Infectious Diseases

The practice of body piercing has been present in cultures around the world for centuries. Piercings may be performed for religious or spiritual reasons or as a form of self-expression. In recent years, body piercings have become increasingly popular in all genders, with the most common sites being the ears, mouth, nose, eyebrows, nipples, navel, and genitals.¹ The prevalence of body piercing in the general population is estimated to be as high as 50%.² With the rising popularity of piercings, there also has been an increase in their associated complications, with one study noting that up to 35% of individuals with pierced ears and 30% of all pierced sites developed a complication.³ Common problems following piercing include infections, keloid formation, allergic contact dermatitis, site deformation, and tooth fractures.⁴ It is of utmost importance that health care professionals are aware of the potential complications associated with such a common practice. A comprehensive review of complications associated with cutaneous and mucosal piercings is lacking. We conducted a systematic review to summarize the clinical characteristics, complication types and frequency, and treatments reported for cutaneous and mucosal piercings.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature adhering to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) reporting guidelines.⁵

Search Strategy, Study Eligibility Criteria, and Study Selection

A literature search of the Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases was performed on June 20, 2022, using search terms related to body piercing and possible piercing-induced complications (Supplemental Information online). All studies reporting complications following body piercing were included. In vitro and animal studies were excluded. Title and abstract screening were completed by 6 independent researchers (S.C., K.K., M.M-B., K.A., T.S., I.M.M.) using Covidence online systematic review software (www.covidence.org). Six reviewers (S.C., K.K., M.M-B., K.A., T.S., I.M.M.) independently evaluated titles, abstracts, and full texts to identify relevant studies. Conflicts were resolved by the senior reviewer (I.M.M.).

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Five reviewers (S.C., K.K., M.M-B., K.A., T.S.) independently extracted data from eligible studies using a standardized extraction form that included title; authors; year of publication; sample size; and key findings, including mean age, sex, piercing location, complication type, and treatment received.

Treatment type was placed into the following categories: surgical treatments, antimicrobials, medical treatments, direct-target therapy, oral procedures, avoidance, miscellaneous therapies, and no treatment. (Data regarding treatments can be found in the Supplemental Information online.)

RESULTS

The combined search yielded 2679 studies, 617 of which underwent full-text review; 319 studies were included (Figure). Studies were published from 1950 to June 2022 and included both adult and pediatric populations.

Patient Characteristics

In total, our pooled analysis included data on 30,090 complications across 36,803 pierced sites in 30,231 patients (Table 1). Demographic data are available for 55% (n=30,231) of patients. Overall, 74% (22,247/30,231) of the individuals included in our analysis were female. The mean age was 27.8 years (range, 0–76 years).

Overall, 36,803 pierced sites had a reported complication. The oral cavity, location not otherwise specified, was the most common site associated with a complication, accounting for 67% (n=24,478) of complications (Table 1). Other reported sites included (in decreasing frequency) the ears (21%, n=7551), tongue (5%, n=1669), lip (3%, n=998), navel (2%, n=605), nose (1%, n=540), nipple (1%, n=344), face/body (1%, n=269), genitals/groin (0%, n=183), eyebrow (0%, n=161), hand (0%, n=4), and eyelid (0%, n=1). Piercing complications were more commonly reported among females across all piercing locations except for the eyebrow, which was equal in both sexes.

Complications

Local Infections—Local infections accounted for 36% of reported complication types (n=10,872/30,090): perichondritis (1%, n=85); abscesses (0%, n=25); bacterial colonization (1%, n=106); and local infections, not otherwise specified (98%, n=10,648)(Table 2). The majority of local infections were found to be secondary to piercings of the ear and oral cavity. The nipple was found to be a common site for abscesses (40%, n=10), whereas the tongue was found to be the most common site for bacterial colonization (69%, n=73).

Immune-Mediated Issues—Immune-mediated issues encompassed 5% of the total reported complications (n=1561/30,090). The most commonly reported immune-mediated complications included allergies (31%, n=482), edema and swelling (21%, n=331), dermatitis (18%, n=282), and inflammatory lesions (17%, n=270). The majority were found to occur secondary to ear piercings, with the exception of edema, which mainly occurred secondary to tongue piercings (45%, n=150), and allergy, which primarily was associated with oral piercings (51%, n=245)(Table 2).

Tissue Damage—Tissue damage accounted for 43% of all complications (n=13,036/30,090). The most common forms of tissue damage were trauma (55%, n=7182), dysesthesia (22%, n=2883), bleeding and bruising (18%, n=2376), and pain (3%, n=370)(Table 2). Trauma was mainly found to be a complication in the context of oral piercings (99%, n=7121). Similarly, 94% (n=2242) of bleeding and bruising occurred secondary to oral piercings. Embedded piercings (92%, n=127), deformity (91%, n=29), and necrosis (75%, n=3) mostly occurred following ear piercings. Lip piercings were found to be the most common cause of damage to surrounding structures (98%, n=50).

Oral—Overall, 3193 intraoral complications were reported, constituting 11% of the total complications (Table 2). Oral complications included dental damage (86%, n=2732), gum recession (14%, n=459), and gingivitis (0%, n=2). Dental damage was mostly reported following oral piercings (90%, n=2453), whereas gum recession was mostly reported following lip piercings (59%, n=272).

Proliferations—Proliferations accounted for 795 (3%) of reported piercing complications. The majority (97%, n=772) were keloids, 2% (n=16) were other benign growths, and 1% (n=7) were malignancies. These complications mostly occurred secondary to ear piercings, which resulted in 741 (96%) keloids, 6 (38%) benign growths, and 4 (57%) malignancies.

Systemic—Overall, 2% (n=633) of the total complications were classified as systemic issues, including functional impairment (45%, n=282), secondary organ involvement (24%, n=150), cardiac issues (3%, n=21), and aspiration/inhalation (1%, n=8). Nonlocalized infections such as hepatitis or an increased risk thereof (17%, n=107), tetanus (8%, n=52), chlamydia (1%, n=9), HIV (0%, n=1), herpes simplex virus (0%, n=1), gonorrhea (0%, n=1), and bacterial vaginosis (0%, n=1) also were included in this category. The tongue, ear, and genitals were the locations most involved in these complications (Table 2). Secondary organ involvement mostly occurred after ear (36%, n=54) and genital piercings (27%, n=41). A total of 8 cases of piercing aspiration and/or inhalation were reported in association with piercings of the head and neck (Table 2).

COMMENT

Piercing Complications

Overall, the ear, tongue, and oral cavity were found to be the sites with the most associated complications recorded in the literature, and local infection and tissue damage were found to be the most prevalent types of complications. A plethora of treatments were used to manage piercing-induced complications, including surgical or medical treatments and avoidance (Supplemental Information). Reports by Metts⁶ and Escudero-Castaño et al⁷ provide detailed protocols and photographs of piercings.

Infections

Our review found that local infections were commonly reported complications associated with body piercings, which is consistent with other studies.¹ The initial trauma inherent in the piercing process followed by the presence of an ongoing foreign body lends itself to an increased risk for developing these complications. Wound healing after piercing also varies based on the piercing location.

The rate and severity of the infection are influenced by the anatomic location of the piercing, hygiene, method of piercing, types of materials used, and aftercare.⁸ Piercing cartilage sites, such as the helix, concha, or nose, increases susceptibility to infections and permanent deformities. Cartilage is particularly at risk because of its avascular nature.⁹ Other studies have reported similar incidences of superficial localized infections; infectious complications were seen in 10% to 30% of body piercings in one study,³ while 45% of American and Australian college students reported infection at a piercing site in a second study.¹⁰

Systemic Issues

Systemic issues are potentially the most dangerous piercing-induced complications, though they were rarer in our analysis. Some serious complications included septic emboli, fatal staphylococcal toxic shock syndrome, and death. Although some systemic issues, such as staphylococcal toxic shock syndrome and septic sacroiliitis, required extensive hospital stays and complex treatment, others had lifelong repercussions, such as hepatitis and HIV. One report showed an increased incidence of endocarditis associated with body piercing, including staphylococcal endocarditis following nasal piercings, Neisseria endocarditis following tongue piercings, and Staphylococcus epidermidis endocarditis following nipple piercings.¹¹ Moreover, Mariano et al¹²—who noted a case of endocarditis and meningitis associated with a nape piercing in a young female in 2015—reinforced the notion that information pertaining to the risks associated with body piercing must be better disseminated, given the potential for morbid or fatal outcomes. Finally, nonsterile piercing techniques and poor hygiene were found to contribute substantially to the increased risk for infection, so it is of utmost importance to reinforce proper practices in piercing salons.⁴

Immune-Mediated Issues

Because piercings are foreign bodies, they are susceptible to both acute and chronic immune responses. Our study found that allergies and dermatitis made up almost half of the immune-mediated piercing complications. It is especially important to emphasize that costume jewelry exposes our skin to a variety of contact allergens, most prominently nickel, heightening the risk for developing allergic contact dermatitis.¹³ Moreover, a study conducted by Brandão et al¹⁴ found that patients with pierced ears were significantly more likely to react to nickel than those without pierced ears (P=.031). Although other studies have found that allergy to metals ranges from 8.3% to 20% in the general population,¹⁵ we were not able to quantify the incidence in our study due to a lack of reporting of common benign complications, such as contact dermatitis.

