945,999 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated women.

HPV-vaccinated men had a 54% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; P < .001) and a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.44; P < .001) than unvaccinated men. There were not enough cases of anal and penile cancers for analysis.

HPV-vaccinated women had a 27% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (OR, 0.73; P < .05), a 54% lower risk for cervical cancer (OR, 0.46; P < .05), and a 33% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.08) than HPV-unvaccinated women, but this finding was not significant. There were not enough cases of anal cancers for analysis, and the odds of developing vulvar or vaginal cancer was not significantly different in HPV-vaccinated vs unvaccinated women.

Vaccinated women, however, were less likely than unvaccinated women to develop high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (OR, 0.44), cervical carcinoma in situ (OR, 0.42), or abnormal Pap findings (OR, 0.87), and were less likely to undergo cone biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision (OR, 0.45).

“This study really highlights the importance of getting the HPV vaccine,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing.

“HPV vaccination is cancer prevention,” Glenn Hanna, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an ASCO statement.

Still, HPV vaccination rates in the United States remain relatively low. According to the National Cancer Institute, in 2022, only about 58% of adolescents aged 13-15 years had received two or three doses of HPV vaccine as recommended.

“The goal,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing, “is that younger girls and young boys get vaccinated to prevent development of HPV infection, and that should decrease the risk of cancer, which is what we’ve seen.”

Mr. DeKloe agreed and highlighted the importance of improving vaccination rates. “Identifying effective interventions that increase HPV vaccination rates is critical in reducing undue cancer burden in the United States,” Mr. DeKloe said in a statement.

The study had no funding source. Mr. DeKloe had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Hanna has disclosed relationships with Bicara Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Coherus BioSciences, and others. Dr. Schuchter had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) is an effective way to prevent HPV infection and cancers typically caused by HPV, including cervical cancer and head and neck cancers, new research showed.

The analysis, featured at a press briefing ahead of the presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting, notably found that men who received the HPV vaccine had a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers.

“We’ve known for a long time that having the HPV vaccine can prevent the development of HPV infection, yes, but importantly, cancer,” primarily cervical cancer, said briefing moderator and ASCO president Lynn Schuchter, MD, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “This is a really important study that extends the information about the impact.”

Using the US TriNetX database, lead investigator Jefferson DeKloe, BS, a research fellow with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and colleagues created a matched cohort of 760,540 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated men and 945,999 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated women.

HPV-vaccinated men had a 54% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; P < .001) and a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.44; P < .001) than unvaccinated men. There were not enough cases of anal and penile cancers for analysis.

HPV-vaccinated women had a 27% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (OR, 0.73; P < .05), a 54% lower risk for cervical cancer (OR, 0.46; P < .05), and a 33% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.08) than HPV-unvaccinated women, but this finding was not significant. There were not enough cases of anal cancers for analysis, and the odds of developing vulvar or vaginal cancer was not significantly different in HPV-vaccinated vs unvaccinated women.

Vaccinated women, however, were less likely than unvaccinated women to develop high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (OR, 0.44), cervical carcinoma in situ (OR, 0.42), or abnormal Pap findings (OR, 0.87), and were less likely to undergo cone biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision (OR, 0.45).

“This study really highlights the importance of getting the HPV vaccine,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing.

“HPV vaccination is cancer prevention,” Glenn Hanna, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an ASCO statement.

Still, HPV vaccination rates in the United States remain relatively low. According to the National Cancer Institute, in 2022, only about 58% of adolescents aged 13-15 years had received two or three doses of HPV vaccine as recommended.

“The goal,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing, “is that younger girls and young boys get vaccinated to prevent development of HPV infection, and that should decrease the risk of cancer, which is what we’ve seen.”

Mr. DeKloe agreed and highlighted the importance of improving vaccination rates. “Identifying effective interventions that increase HPV vaccination rates is critical in reducing undue cancer burden in the United States,” Mr. DeKloe said in a statement.

The study had no funding source. Mr. DeKloe had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Hanna has disclosed relationships with Bicara Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Coherus BioSciences, and others. Dr. Schuchter had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) is an effective way to prevent HPV infection and cancers typically caused by HPV, including cervical cancer and head and neck cancers, new research showed.

The analysis, featured at a press briefing ahead of the presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting, notably found that men who received the HPV vaccine had a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers.

“We’ve known for a long time that having the HPV vaccine can prevent the development of HPV infection, yes, but importantly, cancer,” primarily cervical cancer, said briefing moderator and ASCO president Lynn Schuchter, MD, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “This is a really important study that extends the information about the impact.”

Using the US TriNetX database, lead investigator Jefferson DeKloe, BS, a research fellow with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and colleagues created a matched cohort of 760,540 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated men and 945,999 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated women.

HPV-vaccinated men had a 54% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; P < .001) and a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.44; P < .001) than unvaccinated men. There were not enough cases of anal and penile cancers for analysis.

HPV-vaccinated women had a 27% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (OR, 0.73; P < .05), a 54% lower risk for cervical cancer (OR, 0.46; P < .05), and a 33% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.08) than HPV-unvaccinated women, but this finding was not significant. There were not enough cases of anal cancers for analysis, and the odds of developing vulvar or vaginal cancer was not significantly different in HPV-vaccinated vs unvaccinated women.

Vaccinated women, however, were less likely than unvaccinated women to develop high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (OR, 0.44), cervical carcinoma in situ (OR, 0.42), or abnormal Pap findings (OR, 0.87), and were less likely to undergo cone biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision (OR, 0.45).

“This study really highlights the importance of getting the HPV vaccine,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing.

“HPV vaccination is cancer prevention,” Glenn Hanna, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an ASCO statement.

Still, HPV vaccination rates in the United States remain relatively low. According to the National Cancer Institute, in 2022, only about 58% of adolescents aged 13-15 years had received two or three doses of HPV vaccine as recommended.

“The goal,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing, “is that younger girls and young boys get vaccinated to prevent development of HPV infection, and that should decrease the risk of cancer, which is what we’ve seen.”

Mr. DeKloe agreed and highlighted the importance of improving vaccination rates. “Identifying effective interventions that increase HPV vaccination rates is critical in reducing undue cancer burden in the United States,” Mr. DeKloe said in a statement.

The study had no funding source. Mr. DeKloe had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Hanna has disclosed relationships with Bicara Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Coherus BioSciences, and others. Dr. Schuchter had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Use of combined contraceptive vaginal rings was associated with an increased risk for several types of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), based on data from a pair of studies presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

Previous research has shown that the use of a combined contraceptive vaginal ring (CCVR) may promote changes in immunity in the female genital tract by upregulating immune-related genes in the endocervix and immune mediators within the cervicovaginal fluid, wrote Amy Arceneaux, BS, a medical student at the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, and colleagues.

The infection rates in the female genital tract can vary according to hormones in the local environment and continued safety analysis is needed as the use of CCVR continues to rise, the researchers noted.

In a retrospective chart review, the researchers assessed de-identified data from TriNetX, a patient database, including 30,796 women who received etonogestrel and ethinyl estradiol CCVRs without segesterone and an equal number who were using oral contraceptive pills (OCP) without vaginal hormones. Patients were matched for age, race, and ethnicity.

Overall use of CCVRs was significantly associated with an increased risk for Herpes simplex virus 2 (HSV-2; relative risk [RR], 1.790), acute vaginitis (RR, 1.722), subacute/chronic vaginitis (RR, 1.904), subacute/chronic vulvitis (RR, 1.969), acute vulvitis (RR, 1.894), candidiasis (RR, 1.464), trichomoniasis (RR, 2.162), and pelvic inflammatory disease (RR, 2.984; P < .0005 for all).

By contrast, use of CCVRs was significantly associated with a decreased risk for chlamydia (RR, 0.760; P = .047). No differences in risk appeared for gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, or anogenital warts between the CCVR and OCP groups.

Another study presented at the meeting, led by Kathleen Karam, BS, also a medical student at the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, Texas, focused on outcomes on vaginal health and infection risk in women who used CCVRs compared with women who did not use hormones.

The study by Ms. Karam and colleagues included de-identified TriNetX data for two cohorts of 274,743 women.

Overall, the researchers found a significantly increased risk for gonorrhea, HSV-2, vaginitis, vulvitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, anogenital warts, and candidiasis in women using CCVR compared with those using no hormonal contraception, while the risk for chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV was decreased in women using CCVR compared with those using no hormonal contraception.

“I was pleasantly surprised by the finding that the group of women using the hormonal contraception vaginal ring had decreased risk for HIV and syphilis infections,” said Kathleen L. Vincent, MD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, Texas, and senior author on both studies, in an interview. She hypothesized that the estrogen released from the ring might have contributed to the decreased risk for those infections.

The findings of both studies were limited primarily by the retrospective design, but the results suggest a need for further study of the effect of local hormone delivery on the vaginal mucosa, the researchers wrote.

Although the study population was large, the lack of randomization can allow for differences in the behaviors or risk-taking of the groups, Dr. Vincent said in an interview.

“The fact that there were STIs that were increased and some that were decreased with use of the vaginal ring tells us that there were women with similar behaviors in both groups, or we might have seen STIs only in one group,” she said. “Additional research could be done to look at varying time courses of outcomes after initiation of the vaginal ring or to go more in-depth with matching the groups at baseline based on a history of risky behaviors,” she noted.
 

Data Inform Multipurpose Prevention Technology

Dr. Vincent and her colleague, Richard Pyles, PhD, have a 15-year history of studying vaginal drug and hormone effects on the vaginal mucosa in women and preclinical and cell models. “Based on that work, it was plausible for estrogen to be protective for several types of infections,” she said. The availability of TriNetX allowed the researchers to explore these relationships in a large database of women in the studies presented at the meeting. “We began with a basic science observation in an animal model and grew it into this clinical study because of the available TriNetX system that supported extensive medical record review,” Dr. Pyles noted.

The take-home messages from the current research remain that vaginal rings delivering hormones are indicated only for contraception or birth control, not for protection against STIs or HIV, and women at an increased risk for these infections should protect themselves by using condoms, Dr. Vincent said.

However, “the real clinical implication is for the future for the drugs that we call MPTs or multi-purpose prevention technologies,” Dr. Vincent said.

“This could be a vaginal ring that releases medications for birth control and prevention of HIV or an STI,” she explained.

The findings from the studies presented at the meeting have great potential for an MPT on which Dr. Vincent and Dr. Pyles are working that would provide protection against both HIV and pregnancy. “For HIV prevention, the hormonal vaginal ring components have potential to work synergistically with the HIV prevention drug rather than working against each other, and this could be realized as a need for less HIV prevention drug, and subsequently fewer potential side effects from that drug,” said Dr. Vincent.