Tissue Damage and Local Problems

Our review found that tissue and oral damage also were commonly reported piercing complications, with the most common pathologies being trauma, dysesthesia, bleeding/bruising, and dental damage. Laumann and Derick¹⁶ reported that bleeding, tissue trauma, and local problems were common physical health problems associated with body piercing. Severe complications, such as abscesses, toxic shock syndrome, and endocarditis, also have been reported in association with intraoral piercings.¹⁷ Moreover, other studies have shown that oral piercings are associated with several adverse oral and systemic conditions. A meta-analysis of individuals with oral piercings found a similar prevalence of dental fracture, gingival recession, and tooth wear (34%), as well as unspecified dental damage (27%) and tooth chipping (22%). Additionally, this meta-analysis reported a 3-fold increased risk for dental fracture and 7-fold increased risk for gingival recession with oral piercings.¹⁸ Another meta-analysis of oral piercing complications found a similar prevalence of dental fracture (34%), tooth wear (34%), gingival recession (33%), unspecified dental damage (27%), and tooth chipping (22%).¹⁹ Considering the extensive amount of cumulative damage, wearers of oral jewelry require periodic periodontal evaluations to monitor for dental damage and gingival recession.²⁰ There are limited data on treatments for complications of oral piercings, and further research in this area is warranted.

Proliferations and Scars

Although proliferations and scarring were among the least common complications reported in the literature, they are some of the most cosmetically disfiguring for patients. Keloids, the most common type of growth associated with piercings, do not naturally regress and thus require some form of intervention. Given the multimodal approach used to treat keloids, as described by the evidence-based algorithm by Ogawa,²¹ it is not surprising that keloids also represented the complication most treated with medical therapies, such as steroids, and also with direct-target therapy, such as liquid nitrogen therapy (Supplemental Information).

Other proliferations reported in the literature include benign pyogenic granulomas²² and much less commonly malignant neoplasms such as basal cell carcinoma²³ and squamous cell carcinoma.²⁴ Although rare, treatment of piercing-associated malignancies include surgical removal, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy (Supplemental Information).

Limitations

There are several limitations to our systematic review. First, heterogeneity in study designs, patient populations, treatment interventions, and outcome measures of included studies may have affected the quality and generalizability of our results. Moreover, because the studies included in this systematic review focused on specific complications, we could not compare our results to the literature that analyzes incidence rates of piercing complications. Furthermore, not all studies included the data that we hoped to extract, and thus only available data were reported in these instances. Finally, the articles we reviewed may have included publication bias, with positive findings being more frequently published, potentially inflating certain types and sites of complications and treatment choices. Despite these limitations, our review provides essential information that must be interpreted in a clinical context.

CONCLUSION

Given that cutaneous and mucosal piercing has become more prevalent in recent years, along with an increase in the variety of piercing-induced complications, it is of utmost importance that piercing salons have proper hygiene practices in place and that patients are aware of the multitude of potential complications that can arise—whether common and benign or rare but life-threatening.

The practice of body piercing has been present in cultures around the world for centuries. Piercings may be performed for religious or spiritual reasons or as a form of self-expression. In recent years, body piercings have become increasingly popular in all genders, with the most common sites being the ears, mouth, nose, eyebrows, nipples, navel, and genitals.¹ The prevalence of body piercing in the general population is estimated to be as high as 50%.² With the rising popularity of piercings, there also has been an increase in their associated complications, with one study noting that up to 35% of individuals with pierced ears and 30% of all pierced sites developed a complication.³ Common problems following piercing include infections, keloid formation, allergic contact dermatitis, site deformation, and tooth fractures.⁴ It is of utmost importance that health care professionals are aware of the potential complications associated with such a common practice. A comprehensive review of complications associated with cutaneous and mucosal piercings is lacking. We conducted a systematic review to summarize the clinical characteristics, complication types and frequency, and treatments reported for cutaneous and mucosal piercings.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature adhering to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) reporting guidelines.⁵

Search Strategy, Study Eligibility Criteria, and Study Selection

A literature search of the Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases was performed on June 20, 2022, using search terms related to body piercing and possible piercing-induced complications (Supplemental Information online). All studies reporting complications following body piercing were included. In vitro and animal studies were excluded. Title and abstract screening were completed by 6 independent researchers (S.C., K.K., M.M-B., K.A., T.S., I.M.M.) using Covidence online systematic review software (www.covidence.org). Six reviewers (S.C., K.K., M.M-B., K.A., T.S., I.M.M.) independently evaluated titles, abstracts, and full texts to identify relevant studies. Conflicts were resolved by the senior reviewer (I.M.M.).

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Five reviewers (S.C., K.K., M.M-B., K.A., T.S.) independently extracted data from eligible studies using a standardized extraction form that included title; authors; year of publication; sample size; and key findings, including mean age, sex, piercing location, complication type, and treatment received.

Treatment type was placed into the following categories: surgical treatments, antimicrobials, medical treatments, direct-target therapy, oral procedures, avoidance, miscellaneous therapies, and no treatment. (Data regarding treatments can be found in the Supplemental Information online.)

RESULTS

The combined search yielded 2679 studies, 617 of which underwent full-text review; 319 studies were included (Figure). Studies were published from 1950 to June 2022 and included both adult and pediatric populations.

Patient Characteristics

In total, our pooled analysis included data on 30,090 complications across 36,803 pierced sites in 30,231 patients (Table 1). Demographic data are available for 55% (n=30,231) of patients. Overall, 74% (22,247/30,231) of the individuals included in our analysis were female. The mean age was 27.8 years (range, 0–76 years).

Overall, 36,803 pierced sites had a reported complication. The oral cavity, location not otherwise specified, was the most common site associated with a complication, accounting for 67% (n=24,478) of complications (Table 1). Other reported sites included (in decreasing frequency) the ears (21%, n=7551), tongue (5%, n=1669), lip (3%, n=998), navel (2%, n=605), nose (1%, n=540), nipple (1%, n=344), face/body (1%, n=269), genitals/groin (0%, n=183), eyebrow (0%, n=161), hand (0%, n=4), and eyelid (0%, n=1). Piercing complications were more commonly reported among females across all piercing locations except for the eyebrow, which was equal in both sexes.

Complications

Local Infections—Local infections accounted for 36% of reported complication types (n=10,872/30,090): perichondritis (1%, n=85); abscesses (0%, n=25); bacterial colonization (1%, n=106); and local infections, not otherwise specified (98%, n=10,648)(Table 2). The majority of local infections were found to be secondary to piercings of the ear and oral cavity. The nipple was found to be a common site for abscesses (40%, n=10), whereas the tongue was found to be the most common site for bacterial colonization (69%, n=73).

Immune-Mediated Issues—Immune-mediated issues encompassed 5% of the total reported complications (n=1561/30,090). The most commonly reported immune-mediated complications included allergies (31%, n=482), edema and swelling (21%, n=331), dermatitis (18%, n=282), and inflammatory lesions (17%, n=270). The majority were found to occur secondary to ear piercings, with the exception of edema, which mainly occurred secondary to tongue piercings (45%, n=150), and allergy, which primarily was associated with oral piercings (51%, n=245)(Table 2).

Tissue Damage—Tissue damage accounted for 43% of all complications (n=13,036/30,090). The most common forms of tissue damage were trauma (55%, n=7182), dysesthesia (22%, n=2883), bleeding and bruising (18%, n=2376), and pain (3%, n=370)(Table 2). Trauma was mainly found to be a complication in the context of oral piercings (99%, n=7121). Similarly, 94% (n=2242) of bleeding and bruising occurred secondary to oral piercings. Embedded piercings (92%, n=127), deformity (91%, n=29), and necrosis (75%, n=3) mostly occurred following ear piercings. Lip piercings were found to be the most common cause of damage to surrounding structures (98%, n=50).

Oral—Overall, 3193 intraoral complications were reported, constituting 11% of the total complications (Table 2). Oral complications included dental damage (86%, n=2732), gum recession (14%, n=459), and gingivitis (0%, n=2). Dental damage was mostly reported following oral piercings (90%, n=2453), whereas gum recession was mostly reported following lip piercings (59%, n=272).

Proliferations—Proliferations accounted for 795 (3%) of reported piercing complications. The majority (97%, n=772) were keloids, 2% (n=16) were other benign growths, and 1% (n=7) were malignancies. These complications mostly occurred secondary to ear piercings, which resulted in 741 (96%) keloids, 6 (38%) benign growths, and 4 (57%) malignancies.

Systemic—Overall, 2% (n=633) of the total complications were classified as systemic issues, including functional impairment (45%, n=282), secondary organ involvement (24%, n=150), cardiac issues (3%, n=21), and aspiration/inhalation (1%, n=8). Nonlocalized infections such as hepatitis or an increased risk thereof (17%, n=107), tetanus (8%, n=52), chlamydia (1%, n=9), HIV (0%, n=1), herpes simplex virus (0%, n=1), gonorrhea (0%, n=1), and bacterial vaginosis (0%, n=1) also were included in this category. The tongue, ear, and genitals were the locations most involved in these complications (Table 2). Secondary organ involvement mostly occurred after ear (36%, n=54) and genital piercings (27%, n=41). A total of 8 cases of piercing aspiration and/or inhalation were reported in association with piercings of the head and neck (Table 2).

COMMENT

Piercing Complications

Overall, the ear, tongue, and oral cavity were found to be the sites with the most associated complications recorded in the literature, and local infection and tissue damage were found to be the most prevalent types of complications. A plethora of treatments were used to manage piercing-induced complications, including surgical or medical treatments and avoidance (Supplemental Information). Reports by Metts⁶ and Escudero-Castaño et al⁷ provide detailed protocols and photographs of piercings.

Infections

Our review found that local infections were commonly reported complications associated with body piercings, which is consistent with other studies.¹ The initial trauma inherent in the piercing process followed by the presence of an ongoing foreign body lends itself to an increased risk for developing these complications. Wound healing after piercing also varies based on the piercing location.

The rate and severity of the infection are influenced by the anatomic location of the piercing, hygiene, method of piercing, types of materials used, and aftercare.⁸ Piercing cartilage sites, such as the helix, concha, or nose, increases susceptibility to infections and permanent deformities. Cartilage is particularly at risk because of its avascular nature.⁹ Other studies have reported similar incidences of superficial localized infections; infectious complications were seen in 10% to 30% of body piercings in one study,³ while 45% of American and Australian college students reported infection at a piercing site in a second study.¹⁰

Systemic Issues

Systemic issues are potentially the most dangerous piercing-induced complications, though they were rarer in our analysis. Some serious complications included septic emboli, fatal staphylococcal toxic shock syndrome, and death. Although some systemic issues, such as staphylococcal toxic shock syndrome and septic sacroiliitis, required extensive hospital stays and complex treatment, others had lifelong repercussions, such as hepatitis and HIV. One report showed an increased incidence of endocarditis associated with body piercing, including staphylococcal endocarditis following nasal piercings, Neisseria endocarditis following tongue piercings, and Staphylococcus epidermidis endocarditis following nipple piercings.¹¹ Moreover, Mariano et al¹²—who noted a case of endocarditis and meningitis associated with a nape piercing in a young female in 2015—reinforced the notion that information pertaining to the risks associated with body piercing must be better disseminated, given the potential for morbid or fatal outcomes. Finally, nonsterile piercing techniques and poor hygiene were found to contribute substantially to the increased risk for infection, so it is of utmost importance to reinforce proper practices in piercing salons.⁴

Immune-Mediated Issues

Because piercings are foreign bodies, they are susceptible to both acute and chronic immune responses. Our study found that allergies and dermatitis made up almost half of the immune-mediated piercing complications. It is especially important to emphasize that costume jewelry exposes our skin to a variety of contact allergens, most prominently nickel, heightening the risk for developing allergic contact dermatitis.¹³ Moreover, a study conducted by Brandão et al¹⁴ found that patients with pierced ears were significantly more likely to react to nickel than those without pierced ears (P=.031). Although other studies have found that allergy to metals ranges from 8.3% to 20% in the general population,¹⁵ we were not able to quantify the incidence in our study due to a lack of reporting of common benign complications, such as contact dermatitis.

Tissue Damage and Local Problems

Our review found that tissue and oral damage also were commonly reported piercing complications, with the most common pathologies being trauma, dysesthesia, bleeding/bruising, and dental damage. Laumann and Derick¹⁶ reported that bleeding, tissue trauma, and local problems were common physical health problems associated with body piercing. Severe complications, such as abscesses, toxic shock syndrome, and endocarditis, also have been reported in association with intraoral piercings.¹⁷ Moreover, other studies have shown that oral piercings are associated with several adverse oral and systemic conditions. A meta-analysis of individuals with oral piercings found a similar prevalence of dental fracture, gingival recession, and tooth wear (34%), as well as unspecified dental damage (27%) and tooth chipping (22%). Additionally, this meta-analysis reported a 3-fold increased risk for dental fracture and 7-fold increased risk for gingival recession with oral piercings.¹⁸ Another meta-analysis of oral piercing complications found a similar prevalence of dental fracture (34%), tooth wear (34%), gingival recession (33%), unspecified dental damage (27%), and tooth chipping (22%).¹⁹ Considering the extensive amount of cumulative damage, wearers of oral jewelry require periodic periodontal evaluations to monitor for dental damage and gingival recession.²⁰ There are limited data on treatments for complications of oral piercings, and further research in this area is warranted.

Proliferations and Scars

Although proliferations and scarring were among the least common complications reported in the literature, they are some of the most cosmetically disfiguring for patients. Keloids, the most common type of growth associated with piercings, do not naturally regress and thus require some form of intervention. Given the multimodal approach used to treat keloids, as described by the evidence-based algorithm by Ogawa,²¹ it is not surprising that keloids also represented the complication most treated with medical therapies, such as steroids, and also with direct-target therapy, such as liquid nitrogen therapy (Supplemental Information).

Other proliferations reported in the literature include benign pyogenic granulomas²² and much less commonly malignant neoplasms such as basal cell carcinoma²³ and squamous cell carcinoma.²⁴ Although rare, treatment of piercing-associated malignancies include surgical removal, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy (Supplemental Information).

Limitations

There are several limitations to our systematic review. First, heterogeneity in study designs, patient populations, treatment interventions, and outcome measures of included studies may have affected the quality and generalizability of our results. Moreover, because the studies included in this systematic review focused on specific complications, we could not compare our results to the literature that analyzes incidence rates of piercing complications. Furthermore, not all studies included the data that we hoped to extract, and thus only available data were reported in these instances. Finally, the articles we reviewed may have included publication bias, with positive findings being more frequently published, potentially inflating certain types and sites of complications and treatment choices. Despite these limitations, our review provides essential information that must be interpreted in a clinical context.

CONCLUSION

Given that cutaneous and mucosal piercing has become more prevalent in recent years, along with an increase in the variety of piercing-induced complications, it is of utmost importance that piercing salons have proper hygiene practices in place and that patients are aware of the multitude of potential complications that can arise—whether common and benign or rare but life-threatening.

The practice of body piercing has been present in cultures around the world for centuries. Piercings may be performed for religious or spiritual reasons or as a form of self-expression. In recent years, body piercings have become increasingly popular in all genders, with the most common sites being the ears, mouth, nose, eyebrows, nipples, navel, and genitals.¹ The prevalence of body piercing in the general population is estimated to be as high as 50%.² With the rising popularity of piercings, there also has been an increase in their associated complications, with one study noting that up to 35% of individuals with pierced ears and 30% of all pierced sites developed a complication.³ Common problems following piercing include infections, keloid formation, allergic contact dermatitis, site deformation, and tooth fractures.⁴ It is of utmost importance that health care professionals are aware of the potential complications associated with such a common practice. A comprehensive review of complications associated with cutaneous and mucosal piercings is lacking. We conducted a systematic review to summarize the clinical characteristics, complication types and frequency, and treatments reported for cutaneous and mucosal piercings.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature adhering to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) reporting guidelines.⁵

Search Strategy, Study Eligibility Criteria, and Study Selection

A literature search of the Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases was performed on June 20, 2022, using search terms related to body piercing and possible piercing-induced complications (Supplemental Information online). All studies reporting complications following body piercing were included. In vitro and animal studies were excluded. Title and abstract screening were completed by 6 independent researchers (S.C., K.K., M.M-B., K.A., T.S., I.M.M.) using Covidence online systematic review software (www.covidence.org). Six reviewers (S.C., K.K., M.M-B., K.A., T.S., I.M.M.) independently evaluated titles, abstracts, and full texts to identify relevant studies. Conflicts were resolved by the senior reviewer (I.M.M.).