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

Use of combined contraceptive vaginal rings was associated with an increased risk for several types of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), based on data from a pair of studies presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

Previous research has shown that the use of a combined contraceptive vaginal ring (CCVR) may promote changes in immunity in the female genital tract by upregulating immune-related genes in the endocervix and immune mediators within the cervicovaginal fluid, wrote Amy Arceneaux, BS, a medical student at the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, and colleagues.

The infection rates in the female genital tract can vary according to hormones in the local environment and continued safety analysis is needed as the use of CCVR continues to rise, the researchers noted.

In a retrospective chart review, the researchers assessed de-identified data from TriNetX, a patient database, including 30,796 women who received etonogestrel and ethinyl estradiol CCVRs without segesterone and an equal number who were using oral contraceptive pills (OCP) without vaginal hormones. Patients were matched for age, race, and ethnicity.

Overall use of CCVRs was significantly associated with an increased risk for Herpes simplex virus 2 (HSV-2; relative risk [RR], 1.790), acute vaginitis (RR, 1.722), subacute/chronic vaginitis (RR, 1.904), subacute/chronic vulvitis (RR, 1.969), acute vulvitis (RR, 1.894), candidiasis (RR, 1.464), trichomoniasis (RR, 2.162), and pelvic inflammatory disease (RR, 2.984; P < .0005 for all).

By contrast, use of CCVRs was significantly associated with a decreased risk for chlamydia (RR, 0.760; P = .047). No differences in risk appeared for gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, or anogenital warts between the CCVR and OCP groups.

Another study presented at the meeting, led by Kathleen Karam, BS, also a medical student at the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, Texas, focused on outcomes on vaginal health and infection risk in women who used CCVRs compared with women who did not use hormones.

The study by Ms. Karam and colleagues included de-identified TriNetX data for two cohorts of 274,743 women.

Overall, the researchers found a significantly increased risk for gonorrhea, HSV-2, vaginitis, vulvitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, anogenital warts, and candidiasis in women using CCVR compared with those using no hormonal contraception, while the risk for chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV was decreased in women using CCVR compared with those using no hormonal contraception.

“I was pleasantly surprised by the finding that the group of women using the hormonal contraception vaginal ring had decreased risk for HIV and syphilis infections,” said Kathleen L. Vincent, MD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, Texas, and senior author on both studies, in an interview. She hypothesized that the estrogen released from the ring might have contributed to the decreased risk for those infections.

The findings of both studies were limited primarily by the retrospective design, but the results suggest a need for further study of the effect of local hormone delivery on the vaginal mucosa, the researchers wrote.

Although the study population was large, the lack of randomization can allow for differences in the behaviors or risk-taking of the groups, Dr. Vincent said in an interview.

“The fact that there were STIs that were increased and some that were decreased with use of the vaginal ring tells us that there were women with similar behaviors in both groups, or we might have seen STIs only in one group,” she said. “Additional research could be done to look at varying time courses of outcomes after initiation of the vaginal ring or to go more in-depth with matching the groups at baseline based on a history of risky behaviors,” she noted.
 

Data Inform Multipurpose Prevention Technology

Dr. Vincent and her colleague, Richard Pyles, PhD, have a 15-year history of studying vaginal drug and hormone effects on the vaginal mucosa in women and preclinical and cell models. “Based on that work, it was plausible for estrogen to be protective for several types of infections,” she said. The availability of TriNetX allowed the researchers to explore these relationships in a large database of women in the studies presented at the meeting. “We began with a basic science observation in an animal model and grew it into this clinical study because of the available TriNetX system that supported extensive medical record review,” Dr. Pyles noted.

The take-home messages from the current research remain that vaginal rings delivering hormones are indicated only for contraception or birth control, not for protection against STIs or HIV, and women at an increased risk for these infections should protect themselves by using condoms, Dr. Vincent said.

However, “the real clinical implication is for the future for the drugs that we call MPTs or multi-purpose prevention technologies,” Dr. Vincent said.

“This could be a vaginal ring that releases medications for birth control and prevention of HIV or an STI,” she explained.

The findings from the studies presented at the meeting have great potential for an MPT on which Dr. Vincent and Dr. Pyles are working that would provide protection against both HIV and pregnancy. “For HIV prevention, the hormonal vaginal ring components have potential to work synergistically with the HIV prevention drug rather than working against each other, and this could be realized as a need for less HIV prevention drug, and subsequently fewer potential side effects from that drug,” said Dr. Vincent.

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

Use of combined contraceptive vaginal rings was associated with an increased risk for several types of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), based on data from a pair of studies presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

Previous research has shown that the use of a combined contraceptive vaginal ring (CCVR) may promote changes in immunity in the female genital tract by upregulating immune-related genes in the endocervix and immune mediators within the cervicovaginal fluid, wrote Amy Arceneaux, BS, a medical student at the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, and colleagues.

The infection rates in the female genital tract can vary according to hormones in the local environment and continued safety analysis is needed as the use of CCVR continues to rise, the researchers noted.

In a retrospective chart review, the researchers assessed de-identified data from TriNetX, a patient database, including 30,796 women who received etonogestrel and ethinyl estradiol CCVRs without segesterone and an equal number who were using oral contraceptive pills (OCP) without vaginal hormones. Patients were matched for age, race, and ethnicity.

Overall use of CCVRs was significantly associated with an increased risk for Herpes simplex virus 2 (HSV-2; relative risk [RR], 1.790), acute vaginitis (RR, 1.722), subacute/chronic vaginitis (RR, 1.904), subacute/chronic vulvitis (RR, 1.969), acute vulvitis (RR, 1.894), candidiasis (RR, 1.464), trichomoniasis (RR, 2.162), and pelvic inflammatory disease (RR, 2.984; P < .0005 for all).

By contrast, use of CCVRs was significantly associated with a decreased risk for chlamydia (RR, 0.760; P = .047). No differences in risk appeared for gonorrhea, syphilis, HIV, or anogenital warts between the CCVR and OCP groups.

Another study presented at the meeting, led by Kathleen Karam, BS, also a medical student at the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, Texas, focused on outcomes on vaginal health and infection risk in women who used CCVRs compared with women who did not use hormones.

The study by Ms. Karam and colleagues included de-identified TriNetX data for two cohorts of 274,743 women.

Overall, the researchers found a significantly increased risk for gonorrhea, HSV-2, vaginitis, vulvitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, anogenital warts, and candidiasis in women using CCVR compared with those using no hormonal contraception, while the risk for chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV was decreased in women using CCVR compared with those using no hormonal contraception.

“I was pleasantly surprised by the finding that the group of women using the hormonal contraception vaginal ring had decreased risk for HIV and syphilis infections,” said Kathleen L. Vincent, MD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, Texas, and senior author on both studies, in an interview. She hypothesized that the estrogen released from the ring might have contributed to the decreased risk for those infections.

The findings of both studies were limited primarily by the retrospective design, but the results suggest a need for further study of the effect of local hormone delivery on the vaginal mucosa, the researchers wrote.

Although the study population was large, the lack of randomization can allow for differences in the behaviors or risk-taking of the groups, Dr. Vincent said in an interview.

“The fact that there were STIs that were increased and some that were decreased with use of the vaginal ring tells us that there were women with similar behaviors in both groups, or we might have seen STIs only in one group,” she said. “Additional research could be done to look at varying time courses of outcomes after initiation of the vaginal ring or to go more in-depth with matching the groups at baseline based on a history of risky behaviors,” she noted.
 

Data Inform Multipurpose Prevention Technology

Dr. Vincent and her colleague, Richard Pyles, PhD, have a 15-year history of studying vaginal drug and hormone effects on the vaginal mucosa in women and preclinical and cell models. “Based on that work, it was plausible for estrogen to be protective for several types of infections,” she said. The availability of TriNetX allowed the researchers to explore these relationships in a large database of women in the studies presented at the meeting. “We began with a basic science observation in an animal model and grew it into this clinical study because of the available TriNetX system that supported extensive medical record review,” Dr. Pyles noted.

The take-home messages from the current research remain that vaginal rings delivering hormones are indicated only for contraception or birth control, not for protection against STIs or HIV, and women at an increased risk for these infections should protect themselves by using condoms, Dr. Vincent said.

However, “the real clinical implication is for the future for the drugs that we call MPTs or multi-purpose prevention technologies,” Dr. Vincent said.

“This could be a vaginal ring that releases medications for birth control and prevention of HIV or an STI,” she explained.

The findings from the studies presented at the meeting have great potential for an MPT on which Dr. Vincent and Dr. Pyles are working that would provide protection against both HIV and pregnancy. “For HIV prevention, the hormonal vaginal ring components have potential to work synergistically with the HIV prevention drug rather than working against each other, and this could be realized as a need for less HIV prevention drug, and subsequently fewer potential side effects from that drug,” said Dr. Vincent.

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

In 2020, the American Cancer Society (ACS) updated its cervical screening guidelines, proposing two major changes: start cervical cancer screening at age 25, rather than 21, and perform primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, instead of a Pap test. 

But a recent survey, published earlier this year, found that few clinicians are following these ACS recommendations. And the reasons are multifaceted.

First, healthcare providers in the US may be unsure how to reconcile conflicting cervical cancer screening guidelines from another major organization — the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which published guidelines in 2018. 

Although the ACS guidelines are based on an analysis of the latest evidence, 

the recommendations challenge those from the USPSTF, which dictates insurance coverage in the US. Last year, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) aligned its guidelines with those from the USPSTF.

The USPSTF recommends average-risk individuals start Pap, not HPV, testing at age 21, and broadens the options to primary HPV testing, Pap testing, or both together starting at age 30. The ACS, on the other hand, says primary HPV testing is the preferred screening approach from the start, which should be age 25. 

Because the ACS guidelines marked a notable departure from prevailing practice, a team of researchers from five US universities decided to find out if anyone was following them. 

The results, published in the journal Cancer in March, revealed that most healthcare providers had not changed practice.

Lead author Rebecca Perkins, MD, MSc, and colleagues found that, among the 70 respondents, few were starting screening at age 25, and none had switched to primary HPV testing. 

The survey then probed clinicians’ willingness to adopt the ACS guidelines as well as their reservations and barriers to doing so. 

Notably, more than half of the survey participants said they would be willing to adopt the ACS guidelines if the best evidence supported the changes and other professional medical organizations endorsed them.

On the age change, participants highlighted a range of benefits to moving to a later screening age, including that earlier screening may not be valuable and delaying screening could reduce overtreatment. 

One participant noted: “We know that cervical cancer is usually a slow‐growing, long‐term progressive disease that does not typically show up that early in life, and we also know that, if infected, oftentimes their immune system can fight off the virus. So, it sounds reasonable at first glance [to delay screening to age 25 years].” 