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Five reviewers (S.C., K.K., M.M-B., K.A., T.S.) independently extracted data from eligible studies using a standardized extraction form that included title; authors; year of publication; sample size; and key findings, including mean age, sex, piercing location, complication type, and treatment received.

Treatment type was placed into the following categories: surgical treatments, antimicrobials, medical treatments, direct-target therapy, oral procedures, avoidance, miscellaneous therapies, and no treatment. (Data regarding treatments can be found in the Supplemental Information online.)

RESULTS

The combined search yielded 2679 studies, 617 of which underwent full-text review; 319 studies were included (Figure). Studies were published from 1950 to June 2022 and included both adult and pediatric populations.

Patient Characteristics

In total, our pooled analysis included data on 30,090 complications across 36,803 pierced sites in 30,231 patients (Table 1). Demographic data are available for 55% (n=30,231) of patients. Overall, 74% (22,247/30,231) of the individuals included in our analysis were female. The mean age was 27.8 years (range, 0–76 years).

Overall, 36,803 pierced sites had a reported complication. The oral cavity, location not otherwise specified, was the most common site associated with a complication, accounting for 67% (n=24,478) of complications (Table 1). Other reported sites included (in decreasing frequency) the ears (21%, n=7551), tongue (5%, n=1669), lip (3%, n=998), navel (2%, n=605), nose (1%, n=540), nipple (1%, n=344), face/body (1%, n=269), genitals/groin (0%, n=183), eyebrow (0%, n=161), hand (0%, n=4), and eyelid (0%, n=1). Piercing complications were more commonly reported among females across all piercing locations except for the eyebrow, which was equal in both sexes.

Complications

Local Infections—Local infections accounted for 36% of reported complication types (n=10,872/30,090): perichondritis (1%, n=85); abscesses (0%, n=25); bacterial colonization (1%, n=106); and local infections, not otherwise specified (98%, n=10,648)(Table 2). The majority of local infections were found to be secondary to piercings of the ear and oral cavity. The nipple was found to be a common site for abscesses (40%, n=10), whereas the tongue was found to be the most common site for bacterial colonization (69%, n=73).

Immune-Mediated Issues—Immune-mediated issues encompassed 5% of the total reported complications (n=1561/30,090). The most commonly reported immune-mediated complications included allergies (31%, n=482), edema and swelling (21%, n=331), dermatitis (18%, n=282), and inflammatory lesions (17%, n=270). The majority were found to occur secondary to ear piercings, with the exception of edema, which mainly occurred secondary to tongue piercings (45%, n=150), and allergy, which primarily was associated with oral piercings (51%, n=245)(Table 2).

Tissue Damage—Tissue damage accounted for 43% of all complications (n=13,036/30,090). The most common forms of tissue damage were trauma (55%, n=7182), dysesthesia (22%, n=2883), bleeding and bruising (18%, n=2376), and pain (3%, n=370)(Table 2). Trauma was mainly found to be a complication in the context of oral piercings (99%, n=7121). Similarly, 94% (n=2242) of bleeding and bruising occurred secondary to oral piercings. Embedded piercings (92%, n=127), deformity (91%, n=29), and necrosis (75%, n=3) mostly occurred following ear piercings. Lip piercings were found to be the most common cause of damage to surrounding structures (98%, n=50).

Oral—Overall, 3193 intraoral complications were reported, constituting 11% of the total complications (Table 2). Oral complications included dental damage (86%, n=2732), gum recession (14%, n=459), and gingivitis (0%, n=2). Dental damage was mostly reported following oral piercings (90%, n=2453), whereas gum recession was mostly reported following lip piercings (59%, n=272).

Proliferations—Proliferations accounted for 795 (3%) of reported piercing complications. The majority (97%, n=772) were keloids, 2% (n=16) were other benign growths, and 1% (n=7) were malignancies. These complications mostly occurred secondary to ear piercings, which resulted in 741 (96%) keloids, 6 (38%) benign growths, and 4 (57%) malignancies.

Systemic—Overall, 2% (n=633) of the total complications were classified as systemic issues, including functional impairment (45%, n=282), secondary organ involvement (24%, n=150), cardiac issues (3%, n=21), and aspiration/inhalation (1%, n=8). Nonlocalized infections such as hepatitis or an increased risk thereof (17%, n=107), tetanus (8%, n=52), chlamydia (1%, n=9), HIV (0%, n=1), herpes simplex virus (0%, n=1), gonorrhea (0%, n=1), and bacterial vaginosis (0%, n=1) also were included in this category. The tongue, ear, and genitals were the locations most involved in these complications (Table 2). Secondary organ involvement mostly occurred after ear (36%, n=54) and genital piercings (27%, n=41). A total of 8 cases of piercing aspiration and/or inhalation were reported in association with piercings of the head and neck (Table 2).

COMMENT

Piercing Complications

Overall, the ear, tongue, and oral cavity were found to be the sites with the most associated complications recorded in the literature, and local infection and tissue damage were found to be the most prevalent types of complications. A plethora of treatments were used to manage piercing-induced complications, including surgical or medical treatments and avoidance (Supplemental Information). Reports by Metts⁶ and Escudero-Castaño et al⁷ provide detailed protocols and photographs of piercings.

Infections

Our review found that local infections were commonly reported complications associated with body piercings, which is consistent with other studies.¹ The initial trauma inherent in the piercing process followed by the presence of an ongoing foreign body lends itself to an increased risk for developing these complications. Wound healing after piercing also varies based on the piercing location.

The rate and severity of the infection are influenced by the anatomic location of the piercing, hygiene, method of piercing, types of materials used, and aftercare.⁸ Piercing cartilage sites, such as the helix, concha, or nose, increases susceptibility to infections and permanent deformities. Cartilage is particularly at risk because of its avascular nature.⁹ Other studies have reported similar incidences of superficial localized infections; infectious complications were seen in 10% to 30% of body piercings in one study,³ while 45% of American and Australian college students reported infection at a piercing site in a second study.¹⁰

Systemic Issues

Systemic issues are potentially the most dangerous piercing-induced complications, though they were rarer in our analysis. Some serious complications included septic emboli, fatal staphylococcal toxic shock syndrome, and death. Although some systemic issues, such as staphylococcal toxic shock syndrome and septic sacroiliitis, required extensive hospital stays and complex treatment, others had lifelong repercussions, such as hepatitis and HIV. One report showed an increased incidence of endocarditis associated with body piercing, including staphylococcal endocarditis following nasal piercings, Neisseria endocarditis following tongue piercings, and Staphylococcus epidermidis endocarditis following nipple piercings.¹¹ Moreover, Mariano et al¹²—who noted a case of endocarditis and meningitis associated with a nape piercing in a young female in 2015—reinforced the notion that information pertaining to the risks associated with body piercing must be better disseminated, given the potential for morbid or fatal outcomes. Finally, nonsterile piercing techniques and poor hygiene were found to contribute substantially to the increased risk for infection, so it is of utmost importance to reinforce proper practices in piercing salons.⁴

Immune-Mediated Issues

Because piercings are foreign bodies, they are susceptible to both acute and chronic immune responses. Our study found that allergies and dermatitis made up almost half of the immune-mediated piercing complications. It is especially important to emphasize that costume jewelry exposes our skin to a variety of contact allergens, most prominently nickel, heightening the risk for developing allergic contact dermatitis.¹³ Moreover, a study conducted by Brandão et al¹⁴ found that patients with pierced ears were significantly more likely to react to nickel than those without pierced ears (P=.031). Although other studies have found that allergy to metals ranges from 8.3% to 20% in the general population,¹⁵ we were not able to quantify the incidence in our study due to a lack of reporting of common benign complications, such as contact dermatitis.

Tissue Damage and Local Problems

Our review found that tissue and oral damage also were commonly reported piercing complications, with the most common pathologies being trauma, dysesthesia, bleeding/bruising, and dental damage. Laumann and Derick¹⁶ reported that bleeding, tissue trauma, and local problems were common physical health problems associated with body piercing. Severe complications, such as abscesses, toxic shock syndrome, and endocarditis, also have been reported in association with intraoral piercings.¹⁷ Moreover, other studies have shown that oral piercings are associated with several adverse oral and systemic conditions. A meta-analysis of individuals with oral piercings found a similar prevalence of dental fracture, gingival recession, and tooth wear (34%), as well as unspecified dental damage (27%) and tooth chipping (22%). Additionally, this meta-analysis reported a 3-fold increased risk for dental fracture and 7-fold increased risk for gingival recession with oral piercings.¹⁸ Another meta-analysis of oral piercing complications found a similar prevalence of dental fracture (34%), tooth wear (34%), gingival recession (33%), unspecified dental damage (27%), and tooth chipping (22%).¹⁹ Considering the extensive amount of cumulative damage, wearers of oral jewelry require periodic periodontal evaluations to monitor for dental damage and gingival recession.²⁰ There are limited data on treatments for complications of oral piercings, and further research in this area is warranted.

Proliferations and Scars

Although proliferations and scarring were among the least common complications reported in the literature, they are some of the most cosmetically disfiguring for patients. Keloids, the most common type of growth associated with piercings, do not naturally regress and thus require some form of intervention. Given the multimodal approach used to treat keloids, as described by the evidence-based algorithm by Ogawa,²¹ it is not surprising that keloids also represented the complication most treated with medical therapies, such as steroids, and also with direct-target therapy, such as liquid nitrogen therapy (Supplemental Information).

Other proliferations reported in the literature include benign pyogenic granulomas²² and much less commonly malignant neoplasms such as basal cell carcinoma²³ and squamous cell carcinoma.²⁴ Although rare, treatment of piercing-associated malignancies include surgical removal, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy (Supplemental Information).

Limitations

There are several limitations to our systematic review. First, heterogeneity in study designs, patient populations, treatment interventions, and outcome measures of included studies may have affected the quality and generalizability of our results. Moreover, because the studies included in this systematic review focused on specific complications, we could not compare our results to the literature that analyzes incidence rates of piercing complications. Furthermore, not all studies included the data that we hoped to extract, and thus only available data were reported in these instances. Finally, the articles we reviewed may have included publication bias, with positive findings being more frequently published, potentially inflating certain types and sites of complications and treatment choices. Despite these limitations, our review provides essential information that must be interpreted in a clinical context.

CONCLUSION

Given that cutaneous and mucosal piercing has become more prevalent in recent years, along with an increase in the variety of piercing-induced complications, it is of utmost importance that piercing salons have proper hygiene practices in place and that patients are aware of the multitude of potential complications that can arise—whether common and benign or rare but life-threatening.

Researchers in France are warning against the overzealous use of acid-suppressing drugs in infants after finding that the medications are associated with an increase in risk of serious infections later in life.

The focus on the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) during infancy comes as use of the drugs in young children is rising in France, New Zealand, Scandinavia, and the United States. Much of this use is not to manage confirmed cases of gastroesophageal reflux but rather to soothe the jangled nerves of parents of babies in discomfort, according to the researchers, who have studied national prescribing patterns. In addition to concerns about infection, inappropriate or prolonged use of the acid suppressants is also associated with an increase in the risk of such conditions as hospital-acquired acute kidney injury and inflammatory bowel diseases in children.

PPIs such as omeprazole are effective at reducing gastric acid in babies with gastroesophageal reflux disease. But the researchers warned against using the drugs to manage normal spitting up and dribbling that would have resolved of itself anyway.

“In this study, increased risk of serious infections was associated with PPI use in young children, overall and for various sites and pathogens. In this population, PPIs should not be used without a clear indication,” epidemiologist Marion Lassalle, PharmD, PhD, of EPI-PHARE in Saint-Denis, France, and colleagues reported in JAMA Pediatrics.

Drawing on data from a national birth registry, Dr. Lassalle and colleagues compared infection rates among more than 1.2 million infants who received a PPI at an average age of 88 days with infection rates among children who received another kind of acid suppressant (a histamine receptor blocker or antacid) at an average age of 82 days. More than 600,000 children made up each group.

Slightly over half of the participants were boys, and the study followed children to a maximum age of 9 years. Among children who used PPIs rather than another acid suppressant, there was an overall higher rate of serious infections that required hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-1.36). There were higher rates of infections in the digestive tract; the ear, nose, and throat; the kidneys or urinary tract; the lower respiratory tract; and the nervous system.

Serious infections first appeared 9.7 (range, 3.9-21.3) months after a child stopped using a PPI – a date that Dr. Lassalle’s group determined on the basis of there being a delay of at least 90 days in filling a PPI prescription.
 

Possible confounders

“The study shows an association, it does not show causation,” said Rina Sanghavi, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. Dr. Sanghavi noted that the children who continued taking PPIs generally were sicker in their first year of life, as shown by the higher rates of respiratory ailments and corticosteroid use. This could mean that the infections they eventually experienced had many causes and not necessarily the PPI.

Similarly, pediatric gastroenterologist Sophia Patel, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, pointed to the almost 10-month average lag time between stopping a PPI and developing a first serious infection. That interval is long enough that it is possible that the infection was caused by something else, Dr. Patel said.

Despite the limitations of the study, Dr. Sanghavi and Dr. Patel said the findings serve as a good reminder to clinicians to use PPIs only when needed and to limit their use once begun. The overall evidence base for limiting use of PPIs is strong, both physicians noted, even if this study does not show direct causation between PPI use and infection rates.

“Ask: Does this child need a PPI?” Dr. Sanghavi said. If so, she generally prescribes PPIs for a period of 2 weeks to a maximum of 2 months and she never authorizes automatic refills. Through this approach, a parent and child will come back to the clinic frequently, which in most cases allows faster tapering of the drugs.

Dr. Lassalle, Dr. Sanghavi, and Dr. Patel reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Researchers in France are warning against the overzealous use of acid-suppressing drugs in infants after finding that the medications are associated with an increase in risk of serious infections later in life.

The focus on the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) during infancy comes as use of the drugs in young children is rising in France, New Zealand, Scandinavia, and the United States. Much of this use is not to manage confirmed cases of gastroesophageal reflux but rather to soothe the jangled nerves of parents of babies in discomfort, according to the researchers, who have studied national prescribing patterns. In addition to concerns about infection, inappropriate or prolonged use of the acid suppressants is also associated with an increase in the risk of such conditions as hospital-acquired acute kidney injury and inflammatory bowel diseases in children.

PPIs such as omeprazole are effective at reducing gastric acid in babies with gastroesophageal reflux disease. But the researchers warned against using the drugs to manage normal spitting up and dribbling that would have resolved of itself anyway.

“In this study, increased risk of serious infections was associated with PPI use in young children, overall and for various sites and pathogens. In this population, PPIs should not be used without a clear indication,” epidemiologist Marion Lassalle, PharmD, PhD, of EPI-PHARE in Saint-Denis, France, and colleagues reported in JAMA Pediatrics.

Drawing on data from a national birth registry, Dr. Lassalle and colleagues compared infection rates among more than 1.2 million infants who received a PPI at an average age of 88 days with infection rates among children who received another kind of acid suppressant (a histamine receptor blocker or antacid) at an average age of 82 days. More than 600,000 children made up each group.

Slightly over half of the participants were boys, and the study followed children to a maximum age of 9 years. Among children who used PPIs rather than another acid suppressant, there was an overall higher rate of serious infections that required hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-1.36). There were higher rates of infections in the digestive tract; the ear, nose, and throat; the kidneys or urinary tract; the lower respiratory tract; and the nervous system.

Serious infections first appeared 9.7 (range, 3.9-21.3) months after a child stopped using a PPI – a date that Dr. Lassalle’s group determined on the basis of there being a delay of at least 90 days in filling a PPI prescription.
 

Possible confounders

“The study shows an association, it does not show causation,” said Rina Sanghavi, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. Dr. Sanghavi noted that the children who continued taking PPIs generally were sicker in their first year of life, as shown by the higher rates of respiratory ailments and corticosteroid use. This could mean that the infections they eventually experienced had many causes and not necessarily the PPI.

Similarly, pediatric gastroenterologist Sophia Patel, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, pointed to the almost 10-month average lag time between stopping a PPI and developing a first serious infection. That interval is long enough that it is possible that the infection was caused by something else, Dr. Patel said.

Despite the limitations of the study, Dr. Sanghavi and Dr. Patel said the findings serve as a good reminder to clinicians to use PPIs only when needed and to limit their use once begun. The overall evidence base for limiting use of PPIs is strong, both physicians noted, even if this study does not show direct causation between PPI use and infection rates.

“Ask: Does this child need a PPI?” Dr. Sanghavi said. If so, she generally prescribes PPIs for a period of 2 weeks to a maximum of 2 months and she never authorizes automatic refills. Through this approach, a parent and child will come back to the clinic frequently, which in most cases allows faster tapering of the drugs.

Dr. Lassalle, Dr. Sanghavi, and Dr. Patel reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Researchers in France are warning against the overzealous use of acid-suppressing drugs in infants after finding that the medications are associated with an increase in risk of serious infections later in life.