Others, however, brought up barriers to initiating screening at age 25. Some mentioned that later screening may not work for high‐risk populations and others voiced concerns about missing high‐grade precancer or cancer. “It’s not unusual for us to see women in their early 20s that have already had 10 or 15 partners. … a lot of them smoke too … they just have a lot of bad habits that put them at more risk,” one respondent noted.

On the HPV vs Pap testing front, many participants described a growing confidence in HPV tests after trying co-testing. One participant said, “Honestly, I do look more at the HPV results than the cytology. I put more faith in knowing what their HPV status is than anything.” 

The main barriers to primary HPV testing, however, included lack of autonomy when working in a large health system, concerns about the efficacy of HPV testing, and a belief that cytology was valuable.

Some clinicians were worried about missing high-grade lesions or cancer. One healthcare provider said, “My only concern with primary HPV screening is occasionally you will pick up endometrial abnormalities on a Pap that you’re not going to pick up with HPV screening.”

Logistics and finances also played a role in clinicians’ hesitancy to switch to the ACS recommendation. Labs that could handle primary HPV tests were not available to some participants, and lack of insurance coverage was a barrier for others. One respondent noted, for instance, that his institution has a “cytology infrastructure that already exists in the lab and I can’t really see them switching.” 

Many survey respondents also said they were waiting for endorsement from organizations, such as ACOG and USPSTF. “We run by the USPSTF and … ACOG. We don’t run by the ACS guidelines,” one person said. 

Finally, some participants were not aware of the ACS recommendations at all or the data behind them but said they would be willing to change to primary HPV testing in the future. 

Overall, Dr. Perkins said she was happy to see that more than half of the respondents would be willing to shift to the ACS screening guidelines, but noted that many remain reluctant to do so until the USPSTF and ACOG change their guidelines. 

“It’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing” the ACS guidelines, said Dr. Perkins, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University. 

The USPSTF is currently updating its cervical screening guidelines, which could potentially help reconcile this discord between the guidelines and close the gaps in practice patterns. 

The USPSTF’s review of the evidence, which led to the 2018 guidelines, did highlight the effectiveness of HPV testing. The review authors concluded that “the evidence was consistent across trials” that primary, high-risk HPV screening increased detection of grade 3 or worse cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in the initial round of screening “by as much as 2 to 3 times when compared with cytology.”

However, Joy Melnikow, MD, MPH, first author on the USPSTF evidence review, explained that the reviewers factored in access to HPV testing when making their final recommendations.

“The consideration was making sure that a recommendation could be inclusive of all providers and all populations and not restricting access for clinics that couldn’t afford or didn’t have the machine to do [HPV testing],” Dr. Melnikow, director of the Center for Healthcare Policy and Research and professor of family and community medicine at the University of California Davis, told this news organization.

The ACS, however, did not consider potential access problems in its analysis of the evidence.

Although the ACS evidence is “excellent,” Dr. Perkins said, “it’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing that, and then it seems like a lot of people are willing to make the change.”

Dr. Perkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2020, the American Cancer Society (ACS) updated its cervical screening guidelines, proposing two major changes: start cervical cancer screening at age 25, rather than 21, and perform primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, instead of a Pap test. 

But a recent survey, published earlier this year, found that few clinicians are following these ACS recommendations. And the reasons are multifaceted.

First, healthcare providers in the US may be unsure how to reconcile conflicting cervical cancer screening guidelines from another major organization — the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which published guidelines in 2018. 

Although the ACS guidelines are based on an analysis of the latest evidence, 

the recommendations challenge those from the USPSTF, which dictates insurance coverage in the US. Last year, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) aligned its guidelines with those from the USPSTF.

The USPSTF recommends average-risk individuals start Pap, not HPV, testing at age 21, and broadens the options to primary HPV testing, Pap testing, or both together starting at age 30. The ACS, on the other hand, says primary HPV testing is the preferred screening approach from the start, which should be age 25. 

Because the ACS guidelines marked a notable departure from prevailing practice, a team of researchers from five US universities decided to find out if anyone was following them. 

The results, published in the journal Cancer in March, revealed that most healthcare providers had not changed practice.

Lead author Rebecca Perkins, MD, MSc, and colleagues found that, among the 70 respondents, few were starting screening at age 25, and none had switched to primary HPV testing. 

The survey then probed clinicians’ willingness to adopt the ACS guidelines as well as their reservations and barriers to doing so. 

Notably, more than half of the survey participants said they would be willing to adopt the ACS guidelines if the best evidence supported the changes and other professional medical organizations endorsed them.

On the age change, participants highlighted a range of benefits to moving to a later screening age, including that earlier screening may not be valuable and delaying screening could reduce overtreatment. 

One participant noted: “We know that cervical cancer is usually a slow‐growing, long‐term progressive disease that does not typically show up that early in life, and we also know that, if infected, oftentimes their immune system can fight off the virus. So, it sounds reasonable at first glance [to delay screening to age 25 years].” 

Others, however, brought up barriers to initiating screening at age 25. Some mentioned that later screening may not work for high‐risk populations and others voiced concerns about missing high‐grade precancer or cancer. “It’s not unusual for us to see women in their early 20s that have already had 10 or 15 partners. … a lot of them smoke too … they just have a lot of bad habits that put them at more risk,” one respondent noted.

On the HPV vs Pap testing front, many participants described a growing confidence in HPV tests after trying co-testing. One participant said, “Honestly, I do look more at the HPV results than the cytology. I put more faith in knowing what their HPV status is than anything.” 

The main barriers to primary HPV testing, however, included lack of autonomy when working in a large health system, concerns about the efficacy of HPV testing, and a belief that cytology was valuable.

Some clinicians were worried about missing high-grade lesions or cancer. One healthcare provider said, “My only concern with primary HPV screening is occasionally you will pick up endometrial abnormalities on a Pap that you’re not going to pick up with HPV screening.”

Logistics and finances also played a role in clinicians’ hesitancy to switch to the ACS recommendation. Labs that could handle primary HPV tests were not available to some participants, and lack of insurance coverage was a barrier for others. One respondent noted, for instance, that his institution has a “cytology infrastructure that already exists in the lab and I can’t really see them switching.” 

Many survey respondents also said they were waiting for endorsement from organizations, such as ACOG and USPSTF. “We run by the USPSTF and … ACOG. We don’t run by the ACS guidelines,” one person said. 

Finally, some participants were not aware of the ACS recommendations at all or the data behind them but said they would be willing to change to primary HPV testing in the future. 

Overall, Dr. Perkins said she was happy to see that more than half of the respondents would be willing to shift to the ACS screening guidelines, but noted that many remain reluctant to do so until the USPSTF and ACOG change their guidelines. 

“It’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing” the ACS guidelines, said Dr. Perkins, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University. 

The USPSTF is currently updating its cervical screening guidelines, which could potentially help reconcile this discord between the guidelines and close the gaps in practice patterns. 

The USPSTF’s review of the evidence, which led to the 2018 guidelines, did highlight the effectiveness of HPV testing. The review authors concluded that “the evidence was consistent across trials” that primary, high-risk HPV screening increased detection of grade 3 or worse cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in the initial round of screening “by as much as 2 to 3 times when compared with cytology.”

However, Joy Melnikow, MD, MPH, first author on the USPSTF evidence review, explained that the reviewers factored in access to HPV testing when making their final recommendations.

“The consideration was making sure that a recommendation could be inclusive of all providers and all populations and not restricting access for clinics that couldn’t afford or didn’t have the machine to do [HPV testing],” Dr. Melnikow, director of the Center for Healthcare Policy and Research and professor of family and community medicine at the University of California Davis, told this news organization.

The ACS, however, did not consider potential access problems in its analysis of the evidence.

Although the ACS evidence is “excellent,” Dr. Perkins said, “it’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing that, and then it seems like a lot of people are willing to make the change.”

Dr. Perkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2020, the American Cancer Society (ACS) updated its cervical screening guidelines, proposing two major changes: start cervical cancer screening at age 25, rather than 21, and perform primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, instead of a Pap test. 

But a recent survey, published earlier this year, found that few clinicians are following these ACS recommendations. And the reasons are multifaceted.

First, healthcare providers in the US may be unsure how to reconcile conflicting cervical cancer screening guidelines from another major organization — the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which published guidelines in 2018. 

Although the ACS guidelines are based on an analysis of the latest evidence, 

the recommendations challenge those from the USPSTF, which dictates insurance coverage in the US. Last year, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) aligned its guidelines with those from the USPSTF.

The USPSTF recommends average-risk individuals start Pap, not HPV, testing at age 21, and broadens the options to primary HPV testing, Pap testing, or both together starting at age 30. The ACS, on the other hand, says primary HPV testing is the preferred screening approach from the start, which should be age 25. 

Because the ACS guidelines marked a notable departure from prevailing practice, a team of researchers from five US universities decided to find out if anyone was following them. 

The results, published in the journal Cancer in March, revealed that most healthcare providers had not changed practice.

Lead author Rebecca Perkins, MD, MSc, and colleagues found that, among the 70 respondents, few were starting screening at age 25, and none had switched to primary HPV testing. 

The survey then probed clinicians’ willingness to adopt the ACS guidelines as well as their reservations and barriers to doing so. 

Notably, more than half of the survey participants said they would be willing to adopt the ACS guidelines if the best evidence supported the changes and other professional medical organizations endorsed them.

On the age change, participants highlighted a range of benefits to moving to a later screening age, including that earlier screening may not be valuable and delaying screening could reduce overtreatment. 

One participant noted: “We know that cervical cancer is usually a slow‐growing, long‐term progressive disease that does not typically show up that early in life, and we also know that, if infected, oftentimes their immune system can fight off the virus. So, it sounds reasonable at first glance [to delay screening to age 25 years].” 

Others, however, brought up barriers to initiating screening at age 25. Some mentioned that later screening may not work for high‐risk populations and others voiced concerns about missing high‐grade precancer or cancer. “It’s not unusual for us to see women in their early 20s that have already had 10 or 15 partners. … a lot of them smoke too … they just have a lot of bad habits that put them at more risk,” one respondent noted.

On the HPV vs Pap testing front, many participants described a growing confidence in HPV tests after trying co-testing. One participant said, “Honestly, I do look more at the HPV results than the cytology. I put more faith in knowing what their HPV status is than anything.” 

The main barriers to primary HPV testing, however, included lack of autonomy when working in a large health system, concerns about the efficacy of HPV testing, and a belief that cytology was valuable.

Some clinicians were worried about missing high-grade lesions or cancer. One healthcare provider said, “My only concern with primary HPV screening is occasionally you will pick up endometrial abnormalities on a Pap that you’re not going to pick up with HPV screening.”

Logistics and finances also played a role in clinicians’ hesitancy to switch to the ACS recommendation. Labs that could handle primary HPV tests were not available to some participants, and lack of insurance coverage was a barrier for others. One respondent noted, for instance, that his institution has a “cytology infrastructure that already exists in the lab and I can’t really see them switching.” 

Many survey respondents also said they were waiting for endorsement from organizations, such as ACOG and USPSTF. “We run by the USPSTF and … ACOG. We don’t run by the ACS guidelines,” one person said. 

Finally, some participants were not aware of the ACS recommendations at all or the data behind them but said they would be willing to change to primary HPV testing in the future. 

Overall, Dr. Perkins said she was happy to see that more than half of the respondents would be willing to shift to the ACS screening guidelines, but noted that many remain reluctant to do so until the USPSTF and ACOG change their guidelines. 

“It’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing” the ACS guidelines, said Dr. Perkins, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University. 

The USPSTF is currently updating its cervical screening guidelines, which could potentially help reconcile this discord between the guidelines and close the gaps in practice patterns. 

The USPSTF’s review of the evidence, which led to the 2018 guidelines, did highlight the effectiveness of HPV testing. The review authors concluded that “the evidence was consistent across trials” that primary, high-risk HPV screening increased detection of grade 3 or worse cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in the initial round of screening “by as much as 2 to 3 times when compared with cytology.”

However, Joy Melnikow, MD, MPH, first author on the USPSTF evidence review, explained that the reviewers factored in access to HPV testing when making their final recommendations.

“The consideration was making sure that a recommendation could be inclusive of all providers and all populations and not restricting access for clinics that couldn’t afford or didn’t have the machine to do [HPV testing],” Dr. Melnikow, director of the Center for Healthcare Policy and Research and professor of family and community medicine at the University of California Davis, told this news organization.

The ACS, however, did not consider potential access problems in its analysis of the evidence.

Although the ACS evidence is “excellent,” Dr. Perkins said, “it’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing that, and then it seems like a lot of people are willing to make the change.”

Dr. Perkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Approximately one third of pregnant individuals with syphilis were inadequately treated or not treated for syphilis despite receiving timely prenatal care, based on data from nearly 1500 patients.

Although congenital syphilis is preventable with treatment before or early in pregnancy, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show a doubling of syphilis rates in the United States between 2018 and 2021 wrote Ayzsa Tannis, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues.

To better understand factors contributing to inadequate syphilis treatment during pregnancy, the researchers examined data from 1476 individuals with syphilis during pregnancy. The study population came from six jurisdictions that participated in the Surveillance for Emerging Threats to Pregnant People and Infants Network, and sources included case investigations, medical records, and links between laboratory data and vital records.

The researchers characterized the status of syphilis during pregnancy as adequate, inadequate, or not treated based on the CDC’s Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021. Prenatal care was defined as timely (at least 30 days prior to pregnancy outcome), nontimely (less than 30 days before pregnancy outcome), and no prenatal care. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Of the 1476 individuals studied, 855 (57.9%) were adequately treated for syphilis and 621 (42.1%) were inadequately or not treated.

Overall, 82% of the study population received timely prenatal care. However, 32.1% of those who received timely prenatal care were inadequately treated, including 14.8% who received no syphilis treatment. Individuals with nontimely or no prenatal care were significantly more likely to receive inadequate or no treatment for syphilis than those who received timely care (risk ratio, 2.50 and 2.73, respectively).

The findings were consistent with previous studies of missed opportunities for prevention and treatment, the researchers noted. Factors behind nontimely treatment (less than 30 days before pregnancy outcome) may include intermittent shortages of benzathine penicillin G, the standard treatment for syphilis, as well as the lack of time and administrative support for clinicians to communicate with patients and health departments, and to expedite treatment, the researchers wrote.

The results were limited by several factors including the use of data from six US jurisdictions that may not generalize to other areas, the variations in reporting years for the different jurisdictions, and variation in mandates for syphilis screening during pregnancy, the researchers noted.

More research is needed to improve syphilis testing itself, and to develop more treatment options, the researchers concluded. Partnerships among public health, patient advocacy groups, prenatal care clinicians, and other clinicians outside the prenatal care setting also are needed for effective intervention in pregnant individuals with syphilis, they said.

The study was carried out as part of the regular work of the CDC, supported by the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Prevention and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases Cooperative Agreement and through contractual mechanisms including the Local Health Department Initiative to Chickasaw Health Consulting. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Approximately one third of pregnant individuals with syphilis were inadequately treated or not treated for syphilis despite receiving timely prenatal care, based on data from nearly 1500 patients.

Although congenital syphilis is preventable with treatment before or early in pregnancy, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show a doubling of syphilis rates in the United States between 2018 and 2021 wrote Ayzsa Tannis, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues.

To better understand factors contributing to inadequate syphilis treatment during pregnancy, the researchers examined data from 1476 individuals with syphilis during pregnancy. The study population came from six jurisdictions that participated in the Surveillance for Emerging Threats to Pregnant People and Infants Network, and sources included case investigations, medical records, and links between laboratory data and vital records.

The researchers characterized the status of syphilis during pregnancy as adequate, inadequate, or not treated based on the CDC’s Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021. Prenatal care was defined as timely (at least 30 days prior to pregnancy outcome), nontimely (less than 30 days before pregnancy outcome), and no prenatal care. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Of the 1476 individuals studied, 855 (57.9%) were adequately treated for syphilis and 621 (42.1%) were inadequately or not treated.

Overall, 82% of the study population received timely prenatal care. However, 32.1% of those who received timely prenatal care were inadequately treated, including 14.8% who received no syphilis treatment. Individuals with nontimely or no prenatal care were significantly more likely to receive inadequate or no treatment for syphilis than those who received timely care (risk ratio, 2.50 and 2.73, respectively).

The findings were consistent with previous studies of missed opportunities for prevention and treatment, the researchers noted. Factors behind nontimely treatment (less than 30 days before pregnancy outcome) may include intermittent shortages of benzathine penicillin G, the standard treatment for syphilis, as well as the lack of time and administrative support for clinicians to communicate with patients and health departments, and to expedite treatment, the researchers wrote.

The results were limited by several factors including the use of data from six US jurisdictions that may not generalize to other areas, the variations in reporting years for the different jurisdictions, and variation in mandates for syphilis screening during pregnancy, the researchers noted.

More research is needed to improve syphilis testing itself, and to develop more treatment options, the researchers concluded. Partnerships among public health, patient advocacy groups, prenatal care clinicians, and other clinicians outside the prenatal care setting also are needed for effective intervention in pregnant individuals with syphilis, they said.

The study was carried out as part of the regular work of the CDC, supported by the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Prevention and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases Cooperative Agreement and through contractual mechanisms including the Local Health Department Initiative to Chickasaw Health Consulting. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Approximately one third of pregnant individuals with syphilis were inadequately treated or not treated for syphilis despite receiving timely prenatal care, based on data from nearly 1500 patients.

Although congenital syphilis is preventable with treatment before or early in pregnancy, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show a doubling of syphilis rates in the United States between 2018 and 2021 wrote Ayzsa Tannis, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues.

To better understand factors contributing to inadequate syphilis treatment during pregnancy, the researchers examined data from 1476 individuals with syphilis during pregnancy. The study population came from six jurisdictions that participated in the Surveillance for Emerging Threats to Pregnant People and Infants Network, and sources included case investigations, medical records, and links between laboratory data and vital records.

The researchers characterized the status of syphilis during pregnancy as adequate, inadequate, or not treated based on the CDC’s Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021. Prenatal care was defined as timely (at least 30 days prior to pregnancy outcome), nontimely (less than 30 days before pregnancy outcome), and no prenatal care. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Of the 1476 individuals studied, 855 (57.9%) were adequately treated for syphilis and 621 (42.1%) were inadequately or not treated.

Overall, 82% of the study population received timely prenatal care. However, 32.1% of those who received timely prenatal care were inadequately treated, including 14.8% who received no syphilis treatment. Individuals with nontimely or no prenatal care were significantly more likely to receive inadequate or no treatment for syphilis than those who received timely care (risk ratio, 2.50 and 2.73, respectively).

The findings were consistent with previous studies of missed opportunities for prevention and treatment, the researchers noted. Factors behind nontimely treatment (less than 30 days before pregnancy outcome) may include intermittent shortages of benzathine penicillin G, the standard treatment for syphilis, as well as the lack of time and administrative support for clinicians to communicate with patients and health departments, and to expedite treatment, the researchers wrote.

The results were limited by several factors including the use of data from six US jurisdictions that may not generalize to other areas, the variations in reporting years for the different jurisdictions, and variation in mandates for syphilis screening during pregnancy, the researchers noted.

More research is needed to improve syphilis testing itself, and to develop more treatment options, the researchers concluded. Partnerships among public health, patient advocacy groups, prenatal care clinicians, and other clinicians outside the prenatal care setting also are needed for effective intervention in pregnant individuals with syphilis, they said.

The study was carried out as part of the regular work of the CDC, supported by the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Prevention and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases Cooperative Agreement and through contractual mechanisms including the Local Health Department Initiative to Chickasaw Health Consulting. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

With rates of syphilis rising quickly in the United States and elsewhere, clinicians are having to up their game when it comes to diagnosing and treating an infection that they may not be paying enough attention to.

More than 200,000 cases of syphilis were reported in the United States in 2022, which is the highest number since 1950 and is a 17.3% increase over 2021, according to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The rate of infection has increased almost every year since a historic low in 2001.

And the trend is not limited to the United States. Last year, the infection rate in the United Kingdom hit a 50-year high, said David Mabey, BCh, DM, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Syphilis and other sexually transmitted infections are also a major problem in low- and middle-income countries, he added, although good data are not always available.

Many of today’s healthcare professionals have little experience with the disease, shared Ina Park, MD, a sexually transmitted infections specialist at the University of California at San Francisco. “An entire generation of physicians — including myself — did not see any cases until we were well out of our training,” Dr. Park reported. “We’re really playing catch-up.”
 

A Centuries-Old Ailment

Dr. Park offered some advice on the challenges of diagnosing what can be an elusive infection at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) 2024 Annual Meeting in Denver. That advice boiled down to one simple rule: “Test, test, test.”

Because syphilis can mimic so many other conditions and can have long periods of latency, it can be easily missed or even misdiagnosed by experienced physicians, said Dr. Park. Clinicians need to keep it front of mind and have a lower threshold for testing, even if there are no obvious symptoms.

Following the CDC’s new recommendations for syphilis screening will help, she noted; every sexually active patient aged between 15 and 44 years who lives in a county with a syphilis infection rate of 4.6 per 100,000 people or higher should get the test. And clinicians should remain vigilant, even in areas with a lower prevalence. “If you can’t account for new symptoms in a sexually active patient, order a test,” said Dr. Park.
 