The focus on the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) during infancy comes as use of the drugs in young children is rising in France, New Zealand, Scandinavia, and the United States. Much of this use is not to manage confirmed cases of gastroesophageal reflux but rather to soothe the jangled nerves of parents of babies in discomfort, according to the researchers, who have studied national prescribing patterns. In addition to concerns about infection, inappropriate or prolonged use of the acid suppressants is also associated with an increase in the risk of such conditions as hospital-acquired acute kidney injury and inflammatory bowel diseases in children.

PPIs such as omeprazole are effective at reducing gastric acid in babies with gastroesophageal reflux disease. But the researchers warned against using the drugs to manage normal spitting up and dribbling that would have resolved of itself anyway.

“In this study, increased risk of serious infections was associated with PPI use in young children, overall and for various sites and pathogens. In this population, PPIs should not be used without a clear indication,” epidemiologist Marion Lassalle, PharmD, PhD, of EPI-PHARE in Saint-Denis, France, and colleagues reported in JAMA Pediatrics.

Drawing on data from a national birth registry, Dr. Lassalle and colleagues compared infection rates among more than 1.2 million infants who received a PPI at an average age of 88 days with infection rates among children who received another kind of acid suppressant (a histamine receptor blocker or antacid) at an average age of 82 days. More than 600,000 children made up each group.

Slightly over half of the participants were boys, and the study followed children to a maximum age of 9 years. Among children who used PPIs rather than another acid suppressant, there was an overall higher rate of serious infections that required hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-1.36). There were higher rates of infections in the digestive tract; the ear, nose, and throat; the kidneys or urinary tract; the lower respiratory tract; and the nervous system.

Serious infections first appeared 9.7 (range, 3.9-21.3) months after a child stopped using a PPI – a date that Dr. Lassalle’s group determined on the basis of there being a delay of at least 90 days in filling a PPI prescription.
 

Possible confounders

“The study shows an association, it does not show causation,” said Rina Sanghavi, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. Dr. Sanghavi noted that the children who continued taking PPIs generally were sicker in their first year of life, as shown by the higher rates of respiratory ailments and corticosteroid use. This could mean that the infections they eventually experienced had many causes and not necessarily the PPI.

Similarly, pediatric gastroenterologist Sophia Patel, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, pointed to the almost 10-month average lag time between stopping a PPI and developing a first serious infection. That interval is long enough that it is possible that the infection was caused by something else, Dr. Patel said.

Despite the limitations of the study, Dr. Sanghavi and Dr. Patel said the findings serve as a good reminder to clinicians to use PPIs only when needed and to limit their use once begun. The overall evidence base for limiting use of PPIs is strong, both physicians noted, even if this study does not show direct causation between PPI use and infection rates.

“Ask: Does this child need a PPI?” Dr. Sanghavi said. If so, she generally prescribes PPIs for a period of 2 weeks to a maximum of 2 months and she never authorizes automatic refills. Through this approach, a parent and child will come back to the clinic frequently, which in most cases allows faster tapering of the drugs.

Dr. Lassalle, Dr. Sanghavi, and Dr. Patel reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Findings from a meta-analysis of 65 studies conducted in 35 countries indicate that nearly a third of men older than 15 years are infected with human papillomavirus (HPV), and one in five are carriers of high-risk HPV (HR-HPV). These estimates provide further weight to arguments in favor of vaccinating boys against HPV to prevent certain types of cancer.

“Our results support that sexually active men, regardless of age, are an important reservoir of HPV genital infection,” wrote the authors in The Lancet Global Health . “These estimates emphasize the importance of incorporating men into comprehensive HPV prevention strategies to reduce HPV-related morbidity and mortality in men and ultimately achieve elimination of cervical cancer and other HPV-related diseases.”
 

Literature review

HPV infection is the most common sexually transmitted viral infection worldwide. More than 200 HPV types can be transmitted sexually, and at least 12 types are oncogenic. Previous studies have shown that most sexually active men and women acquire at least one genital HPV infection during their lifetime.

Although most HPV infections are asymptomatic, they can lead to cancer. Indeed, HPV is involved in the development of cervical, vulval, and vaginal cancers, as well as oropharyngeal and anal cancers, which also affect the male population. More than 25% of cancers caused by HPV occur in men.

Despite these observations, fewer epidemiologic studies have assessed HPV infection in men than in women. To determine the prevalence of HPV infection in the male population, Laia Bruni, MD, MPH, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Catalan Institute of Oncology in Barcelona, and her colleagues collated data from 65 studies conducted in 35 countries pertaining to males older than 15 years.

In this literature review, the researchers selected studies that reported infection rates in males without HPV-related symptoms. Studies conducted exclusively in populations that were considered at increased risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) were excluded. Overall, the analysis included close to 45,000 men.
 

Prevalent HPV genotype

Testing for HPV was conducted on samples collected from the anus and genitals. The results show a global pooled prevalence of HPV infection in males older than 15 years of 31% for any HPV and 21% for HR-HPV. One of these viruses, HPV-16, was the most prevalent HPV genotype (5% prevalence).

HPV prevalence was highest among young adults. It stabilized and decreased from age 50 years. Between ages 25 and 29 years, 35% of men are infected with HPV. It should be noted that prevalence is already high in the youngest group, reaching 28% in males between the ages of 15 and 19 years. The variations are similar for HR-HPV infections.

This age-related change is different from rates in women. Among the female population, HPV prevalence peaks soon after first sexual activity and declines with age, with a slight rebound after ages 50–55 years (i.e., often after or around the time of menopause), wrote the researchers.

The results also show country- and region-based disparities. The pooled prevalence for any HPV was highest in Sub-Saharan Africa (37%), followed by Europe and Northern America (36%). The lowest prevalence was in East and Southeast Asia (15%). Here again, the trends are similar with high-risk HPV.
 

Preventive measures

“Our study draws attention to the high prevalence, ranging from 20% to 30% for HR-HPV in men across most regions, and the need for strengthening HPV prevention within overall STI control efforts,” wrote the authors.

“Future epidemiological studies are needed to monitor trends in prevalence in men, especially considering the roll-out of HPV vaccination in girls and young women and that many countries are beginning to vaccinate boys.”

In France, the HPV vaccination program was extended in 2021 to include all boys between the ages of 11 and 14 years (two-dose schedule), with a catch-up course in males up to age 19 years (three-dose schedule). This is the same vaccine program as for girls. It is also recommended for men up to age 26 years who have sex with other men.

The 2023 return to school will see the launch of a general vaccination campaign aimed at seventh-grade students, both boys and girls, with parental consent, to increase vaccine coverage. In 2021, vaccine uptake was 43.6% in girls between the ages of 15 and 18 years and scarcely 6% in boys, according to Public Health France.

Two vaccines are in use: the bivalent Cervarix vaccine, which is effective against HPV-16 and HPV-18, and the nonavalent Gardasil 9, which is effective against types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. Both provide protection against HPV-16, the type most common in men, which is responsible for more than half of cases of cervical cancer.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Findings from a meta-analysis of 65 studies conducted in 35 countries indicate that nearly a third of men older than 15 years are infected with human papillomavirus (HPV), and one in five are carriers of high-risk HPV (HR-HPV). These estimates provide further weight to arguments in favor of vaccinating boys against HPV to prevent certain types of cancer.

“Our results support that sexually active men, regardless of age, are an important reservoir of HPV genital infection,” wrote the authors in The Lancet Global Health . “These estimates emphasize the importance of incorporating men into comprehensive HPV prevention strategies to reduce HPV-related morbidity and mortality in men and ultimately achieve elimination of cervical cancer and other HPV-related diseases.”
 

Literature review

HPV infection is the most common sexually transmitted viral infection worldwide. More than 200 HPV types can be transmitted sexually, and at least 12 types are oncogenic. Previous studies have shown that most sexually active men and women acquire at least one genital HPV infection during their lifetime.

Although most HPV infections are asymptomatic, they can lead to cancer. Indeed, HPV is involved in the development of cervical, vulval, and vaginal cancers, as well as oropharyngeal and anal cancers, which also affect the male population. More than 25% of cancers caused by HPV occur in men.

Despite these observations, fewer epidemiologic studies have assessed HPV infection in men than in women. To determine the prevalence of HPV infection in the male population, Laia Bruni, MD, MPH, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Catalan Institute of Oncology in Barcelona, and her colleagues collated data from 65 studies conducted in 35 countries pertaining to males older than 15 years.

In this literature review, the researchers selected studies that reported infection rates in males without HPV-related symptoms. Studies conducted exclusively in populations that were considered at increased risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) were excluded. Overall, the analysis included close to 45,000 men.
 

Prevalent HPV genotype

Testing for HPV was conducted on samples collected from the anus and genitals. The results show a global pooled prevalence of HPV infection in males older than 15 years of 31% for any HPV and 21% for HR-HPV. One of these viruses, HPV-16, was the most prevalent HPV genotype (5% prevalence).