Complicated Cases

The lack of experience with syphilis affects not just diagnosis but also treatment, particularly for complex cases, said Khalil Ghanem, MD, PhD, from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. “When you don’t have to deal with something for a while, you forget how to deal with it,” he added.

At CROI, Dr. Ghanem offered suggestions for how to navigate complicated cases of ocular syphilis, otic syphilis, and neurosyphilis, and how to interpret test results when a patient’s antigen titers are being “unruly.”

With potential ocular or otic syphilis, you shouldn’t wait for a specialist like an ophthalmologist to weigh in but instead refer the patient directly to the emergency department because of the risk that the symptoms may become irreversible and result in permanent blindness or deafness. “You don’t want to dilly-dally with those conditions,” Dr. Ghanem said.

Closely monitoring a patient’s rapid plasma regain and venereal disease research laboratory antigen levels is the only way to manage syphilis and to determine whether the infection is responding to treatment, he noted, but sometimes those titers “don’t do what you think they should be doing” and fail to decline or even go up after treatment.

“You don’t know if they went up because the patient was re-infected, or they developed neurosyphilis, or there was a problem at the lab,” he said. “It can be challenging to interpret.”

To decipher confusing test results, Dr. Ghanem recommended getting a detailed history to understand whether a patient is at risk for reinfection, whether there are signs of neurosyphilis or other complications, whether pregnancy is possible, and so on. “Based on the answers, you can determine what the most rational approach to treatment would be,” he shared.
 

Drug Shortages

Efforts to get the infection under control have become more complicated. Last summer, Pfizer announced that it had run out of penicillin G benzathine (Bicillin), an injectable, long-acting drug that is one of the main treatments for syphilis and the only one that can be given to pregnant people. Supplies for children ran out at the end of June 2023, and supplies for adults were gone by the end of September.

Because Pfizer is the only company that manufactures penicillin G benzathine, there is no one to pick up the slack in the short-term, so the shortage is expected to continue until at least the middle of 2024.

In response, the US Food and Drug Administration has temporarily allowed the use of benzylpenicillin benzathine (Extencilline), a French formulation that has not been approved in the United States, until supplies of penicillin G benzathine are stabilized.

The shortage has shone a spotlight on the important issue of a lack of alternatives for the treatment of syphilis during pregnancy, which increases the risk for congenital syphilis. “Hopefully, this pushes the National Institutes of Health and others to step up their game on studies for alternative drugs for use in pregnancy,” Dr. Ghanem said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With rates of syphilis rising quickly in the United States and elsewhere, clinicians are having to up their game when it comes to diagnosing and treating an infection that they may not be paying enough attention to.

More than 200,000 cases of syphilis were reported in the United States in 2022, which is the highest number since 1950 and is a 17.3% increase over 2021, according to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The rate of infection has increased almost every year since a historic low in 2001.

And the trend is not limited to the United States. Last year, the infection rate in the United Kingdom hit a 50-year high, said David Mabey, BCh, DM, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Syphilis and other sexually transmitted infections are also a major problem in low- and middle-income countries, he added, although good data are not always available.

Many of today’s healthcare professionals have little experience with the disease, shared Ina Park, MD, a sexually transmitted infections specialist at the University of California at San Francisco. “An entire generation of physicians — including myself — did not see any cases until we were well out of our training,” Dr. Park reported. “We’re really playing catch-up.”
 

A Centuries-Old Ailment

Dr. Park offered some advice on the challenges of diagnosing what can be an elusive infection at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) 2024 Annual Meeting in Denver. That advice boiled down to one simple rule: “Test, test, test.”

Because syphilis can mimic so many other conditions and can have long periods of latency, it can be easily missed or even misdiagnosed by experienced physicians, said Dr. Park. Clinicians need to keep it front of mind and have a lower threshold for testing, even if there are no obvious symptoms.

Following the CDC’s new recommendations for syphilis screening will help, she noted; every sexually active patient aged between 15 and 44 years who lives in a county with a syphilis infection rate of 4.6 per 100,000 people or higher should get the test. And clinicians should remain vigilant, even in areas with a lower prevalence. “If you can’t account for new symptoms in a sexually active patient, order a test,” said Dr. Park.
 

Complicated Cases

The lack of experience with syphilis affects not just diagnosis but also treatment, particularly for complex cases, said Khalil Ghanem, MD, PhD, from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. “When you don’t have to deal with something for a while, you forget how to deal with it,” he added.

At CROI, Dr. Ghanem offered suggestions for how to navigate complicated cases of ocular syphilis, otic syphilis, and neurosyphilis, and how to interpret test results when a patient’s antigen titers are being “unruly.”

With potential ocular or otic syphilis, you shouldn’t wait for a specialist like an ophthalmologist to weigh in but instead refer the patient directly to the emergency department because of the risk that the symptoms may become irreversible and result in permanent blindness or deafness. “You don’t want to dilly-dally with those conditions,” Dr. Ghanem said.

Closely monitoring a patient’s rapid plasma regain and venereal disease research laboratory antigen levels is the only way to manage syphilis and to determine whether the infection is responding to treatment, he noted, but sometimes those titers “don’t do what you think they should be doing” and fail to decline or even go up after treatment.

“You don’t know if they went up because the patient was re-infected, or they developed neurosyphilis, or there was a problem at the lab,” he said. “It can be challenging to interpret.”

To decipher confusing test results, Dr. Ghanem recommended getting a detailed history to understand whether a patient is at risk for reinfection, whether there are signs of neurosyphilis or other complications, whether pregnancy is possible, and so on. “Based on the answers, you can determine what the most rational approach to treatment would be,” he shared.
 

Drug Shortages

Efforts to get the infection under control have become more complicated. Last summer, Pfizer announced that it had run out of penicillin G benzathine (Bicillin), an injectable, long-acting drug that is one of the main treatments for syphilis and the only one that can be given to pregnant people. Supplies for children ran out at the end of June 2023, and supplies for adults were gone by the end of September.

Because Pfizer is the only company that manufactures penicillin G benzathine, there is no one to pick up the slack in the short-term, so the shortage is expected to continue until at least the middle of 2024.

In response, the US Food and Drug Administration has temporarily allowed the use of benzylpenicillin benzathine (Extencilline), a French formulation that has not been approved in the United States, until supplies of penicillin G benzathine are stabilized.

The shortage has shone a spotlight on the important issue of a lack of alternatives for the treatment of syphilis during pregnancy, which increases the risk for congenital syphilis. “Hopefully, this pushes the National Institutes of Health and others to step up their game on studies for alternative drugs for use in pregnancy,” Dr. Ghanem said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With rates of syphilis rising quickly in the United States and elsewhere, clinicians are having to up their game when it comes to diagnosing and treating an infection that they may not be paying enough attention to.

More than 200,000 cases of syphilis were reported in the United States in 2022, which is the highest number since 1950 and is a 17.3% increase over 2021, according to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The rate of infection has increased almost every year since a historic low in 2001.

And the trend is not limited to the United States. Last year, the infection rate in the United Kingdom hit a 50-year high, said David Mabey, BCh, DM, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Syphilis and other sexually transmitted infections are also a major problem in low- and middle-income countries, he added, although good data are not always available.

Many of today’s healthcare professionals have little experience with the disease, shared Ina Park, MD, a sexually transmitted infections specialist at the University of California at San Francisco. “An entire generation of physicians — including myself — did not see any cases until we were well out of our training,” Dr. Park reported. “We’re really playing catch-up.”
 

A Centuries-Old Ailment

Dr. Park offered some advice on the challenges of diagnosing what can be an elusive infection at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) 2024 Annual Meeting in Denver. That advice boiled down to one simple rule: “Test, test, test.”

Because syphilis can mimic so many other conditions and can have long periods of latency, it can be easily missed or even misdiagnosed by experienced physicians, said Dr. Park. Clinicians need to keep it front of mind and have a lower threshold for testing, even if there are no obvious symptoms.

Following the CDC’s new recommendations for syphilis screening will help, she noted; every sexually active patient aged between 15 and 44 years who lives in a county with a syphilis infection rate of 4.6 per 100,000 people or higher should get the test. And clinicians should remain vigilant, even in areas with a lower prevalence. “If you can’t account for new symptoms in a sexually active patient, order a test,” said Dr. Park.
 

Complicated Cases

The lack of experience with syphilis affects not just diagnosis but also treatment, particularly for complex cases, said Khalil Ghanem, MD, PhD, from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. “When you don’t have to deal with something for a while, you forget how to deal with it,” he added.

At CROI, Dr. Ghanem offered suggestions for how to navigate complicated cases of ocular syphilis, otic syphilis, and neurosyphilis, and how to interpret test results when a patient’s antigen titers are being “unruly.”

With potential ocular or otic syphilis, you shouldn’t wait for a specialist like an ophthalmologist to weigh in but instead refer the patient directly to the emergency department because of the risk that the symptoms may become irreversible and result in permanent blindness or deafness. “You don’t want to dilly-dally with those conditions,” Dr. Ghanem said.

Closely monitoring a patient’s rapid plasma regain and venereal disease research laboratory antigen levels is the only way to manage syphilis and to determine whether the infection is responding to treatment, he noted, but sometimes those titers “don’t do what you think they should be doing” and fail to decline or even go up after treatment.

“You don’t know if they went up because the patient was re-infected, or they developed neurosyphilis, or there was a problem at the lab,” he said. “It can be challenging to interpret.”

To decipher confusing test results, Dr. Ghanem recommended getting a detailed history to understand whether a patient is at risk for reinfection, whether there are signs of neurosyphilis or other complications, whether pregnancy is possible, and so on. “Based on the answers, you can determine what the most rational approach to treatment would be,” he shared.
 

Drug Shortages

Efforts to get the infection under control have become more complicated. Last summer, Pfizer announced that it had run out of penicillin G benzathine (Bicillin), an injectable, long-acting drug that is one of the main treatments for syphilis and the only one that can be given to pregnant people. Supplies for children ran out at the end of June 2023, and supplies for adults were gone by the end of September.

Because Pfizer is the only company that manufactures penicillin G benzathine, there is no one to pick up the slack in the short-term, so the shortage is expected to continue until at least the middle of 2024.

In response, the US Food and Drug Administration has temporarily allowed the use of benzylpenicillin benzathine (Extencilline), a French formulation that has not been approved in the United States, until supplies of penicillin G benzathine are stabilized.

The shortage has shone a spotlight on the important issue of a lack of alternatives for the treatment of syphilis during pregnancy, which increases the risk for congenital syphilis. “Hopefully, this pushes the National Institutes of Health and others to step up their game on studies for alternative drugs for use in pregnancy,” Dr. Ghanem said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Syphilis and chlamydia infections were reduced by half among men who have sex with men and transgender women 1 year after San Francisco rolled out doxycycline postexposure prophylaxis (doxy-PEP), according to data presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) this week.

After a clinical trial showed that doxy-PEP taken after sex reduced the chance of acquiring syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia by about two-thirds, the San Francisco Department of Public Health released the first guidelines in the country in October 2022. 

The guidelines recommend that a person take two 100-mg pills of doxycycline ideally in the 24 hours after but no more than 72 hours after condomless sex. So far, more than 3700 people in San Francisco have been prescribed doxy-PEP, reports Stephanie Cohen, MD, director of HIV and sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention in the Disease Prevention and Control Branch of Public Health.

Dr. Cohen and her colleagues spent a year monitoring the uptake of doxy-PEP and used a computer model to predict what the rates of sexually transmitted infection would have been without doxy-PEP. 

In November 2023, 13 months after the guidelines were introduced, they found that monthly chlamydia and early syphilis infections were 50% and 51% lower, respectively, than what was predicted by the model.
 

Fewer Infections

The drop in infections is having a tangible effect on patients in San Francisco, and many clinicians are noting that they are seeing far fewer positive tests. “The results that we’re seeing on a city-wide level are absolutely being experienced by individual providers and patients,” Dr. Cohen said.

However, the analysis showed no effect on rates of gonorrhea. It’s not clear why, although Dr. Cohen points out that doxy-PEP was less effective against gonorrhea in the clinical trial. And “there could be other factors in play,” she added. “Adherence might matter more, or it could be affected by the prevalence of tetracycline resistance in the community.”

With rates of STIs, particularly syphilis, quickly rising in recent years, healthcare providers have been scrambling to find effective interventions. So far, doxy-PEP has shown the most promise. “We’ve known for a while that all of the strategies we’ve been employing don’t seem to be working,” noted Chase Cannon, MD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Washington in Seattle. “That’s why doxy-PEP is important. We haven’t had anything that can deflect the curve in a long time.”
 

What About the Side Effects?

Some concerns remain, however, about the widespread prophylactic use of antibiotics. There are no long-term safety data on the potential side effects of doxy-PEP, and there is still a lot of stigma around interventions that allow people to have sex the way they want, said Dr. Cannon.

But perhaps, the biggest concern is that doxy-PEP could contribute to antibiotic resistance. Those fears are not misplaced, Dr. Cannon added. The results of one study, presented in a poster at CROI, showed that stool samples from people prescribed doxy-PEP had elevated levels of bacterial genes that can confer resistance to tetracyclines, the class of antibiotics to which doxycycline belongs. There was no change in resistance to other classes of antibiotics and no difference in bacterial diversity over the 6 months of the study.

Dr. Cannon cautioned, however, that we can’t extrapolate these results to clinical outcomes. “We can look for signals [of resistance], but we don’t know if this means someone will fail therapy for chlamydia or syphilis,” he said.

There are still many challenges to overcome before doxy-PEP can be rolled out widely, Dr. Cohen explained. There is a lack of consensus among healthcare professionals about who should be offered doxy-PEP. The clinical trial results and the San Fransisco guidelines only apply to men who have sex with men and to transgender women.

Some clinicians argue that the intervention should be provided to a broader population, whereas others want to see more research to ensure that unnecessary antibiotic use is minimized.

So far just one study has tested doxy-PEP in another population — in women in Kenya — and it was found to not be effective. But the data suggest that adherence to the protocol was poor in that study, so the results may not be reliable, Dr. Cohen said.

“We need effective prevention tools for all genders, especially cis women who bear most of the morbidity,” she said. “It stands to reason that this should work for them, but without high-quality evidence, there is insufficient information to make a recommendation for cis women.”

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is currently reviewing public and expert comments and refining final guidelines for release in the coming months, which should alleviate some of the uncertainty. “Many providers are waiting for that guidance before they will feel confident moving forward,” Dr. Cohen noted.

But despite the risks and uncertainty, doxy-PEP looks set to be a major part of the fight against STIs going forward. “Doxy-PEP is essential for us as a nation to be dealing with the syphilis epidemic,” Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the Division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, said in a video introduction to CROI.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Syphilis and chlamydia infections were reduced by half among men who have sex with men and transgender women 1 year after San Francisco rolled out doxycycline postexposure prophylaxis (doxy-PEP), according to data presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) this week.

After a clinical trial showed that doxy-PEP taken after sex reduced the chance of acquiring syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia by about two-thirds, the San Francisco Department of Public Health released the first guidelines in the country in October 2022. 

The guidelines recommend that a person take two 100-mg pills of doxycycline ideally in the 24 hours after but no more than 72 hours after condomless sex. So far, more than 3700 people in San Francisco have been prescribed doxy-PEP, reports Stephanie Cohen, MD, director of HIV and sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention in the Disease Prevention and Control Branch of Public Health.

Dr. Cohen and her colleagues spent a year monitoring the uptake of doxy-PEP and used a computer model to predict what the rates of sexually transmitted infection would have been without doxy-PEP. 

In November 2023, 13 months after the guidelines were introduced, they found that monthly chlamydia and early syphilis infections were 50% and 51% lower, respectively, than what was predicted by the model.
 

Fewer Infections

The drop in infections is having a tangible effect on patients in San Francisco, and many clinicians are noting that they are seeing far fewer positive tests. “The results that we’re seeing on a city-wide level are absolutely being experienced by individual providers and patients,” Dr. Cohen said.

However, the analysis showed no effect on rates of gonorrhea. It’s not clear why, although Dr. Cohen points out that doxy-PEP was less effective against gonorrhea in the clinical trial. And “there could be other factors in play,” she added. “Adherence might matter more, or it could be affected by the prevalence of tetracycline resistance in the community.”

With rates of STIs, particularly syphilis, quickly rising in recent years, healthcare providers have been scrambling to find effective interventions. So far, doxy-PEP has shown the most promise. “We’ve known for a while that all of the strategies we’ve been employing don’t seem to be working,” noted Chase Cannon, MD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Washington in Seattle. “That’s why doxy-PEP is important. We haven’t had anything that can deflect the curve in a long time.”
 

What About the Side Effects?

Some concerns remain, however, about the widespread prophylactic use of antibiotics. There are no long-term safety data on the potential side effects of doxy-PEP, and there is still a lot of stigma around interventions that allow people to have sex the way they want, said Dr. Cannon.

But perhaps, the biggest concern is that doxy-PEP could contribute to antibiotic resistance. Those fears are not misplaced, Dr. Cannon added. The results of one study, presented in a poster at CROI, showed that stool samples from people prescribed doxy-PEP had elevated levels of bacterial genes that can confer resistance to tetracyclines, the class of antibiotics to which doxycycline belongs. There was no change in resistance to other classes of antibiotics and no difference in bacterial diversity over the 6 months of the study.

Dr. Cannon cautioned, however, that we can’t extrapolate these results to clinical outcomes. “We can look for signals [of resistance], but we don’t know if this means someone will fail therapy for chlamydia or syphilis,” he said.

There are still many challenges to overcome before doxy-PEP can be rolled out widely, Dr. Cohen explained. There is a lack of consensus among healthcare professionals about who should be offered doxy-PEP. The clinical trial results and the San Fransisco guidelines only apply to men who have sex with men and to transgender women.

Some clinicians argue that the intervention should be provided to a broader population, whereas others want to see more research to ensure that unnecessary antibiotic use is minimized.

So far just one study has tested doxy-PEP in another population — in women in Kenya — and it was found to not be effective. But the data suggest that adherence to the protocol was poor in that study, so the results may not be reliable, Dr. Cohen said.

“We need effective prevention tools for all genders, especially cis women who bear most of the morbidity,” she said. “It stands to reason that this should work for them, but without high-quality evidence, there is insufficient information to make a recommendation for cis women.”

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is currently reviewing public and expert comments and refining final guidelines for release in the coming months, which should alleviate some of the uncertainty. “Many providers are waiting for that guidance before they will feel confident moving forward,” Dr. Cohen noted.

But despite the risks and uncertainty, doxy-PEP looks set to be a major part of the fight against STIs going forward. “Doxy-PEP is essential for us as a nation to be dealing with the syphilis epidemic,” Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the Division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, said in a video introduction to CROI.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Syphilis and chlamydia infections were reduced by half among men who have sex with men and transgender women 1 year after San Francisco rolled out doxycycline postexposure prophylaxis (doxy-PEP), according to data presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) this week.

After a clinical trial showed that doxy-PEP taken after sex reduced the chance of acquiring syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia by about two-thirds, the San Francisco Department of Public Health released the first guidelines in the country in October 2022. 

The guidelines recommend that a person take two 100-mg pills of doxycycline ideally in the 24 hours after but no more than 72 hours after condomless sex. So far, more than 3700 people in San Francisco have been prescribed doxy-PEP, reports Stephanie Cohen, MD, director of HIV and sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention in the Disease Prevention and Control Branch of Public Health.

Dr. Cohen and her colleagues spent a year monitoring the uptake of doxy-PEP and used a computer model to predict what the rates of sexually transmitted infection would have been without doxy-PEP. 

In November 2023, 13 months after the guidelines were introduced, they found that monthly chlamydia and early syphilis infections were 50% and 51% lower, respectively, than what was predicted by the model.
 

Fewer Infections

The drop in infections is having a tangible effect on patients in San Francisco, and many clinicians are noting that they are seeing far fewer positive tests. “The results that we’re seeing on a city-wide level are absolutely being experienced by individual providers and patients,” Dr. Cohen said.

However, the analysis showed no effect on rates of gonorrhea. It’s not clear why, although Dr. Cohen points out that doxy-PEP was less effective against gonorrhea in the clinical trial. And “there could be other factors in play,” she added. “Adherence might matter more, or it could be affected by the prevalence of tetracycline resistance in the community.”

With rates of STIs, particularly syphilis, quickly rising in recent years, healthcare providers have been scrambling to find effective interventions. So far, doxy-PEP has shown the most promise. “We’ve known for a while that all of the strategies we’ve been employing don’t seem to be working,” noted Chase Cannon, MD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Washington in Seattle. “That’s why doxy-PEP is important. We haven’t had anything that can deflect the curve in a long time.”
 

What About the Side Effects?

Some concerns remain, however, about the widespread prophylactic use of antibiotics. There are no long-term safety data on the potential side effects of doxy-PEP, and there is still a lot of stigma around interventions that allow people to have sex the way they want, said Dr. Cannon.

But perhaps, the biggest concern is that doxy-PEP could contribute to antibiotic resistance. Those fears are not misplaced, Dr. Cannon added. The results of one study, presented in a poster at CROI, showed that stool samples from people prescribed doxy-PEP had elevated levels of bacterial genes that can confer resistance to tetracyclines, the class of antibiotics to which doxycycline belongs. There was no change in resistance to other classes of antibiotics and no difference in bacterial diversity over the 6 months of the study.