HPV prevalence was highest among young adults. It stabilized and decreased from age 50 years. Between ages 25 and 29 years, 35% of men are infected with HPV. It should be noted that prevalence is already high in the youngest group, reaching 28% in males between the ages of 15 and 19 years. The variations are similar for HR-HPV infections.

This age-related change is different from rates in women. Among the female population, HPV prevalence peaks soon after first sexual activity and declines with age, with a slight rebound after ages 50–55 years (i.e., often after or around the time of menopause), wrote the researchers.

The results also show country- and region-based disparities. The pooled prevalence for any HPV was highest in Sub-Saharan Africa (37%), followed by Europe and Northern America (36%). The lowest prevalence was in East and Southeast Asia (15%). Here again, the trends are similar with high-risk HPV.
 

Preventive measures

“Our study draws attention to the high prevalence, ranging from 20% to 30% for HR-HPV in men across most regions, and the need for strengthening HPV prevention within overall STI control efforts,” wrote the authors.

“Future epidemiological studies are needed to monitor trends in prevalence in men, especially considering the roll-out of HPV vaccination in girls and young women and that many countries are beginning to vaccinate boys.”

In France, the HPV vaccination program was extended in 2021 to include all boys between the ages of 11 and 14 years (two-dose schedule), with a catch-up course in males up to age 19 years (three-dose schedule). This is the same vaccine program as for girls. It is also recommended for men up to age 26 years who have sex with other men.

The 2023 return to school will see the launch of a general vaccination campaign aimed at seventh-grade students, both boys and girls, with parental consent, to increase vaccine coverage. In 2021, vaccine uptake was 43.6% in girls between the ages of 15 and 18 years and scarcely 6% in boys, according to Public Health France.

Two vaccines are in use: the bivalent Cervarix vaccine, which is effective against HPV-16 and HPV-18, and the nonavalent Gardasil 9, which is effective against types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. Both provide protection against HPV-16, the type most common in men, which is responsible for more than half of cases of cervical cancer.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Findings from a meta-analysis of 65 studies conducted in 35 countries indicate that nearly a third of men older than 15 years are infected with human papillomavirus (HPV), and one in five are carriers of high-risk HPV (HR-HPV). These estimates provide further weight to arguments in favor of vaccinating boys against HPV to prevent certain types of cancer.

“Our results support that sexually active men, regardless of age, are an important reservoir of HPV genital infection,” wrote the authors in The Lancet Global Health . “These estimates emphasize the importance of incorporating men into comprehensive HPV prevention strategies to reduce HPV-related morbidity and mortality in men and ultimately achieve elimination of cervical cancer and other HPV-related diseases.”
 

Literature review

HPV infection is the most common sexually transmitted viral infection worldwide. More than 200 HPV types can be transmitted sexually, and at least 12 types are oncogenic. Previous studies have shown that most sexually active men and women acquire at least one genital HPV infection during their lifetime.

Although most HPV infections are asymptomatic, they can lead to cancer. Indeed, HPV is involved in the development of cervical, vulval, and vaginal cancers, as well as oropharyngeal and anal cancers, which also affect the male population. More than 25% of cancers caused by HPV occur in men.

Despite these observations, fewer epidemiologic studies have assessed HPV infection in men than in women. To determine the prevalence of HPV infection in the male population, Laia Bruni, MD, MPH, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Catalan Institute of Oncology in Barcelona, and her colleagues collated data from 65 studies conducted in 35 countries pertaining to males older than 15 years.

In this literature review, the researchers selected studies that reported infection rates in males without HPV-related symptoms. Studies conducted exclusively in populations that were considered at increased risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) were excluded. Overall, the analysis included close to 45,000 men.
 

Prevalent HPV genotype

Testing for HPV was conducted on samples collected from the anus and genitals. The results show a global pooled prevalence of HPV infection in males older than 15 years of 31% for any HPV and 21% for HR-HPV. One of these viruses, HPV-16, was the most prevalent HPV genotype (5% prevalence).

HPV prevalence was highest among young adults. It stabilized and decreased from age 50 years. Between ages 25 and 29 years, 35% of men are infected with HPV. It should be noted that prevalence is already high in the youngest group, reaching 28% in males between the ages of 15 and 19 years. The variations are similar for HR-HPV infections.

This age-related change is different from rates in women. Among the female population, HPV prevalence peaks soon after first sexual activity and declines with age, with a slight rebound after ages 50–55 years (i.e., often after or around the time of menopause), wrote the researchers.

The results also show country- and region-based disparities. The pooled prevalence for any HPV was highest in Sub-Saharan Africa (37%), followed by Europe and Northern America (36%). The lowest prevalence was in East and Southeast Asia (15%). Here again, the trends are similar with high-risk HPV.
 

Preventive measures

“Our study draws attention to the high prevalence, ranging from 20% to 30% for HR-HPV in men across most regions, and the need for strengthening HPV prevention within overall STI control efforts,” wrote the authors.

“Future epidemiological studies are needed to monitor trends in prevalence in men, especially considering the roll-out of HPV vaccination in girls and young women and that many countries are beginning to vaccinate boys.”

In France, the HPV vaccination program was extended in 2021 to include all boys between the ages of 11 and 14 years (two-dose schedule), with a catch-up course in males up to age 19 years (three-dose schedule). This is the same vaccine program as for girls. It is also recommended for men up to age 26 years who have sex with other men.

The 2023 return to school will see the launch of a general vaccination campaign aimed at seventh-grade students, both boys and girls, with parental consent, to increase vaccine coverage. In 2021, vaccine uptake was 43.6% in girls between the ages of 15 and 18 years and scarcely 6% in boys, according to Public Health France.

Two vaccines are in use: the bivalent Cervarix vaccine, which is effective against HPV-16 and HPV-18, and the nonavalent Gardasil 9, which is effective against types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. Both provide protection against HPV-16, the type most common in men, which is responsible for more than half of cases of cervical cancer.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Variability in antimicrobial prescribing among hospital-based physicians is not associated with patient characteristics or clinical outcomes, data suggest. The lowest level of such prescribing within each hospital could be considered a target for antimicrobial stewardship, according to the researchers.

In a multicenter study of 124 physicians responsible for more than 124,000 hospitalized patients, the difference in mean prescribing between the highest and lowest quartiles of prescription volume was 15.8 days of treatment per 100 patient-days.

Baseline patient characteristics were similar across the quartiles, and there were no differences in patient outcomes, including in-hospital deaths, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit transfer, and hospital readmission.

Although the investigators expected variation in prescribing, “what surprised us most was the limited association with any differences in clinical outcomes, particularly when it came to the amount of antimicrobials used,” study author Mark T. McIntyre, PharmD, pharmacotherapy specialist at the Sinai Health System in Toronto, told this news organization.

“Importantly, this is not a study that defines quality of care,” he said. “We looked at natural variation in practice and association with outcomes. So, I don’t want clinicians to think, ‘Well, I’m high, therefore I’m bad,’ or, ‘I’m low, therefore I’m good.’

“This is an early explanatory analysis that asks whether this is an opportunity to optimize prescribing in ways we hadn’t thought of before,” he said. “Now that we don’t have an association with higher or lower prescribing and outcomes, we can look at what else is driving that antimicrobial prescribing and what we can do about it. Comfort level, risk tolerance, and social, cultural, and contextual factors all likely play a role.”

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Antimicrobial reductions possible

The investigators conducted a retrospective cohort study using the General Medicine Inpatient Initiative database to assess physician-level volume and spectrum of antimicrobial prescribing in adult general medical wards. Four academic hospitals in Toronto were evaluated for the period 2010 to 2019.

The investigators stratified physicians into quartiles by hospital site on the basis of volume of antimicrobial prescribing (specifically, days of therapy per 100 patient-days and antimicrobial-free days) and antibacterial spectrum (modified spectrum score, which assigns a value to each antibacterial agent on the basis of its breadth of coverage).

They also examined potential differences between physician quartiles in patient characteristics, such as age, sex, the Laboratory-Based Acute Physiology Score, discharge diagnosis, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index.

Multilevel modeling allowed the investigators to evaluate the association between clinical outcomes and antimicrobial volume and spectrum.

The primary measure was days of therapy per 100 patient-days.

As noted, the cohort included 124 physicians who were responsible for 124,158 hospital admissions. The median physician-level volume of antimicrobial prescribing was 56.1 days of therapy per 100 patient-days. Patient characteristics were balanced across the quartiles of physician prescribing.

The difference in mean prescribing between physician quartile 4 and quartile 1 was 15.8 days of therapy per 100 patient-days, meaning the median physician in quartile 4 prescribed antimicrobials at a volume that was 30% higher than that of the median physician in quartile 1.