Dr. Cannon cautioned, however, that we can’t extrapolate these results to clinical outcomes. “We can look for signals [of resistance], but we don’t know if this means someone will fail therapy for chlamydia or syphilis,” he said.

There are still many challenges to overcome before doxy-PEP can be rolled out widely, Dr. Cohen explained. There is a lack of consensus among healthcare professionals about who should be offered doxy-PEP. The clinical trial results and the San Fransisco guidelines only apply to men who have sex with men and to transgender women.

Some clinicians argue that the intervention should be provided to a broader population, whereas others want to see more research to ensure that unnecessary antibiotic use is minimized.

So far just one study has tested doxy-PEP in another population — in women in Kenya — and it was found to not be effective. But the data suggest that adherence to the protocol was poor in that study, so the results may not be reliable, Dr. Cohen said.

“We need effective prevention tools for all genders, especially cis women who bear most of the morbidity,” she said. “It stands to reason that this should work for them, but without high-quality evidence, there is insufficient information to make a recommendation for cis women.”

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is currently reviewing public and expert comments and refining final guidelines for release in the coming months, which should alleviate some of the uncertainty. “Many providers are waiting for that guidance before they will feel confident moving forward,” Dr. Cohen noted.

But despite the risks and uncertainty, doxy-PEP looks set to be a major part of the fight against STIs going forward. “Doxy-PEP is essential for us as a nation to be dealing with the syphilis epidemic,” Carl Dieffenbach, PhD, director of the Division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, said in a video introduction to CROI.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I want to briefly discuss a critically important topic that cannot be overly emphasized. It is the relevance, the importance, the benefits, and the outcome of HPV vaccination.

The paper I’m referring to was published in Pediatrics in October 2023. It’s titled, “Ten-Year Follow-up of 9-Valent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: Immunogenicity, Effectiveness, and Safety.”

Let me emphasize that we’re talking about a 10-year follow-up. In this particular paper and analysis, 301 boys — I emphasize boys — were included and 971 girls at 40 different sites in 13 countries, who received the 9-valent vaccine, which includes HPV 16, 18, and seven other types.

These investigators demonstrated that the seropositivity rate 10 years after vaccination remained high for all nine types they looked at. Most importantly, there was not a single case. Not one. Let me repeat this: There was not a single case of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia, or worse, or condyloma in either males or females. There was not a single case in over 1000 individuals with a follow-up of more than 10 years.

It is difficult to overstate the magnitude of the benefit associated with HPV vaccination for our children and young adults on their risk of developing highly relevant, life-changing, potentially deadly cancers.

For those of you who are interested in this topic — which should include almost all of you, if not all of you — I encourage you to read this very important follow-up paper, again, demonstrating the simple, overwhelming magnitude of the benefit of HPV vaccination. I thank you for your attention.
 

Dr. Markman is a professor in the department of medical oncology and therapeutics research, City of Hope, Duarte, California, and president of medicine and science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline; AstraZeneca.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I want to briefly discuss a critically important topic that cannot be overly emphasized. It is the relevance, the importance, the benefits, and the outcome of HPV vaccination.

The paper I’m referring to was published in Pediatrics in October 2023. It’s titled, “Ten-Year Follow-up of 9-Valent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: Immunogenicity, Effectiveness, and Safety.”

Let me emphasize that we’re talking about a 10-year follow-up. In this particular paper and analysis, 301 boys — I emphasize boys — were included and 971 girls at 40 different sites in 13 countries, who received the 9-valent vaccine, which includes HPV 16, 18, and seven other types.

These investigators demonstrated that the seropositivity rate 10 years after vaccination remained high for all nine types they looked at. Most importantly, there was not a single case. Not one. Let me repeat this: There was not a single case of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia, or worse, or condyloma in either males or females. There was not a single case in over 1000 individuals with a follow-up of more than 10 years.

It is difficult to overstate the magnitude of the benefit associated with HPV vaccination for our children and young adults on their risk of developing highly relevant, life-changing, potentially deadly cancers.

For those of you who are interested in this topic — which should include almost all of you, if not all of you — I encourage you to read this very important follow-up paper, again, demonstrating the simple, overwhelming magnitude of the benefit of HPV vaccination. I thank you for your attention.
 

Dr. Markman is a professor in the department of medical oncology and therapeutics research, City of Hope, Duarte, California, and president of medicine and science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline; AstraZeneca.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I want to briefly discuss a critically important topic that cannot be overly emphasized. It is the relevance, the importance, the benefits, and the outcome of HPV vaccination.

The paper I’m referring to was published in Pediatrics in October 2023. It’s titled, “Ten-Year Follow-up of 9-Valent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: Immunogenicity, Effectiveness, and Safety.”

Let me emphasize that we’re talking about a 10-year follow-up. In this particular paper and analysis, 301 boys — I emphasize boys — were included and 971 girls at 40 different sites in 13 countries, who received the 9-valent vaccine, which includes HPV 16, 18, and seven other types.

These investigators demonstrated that the seropositivity rate 10 years after vaccination remained high for all nine types they looked at. Most importantly, there was not a single case. Not one. Let me repeat this: There was not a single case of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia, or worse, or condyloma in either males or females. There was not a single case in over 1000 individuals with a follow-up of more than 10 years.

It is difficult to overstate the magnitude of the benefit associated with HPV vaccination for our children and young adults on their risk of developing highly relevant, life-changing, potentially deadly cancers.

For those of you who are interested in this topic — which should include almost all of you, if not all of you — I encourage you to read this very important follow-up paper, again, demonstrating the simple, overwhelming magnitude of the benefit of HPV vaccination. I thank you for your attention.
 

Dr. Markman is a professor in the department of medical oncology and therapeutics research, City of Hope, Duarte, California, and president of medicine and science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. He disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline; AstraZeneca.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Faced with a positive human papillomavirus (HPV) test, patients are quickly overwhelmed by anxiety-inducing questions. It is crucial to provide them with adequate responses to reassure them, emphasized Jean-Louis Mergui, MD, president of the International Federation for Colposcopy, during the press conference of the Congress of the French Society of Colposcopy and Cervico-Vaginal Pathology.

“Do I have cancer? When did I catch this papillomavirus? Is it dangerous for my partner? How do I get rid of it?” “Not everyone is equipped to answer these four questions. However, it is extremely important that healthcare professionals provide correct answers to patients so that they stop worrying,” Dr. Mergui explained.
 

Papillomavirus and Cancer

One of the first instincts of patients who receive a positive HPV test is to turn to the Internet. There, they read about “high-risk HPV, which is potentially oncogenic,” and become completely panicked, said Dr. Mergui.

However, among women, the probability of having a high-grade CIN3 lesion or higher on the cervix when the HPV test is positive is about 7%, according to the ATHENA study. “About 93% of patients do not have a severe lesion on the cervix. That’s why colposcopy is not performed on all patients. They need to be reassured,” said Dr. Mergui. When the papillomavirus persists, there is a risk for a cervical lesion. After 11 years, between 20% and 30% of patients develop a high-grade lesion on the cervix. However, on average, a high-risk HPV is spontaneously eliminated within 1-2 years. “After 14 months, 50% of women will test negative for their papillomavirus,” Dr. Mergui noted.

“High-risk HPV does not mean there is a lesion; it means there is a risk of developing a lesion on the cervix one day. That’s why these patients need to be monitored and explored,” he added.

In practice, when a patient aged between 30 and 65 years has a positive HPV test, cytology is performed to look for lesions. Only in the case of an abnormal smear, ASC-US, is colposcopy recommended. In the absence of a lesion, a control HPV test is conducted 1 year later to monitor virus persistence.

It should be noted that patients who have been treated for a cervical lesion have a five times higher risk of developing invasive cervical, vaginal, or vulvar cancer. Therefore, treated patients must be monitored once every 3 years for life.
 

Time of Infection

Many patients ask, “When did I catch this papillomavirus?” In response, Dr. Mergui first emphasized that HPV infection is common. “Between ages 15 and 30 years, most of us are infected with a high-risk HPV. When we look at the incidence between ages 15 and 25 years, every year, 20% of all young girls are infected with HPV, including 17% with high-risk HPV. The virus is usually caught within the first 5 years of sexual activity, and typically disappears after about a year,” he explained.

However, the most disturbing scenario for patients is when their last examination was negative, and there is no apparent reason for having caught the virus since then. Suspicion often falls on the partner. Once again, the gynecologist seeks to reassure.

It is possible that the last time screening was conducted, the virus was not sought (HPV test), but rather cervical lesions were sought by smear. However, a normal smear does not mean that the papillomavirus is not present. A negative cytology does not mean a negative HPV test. As we have seen, the virus is not always associated with the presence of a lesion, explained Dr. Mergui.

Also, having had a negative HPV test a few years earlier does not mean that one was not already infected. The HPV test determines the quantity of virus. Therefore, it is possible that the virus was present in small quantities that were without clinical significance (hence, a negative test). However, a few years later, the virus may have multiplied, and the HPV test became positive.

“Sometimes, the virus re-emerges 40, 50 years after infection due to age-related immune decline,” said Dr. Mergui. “So, just because the smear was negative or the HPV test was negative at the last examination does not mean that one was infected between the two.” Moreover, only 15% of couples have the same virus present on the penis or vagina, he pointed out.
 

Protecting One’s Partner

Once the diagnosis is made, it is often too late to protect the partner because they have already been infected. “It is certain that the partner will be infected or has already been infected because when the patient comes to you with a positive HPV test, she has already had sexual intercourse. It is worth noting that the virus can be transmitted through digital touching, and condoms are not very effective in preventing virus transmission,” said Dr. Mergui.

The speaker further clarified that the risk for men is much lower than that for women. “In women, about 40,000 lesions linked to high-risk HPV types, precancerous or cancerous, are observed every year. In men, this number is 1900. So, this represents 20 times fewer neoplastic lesions in men. The problem in men is oropharyngeal lesions, which are three times more common than in women. However, there is no screening for oropharyngeal cancer.”

So, when should the partner consult? Dr. Mergui advised consulting when there are clinically visible lesions (small warts, bumps, or ear, nose, and throat symptoms). “I do not recommend systematic examination of male or female partners,” he added.
 

Clearing the Virus

There are treatments for cervical lesions but not for papillomavirus infection.

“The only thing that can be suggested is quitting smoking, which increases viral clearance, thus reducing viral load. Also, the use of condoms helps improve viral clearance, but when women have a stable relationship, it seems unrealistic to think they will constantly use condoms. Finally, the prophylactic vaccine has been proposed, but it does not treat the infection. In fact, the real solution is to tell patients that they need to continue regular monitoring,” said Dr. Mergui.

“It should be noted that an ongoing study at the European level seems to show that when women who have undergone surgical treatment for a high-grade cervical lesion are vaccinated at the time of treatment or just after treatment, it reduces the risk of recurrence by 50%. So, the risk of recurrence is around 7%-8%. This strategy could be interesting, but for now, there is no official recommendation,” Dr. Mergui concluded.
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Faced with a positive human papillomavirus (HPV) test, patients are quickly overwhelmed by anxiety-inducing questions. It is crucial to provide them with adequate responses to reassure them, emphasized Jean-Louis Mergui, MD, president of the International Federation for Colposcopy, during the press conference of the Congress of the French Society of Colposcopy and Cervico-Vaginal Pathology.

“Do I have cancer? When did I catch this papillomavirus? Is it dangerous for my partner? How do I get rid of it?” “Not everyone is equipped to answer these four questions. However, it is extremely important that healthcare professionals provide correct answers to patients so that they stop worrying,” Dr. Mergui explained.
 

Papillomavirus and Cancer

One of the first instincts of patients who receive a positive HPV test is to turn to the Internet. There, they read about “high-risk HPV, which is potentially oncogenic,” and become completely panicked, said Dr. Mergui.

However, among women, the probability of having a high-grade CIN3 lesion or higher on the cervix when the HPV test is positive is about 7%, according to the ATHENA study. “About 93% of patients do not have a severe lesion on the cervix. That’s why colposcopy is not performed on all patients. They need to be reassured,” said Dr. Mergui. When the papillomavirus persists, there is a risk for a cervical lesion. After 11 years, between 20% and 30% of patients develop a high-grade lesion on the cervix. However, on average, a high-risk HPV is spontaneously eliminated within 1-2 years. “After 14 months, 50% of women will test negative for their papillomavirus,” Dr. Mergui noted.

“High-risk HPV does not mean there is a lesion; it means there is a risk of developing a lesion on the cervix one day. That’s why these patients need to be monitored and explored,” he added.

In practice, when a patient aged between 30 and 65 years has a positive HPV test, cytology is performed to look for lesions. Only in the case of an abnormal smear, ASC-US, is colposcopy recommended. In the absence of a lesion, a control HPV test is conducted 1 year later to monitor virus persistence.

It should be noted that patients who have been treated for a cervical lesion have a five times higher risk of developing invasive cervical, vaginal, or vulvar cancer. Therefore, treated patients must be monitored once every 3 years for life.
 

Time of Infection

Many patients ask, “When did I catch this papillomavirus?” In response, Dr. Mergui first emphasized that HPV infection is common. “Between ages 15 and 30 years, most of us are infected with a high-risk HPV. When we look at the incidence between ages 15 and 25 years, every year, 20% of all young girls are infected with HPV, including 17% with high-risk HPV. The virus is usually caught within the first 5 years of sexual activity, and typically disappears after about a year,” he explained.

However, the most disturbing scenario for patients is when their last examination was negative, and there is no apparent reason for having caught the virus since then. Suspicion often falls on the partner. Once again, the gynecologist seeks to reassure.

It is possible that the last time screening was conducted, the virus was not sought (HPV test), but rather cervical lesions were sought by smear. However, a normal smear does not mean that the papillomavirus is not present. A negative cytology does not mean a negative HPV test. As we have seen, the virus is not always associated with the presence of a lesion, explained Dr. Mergui.

Also, having had a negative HPV test a few years earlier does not mean that one was not already infected. The HPV test determines the quantity of virus. Therefore, it is possible that the virus was present in small quantities that were without clinical significance (hence, a negative test). However, a few years later, the virus may have multiplied, and the HPV test became positive.

“Sometimes, the virus re-emerges 40, 50 years after infection due to age-related immune decline,” said Dr. Mergui. “So, just because the smear was negative or the HPV test was negative at the last examination does not mean that one was infected between the two.” Moreover, only 15% of couples have the same virus present on the penis or vagina, he pointed out.
 

Protecting One’s Partner

Once the diagnosis is made, it is often too late to protect the partner because they have already been infected. “It is certain that the partner will be infected or has already been infected because when the patient comes to you with a positive HPV test, she has already had sexual intercourse. It is worth noting that the virus can be transmitted through digital touching, and condoms are not very effective in preventing virus transmission,” said Dr. Mergui.

The speaker further clarified that the risk for men is much lower than that for women. “In women, about 40,000 lesions linked to high-risk HPV types, precancerous or cancerous, are observed every year. In men, this number is 1900. So, this represents 20 times fewer neoplastic lesions in men. The problem in men is oropharyngeal lesions, which are three times more common than in women. However, there is no screening for oropharyngeal cancer.”

So, when should the partner consult? Dr. Mergui advised consulting when there are clinically visible lesions (small warts, bumps, or ear, nose, and throat symptoms). “I do not recommend systematic examination of male or female partners,” he added.
 

Clearing the Virus

There are treatments for cervical lesions but not for papillomavirus infection.

“The only thing that can be suggested is quitting smoking, which increases viral clearance, thus reducing viral load. Also, the use of condoms helps improve viral clearance, but when women have a stable relationship, it seems unrealistic to think they will constantly use condoms. Finally, the prophylactic vaccine has been proposed, but it does not treat the infection. In fact, the real solution is to tell patients that they need to continue regular monitoring,” said Dr. Mergui.

“It should be noted that an ongoing study at the European level seems to show that when women who have undergone surgical treatment for a high-grade cervical lesion are vaccinated at the time of treatment or just after treatment, it reduces the risk of recurrence by 50%. So, the risk of recurrence is around 7%-8%. This strategy could be interesting, but for now, there is no official recommendation,” Dr. Mergui concluded.
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Faced with a positive human papillomavirus (HPV) test, patients are quickly overwhelmed by anxiety-inducing questions. It is crucial to provide them with adequate responses to reassure them, emphasized Jean-Louis Mergui, MD, president of the International Federation for Colposcopy, during the press conference of the Congress of the French Society of Colposcopy and Cervico-Vaginal Pathology.

“Do I have cancer? When did I catch this papillomavirus? Is it dangerous for my partner? How do I get rid of it?” “Not everyone is equipped to answer these four questions. However, it is extremely important that healthcare professionals provide correct answers to patients so that they stop worrying,” Dr. Mergui explained.
 

Papillomavirus and Cancer

One of the first instincts of patients who receive a positive HPV test is to turn to the Internet. There, they read about “high-risk HPV, which is potentially oncogenic,” and become completely panicked, said Dr. Mergui.

However, among women, the probability of having a high-grade CIN3 lesion or higher on the cervix when the HPV test is positive is about 7%, according to the ATHENA study. “About 93% of patients do not have a severe lesion on the cervix. That’s why colposcopy is not performed on all patients. They need to be reassured,” said Dr. Mergui. When the papillomavirus persists, there is a risk for a cervical lesion. After 11 years, between 20% and 30% of patients develop a high-grade lesion on the cervix. However, on average, a high-risk HPV is spontaneously eliminated within 1-2 years. “After 14 months, 50% of women will test negative for their papillomavirus,” Dr. Mergui noted.

“High-risk HPV does not mean there is a lesion; it means there is a risk of developing a lesion on the cervix one day. That’s why these patients need to be monitored and explored,” he added.

In practice, when a patient aged between 30 and 65 years has a positive HPV test, cytology is performed to look for lesions. Only in the case of an abnormal smear, ASC-US, is colposcopy recommended. In the absence of a lesion, a control HPV test is conducted 1 year later to monitor virus persistence.

It should be noted that patients who have been treated for a cervical lesion have a five times higher risk of developing invasive cervical, vaginal, or vulvar cancer. Therefore, treated patients must be monitored once every 3 years for life.
 

Time of Infection

Many patients ask, “When did I catch this papillomavirus?” In response, Dr. Mergui first emphasized that HPV infection is common. “Between ages 15 and 30 years, most of us are infected with a high-risk HPV. When we look at the incidence between ages 15 and 25 years, every year, 20% of all young girls are infected with HPV, including 17% with high-risk HPV. The virus is usually caught within the first 5 years of sexual activity, and typically disappears after about a year,” he explained.

However, the most disturbing scenario for patients is when their last examination was negative, and there is no apparent reason for having caught the virus since then. Suspicion often falls on the partner. Once again, the gynecologist seeks to reassure.

It is possible that the last time screening was conducted, the virus was not sought (HPV test), but rather cervical lesions were sought by smear. However, a normal smear does not mean that the papillomavirus is not present. A negative cytology does not mean a negative HPV test. As we have seen, the virus is not always associated with the presence of a lesion, explained Dr. Mergui.

Also, having had a negative HPV test a few years earlier does not mean that one was not already infected. The HPV test determines the quantity of virus. Therefore, it is possible that the virus was present in small quantities that were without clinical significance (hence, a negative test). However, a few years later, the virus may have multiplied, and the HPV test became positive.

“Sometimes, the virus re-emerges 40, 50 years after infection due to age-related immune decline,” said Dr. Mergui. “So, just because the smear was negative or the HPV test was negative at the last examination does not mean that one was infected between the two.” Moreover, only 15% of couples have the same virus present on the penis or vagina, he pointed out.
 

Protecting One’s Partner

Once the diagnosis is made, it is often too late to protect the partner because they have already been infected. “It is certain that the partner will be infected or has already been infected because when the patient comes to you with a positive HPV test, she has already had sexual intercourse. It is worth noting that the virus can be transmitted through digital touching, and condoms are not very effective in preventing virus transmission,” said Dr. Mergui.

The speaker further clarified that the risk for men is much lower than that for women. “In women, about 40,000 lesions linked to high-risk HPV types, precancerous or cancerous, are observed every year. In men, this number is 1900. So, this represents 20 times fewer neoplastic lesions in men. The problem in men is oropharyngeal lesions, which are three times more common than in women. However, there is no screening for oropharyngeal cancer.”

So, when should the partner consult? Dr. Mergui advised consulting when there are clinically visible lesions (small warts, bumps, or ear, nose, and throat symptoms). “I do not recommend systematic examination of male or female partners,” he added.
 

Clearing the Virus

There are treatments for cervical lesions but not for papillomavirus infection.

“The only thing that can be suggested is quitting smoking, which increases viral clearance, thus reducing viral load. Also, the use of condoms helps improve viral clearance, but when women have a stable relationship, it seems unrealistic to think they will constantly use condoms. Finally, the prophylactic vaccine has been proposed, but it does not treat the infection. In fact, the real solution is to tell patients that they need to continue regular monitoring,” said Dr. Mergui.

“It should be noted that an ongoing study at the European level seems to show that when women who have undergone surgical treatment for a high-grade cervical lesion are vaccinated at the time of treatment or just after treatment, it reduces the risk of recurrence by 50%. So, the risk of recurrence is around 7%-8%. This strategy could be interesting, but for now, there is no official recommendation,” Dr. Mergui concluded.
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.