No significant differences were noted for any clinical outcome with regard to quartile of days of therapy, antimicrobial-free days, or modified spectrum score after adjustment for patient-level characteristics.

In addition, no significant differences in the case mix between quartile 4 and quartile 1 were found when the cohort was restricted to patients admitted and discharged by the same most responsible person, nor were differences found in an analysis that was restricted to those without a discharge diagnosis code of palliative care.

In-hospital mortality was higher among patients cared for by prescribers with higher modified spectrum scores (odds ratio, 1.13). “We still can’t fully explain this finding,” Dr. McIntyre acknowledged. “We only saw that in our primary analysis. When we did several sensitivity analyses, that finding didn’t appear.”

The authors concluded, “Ultimately, without discernible benefit in outcomes of patients of physicians who prescribe more frequently, less antimicrobial exposure may be possible, leading to lower risk of antimicrobial resistance.”
 

Decision-making support

Commenting on the study, Lawrence I. Kaplan, MD, section chief of general internal medicine and associate dean for interprofessional education at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia, said, “Trying to get to the lowest quartile would be a goal, and given that physician characteristics are involved, I think there needs to be much better training in clinical management decision-making: how you come about making a decision based on a diagnosis for a particular patient, in or out of the hospital.” Dr. Kaplan was not involved in the research.

“Clinical decision-making tools that can be plugged into the electronic health record can help,” he suggested. “The tools basically ask if a patient meets certain criteria and then might give a prompt that says, for example, ‘These symptoms are not consistent with bacterial sinusitis. The patient should be treated with decongestants, nasal steroids, et cetera, because antibiotics aren’t appropriate.’

“It’s a bit like checkbox medicine, which a lot of physicians bridle at,” he said. “But if it’s really based on evidence, I think that’s an appropriate use of evidence-based medicine.”

Dr. Kaplan said that more research is needed into the best way to get a physician or any provider to step back and say, “Is this the right decision?” or, “I’m doing this but I’m really on shaky ground. What am I missing?’” He noted that the Society for Medical Decision Making publishes research and resources in this area.

“I love the fact that the paper was authored by an interdisciplinary group,” Dr. Kaplan added. “A pharmacist embedded in the team can, for example, help with treatment decision-making and point out potential drug interactions that prescribers might not be aware of.

“We need to stop practicing medicine siloed, which is what we do a lot of ways, both in the hospital and out of the hospital, because it’s the path of least resistance,” Dr. Kaplan added. “But when we can say, ‘Hey, I have a question about this,’ be it to a computer or a colleague, I would argue that we come up with better care.”

No funding was provided for the study. Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Kaplan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Variability in antimicrobial prescribing among hospital-based physicians is not associated with patient characteristics or clinical outcomes, data suggest. The lowest level of such prescribing within each hospital could be considered a target for antimicrobial stewardship, according to the researchers.

In a multicenter study of 124 physicians responsible for more than 124,000 hospitalized patients, the difference in mean prescribing between the highest and lowest quartiles of prescription volume was 15.8 days of treatment per 100 patient-days.

Baseline patient characteristics were similar across the quartiles, and there were no differences in patient outcomes, including in-hospital deaths, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit transfer, and hospital readmission.

Although the investigators expected variation in prescribing, “what surprised us most was the limited association with any differences in clinical outcomes, particularly when it came to the amount of antimicrobials used,” study author Mark T. McIntyre, PharmD, pharmacotherapy specialist at the Sinai Health System in Toronto, told this news organization.

“Importantly, this is not a study that defines quality of care,” he said. “We looked at natural variation in practice and association with outcomes. So, I don’t want clinicians to think, ‘Well, I’m high, therefore I’m bad,’ or, ‘I’m low, therefore I’m good.’

“This is an early explanatory analysis that asks whether this is an opportunity to optimize prescribing in ways we hadn’t thought of before,” he said. “Now that we don’t have an association with higher or lower prescribing and outcomes, we can look at what else is driving that antimicrobial prescribing and what we can do about it. Comfort level, risk tolerance, and social, cultural, and contextual factors all likely play a role.”

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Antimicrobial reductions possible

The investigators conducted a retrospective cohort study using the General Medicine Inpatient Initiative database to assess physician-level volume and spectrum of antimicrobial prescribing in adult general medical wards. Four academic hospitals in Toronto were evaluated for the period 2010 to 2019.

The investigators stratified physicians into quartiles by hospital site on the basis of volume of antimicrobial prescribing (specifically, days of therapy per 100 patient-days and antimicrobial-free days) and antibacterial spectrum (modified spectrum score, which assigns a value to each antibacterial agent on the basis of its breadth of coverage).

They also examined potential differences between physician quartiles in patient characteristics, such as age, sex, the Laboratory-Based Acute Physiology Score, discharge diagnosis, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index.

Multilevel modeling allowed the investigators to evaluate the association between clinical outcomes and antimicrobial volume and spectrum.

The primary measure was days of therapy per 100 patient-days.

As noted, the cohort included 124 physicians who were responsible for 124,158 hospital admissions. The median physician-level volume of antimicrobial prescribing was 56.1 days of therapy per 100 patient-days. Patient characteristics were balanced across the quartiles of physician prescribing.

The difference in mean prescribing between physician quartile 4 and quartile 1 was 15.8 days of therapy per 100 patient-days, meaning the median physician in quartile 4 prescribed antimicrobials at a volume that was 30% higher than that of the median physician in quartile 1.

No significant differences were noted for any clinical outcome with regard to quartile of days of therapy, antimicrobial-free days, or modified spectrum score after adjustment for patient-level characteristics.

In addition, no significant differences in the case mix between quartile 4 and quartile 1 were found when the cohort was restricted to patients admitted and discharged by the same most responsible person, nor were differences found in an analysis that was restricted to those without a discharge diagnosis code of palliative care.

In-hospital mortality was higher among patients cared for by prescribers with higher modified spectrum scores (odds ratio, 1.13). “We still can’t fully explain this finding,” Dr. McIntyre acknowledged. “We only saw that in our primary analysis. When we did several sensitivity analyses, that finding didn’t appear.”

The authors concluded, “Ultimately, without discernible benefit in outcomes of patients of physicians who prescribe more frequently, less antimicrobial exposure may be possible, leading to lower risk of antimicrobial resistance.”
 

Decision-making support

Commenting on the study, Lawrence I. Kaplan, MD, section chief of general internal medicine and associate dean for interprofessional education at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia, said, “Trying to get to the lowest quartile would be a goal, and given that physician characteristics are involved, I think there needs to be much better training in clinical management decision-making: how you come about making a decision based on a diagnosis for a particular patient, in or out of the hospital.” Dr. Kaplan was not involved in the research.

“Clinical decision-making tools that can be plugged into the electronic health record can help,” he suggested. “The tools basically ask if a patient meets certain criteria and then might give a prompt that says, for example, ‘These symptoms are not consistent with bacterial sinusitis. The patient should be treated with decongestants, nasal steroids, et cetera, because antibiotics aren’t appropriate.’

“It’s a bit like checkbox medicine, which a lot of physicians bridle at,” he said. “But if it’s really based on evidence, I think that’s an appropriate use of evidence-based medicine.”

Dr. Kaplan said that more research is needed into the best way to get a physician or any provider to step back and say, “Is this the right decision?” or, “I’m doing this but I’m really on shaky ground. What am I missing?’” He noted that the Society for Medical Decision Making publishes research and resources in this area.

“I love the fact that the paper was authored by an interdisciplinary group,” Dr. Kaplan added. “A pharmacist embedded in the team can, for example, help with treatment decision-making and point out potential drug interactions that prescribers might not be aware of.

“We need to stop practicing medicine siloed, which is what we do a lot of ways, both in the hospital and out of the hospital, because it’s the path of least resistance,” Dr. Kaplan added. “But when we can say, ‘Hey, I have a question about this,’ be it to a computer or a colleague, I would argue that we come up with better care.”

No funding was provided for the study. Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Kaplan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Variability in antimicrobial prescribing among hospital-based physicians is not associated with patient characteristics or clinical outcomes, data suggest. The lowest level of such prescribing within each hospital could be considered a target for antimicrobial stewardship, according to the researchers.

In a multicenter study of 124 physicians responsible for more than 124,000 hospitalized patients, the difference in mean prescribing between the highest and lowest quartiles of prescription volume was 15.8 days of treatment per 100 patient-days.

Baseline patient characteristics were similar across the quartiles, and there were no differences in patient outcomes, including in-hospital deaths, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit transfer, and hospital readmission.

Although the investigators expected variation in prescribing, “what surprised us most was the limited association with any differences in clinical outcomes, particularly when it came to the amount of antimicrobials used,” study author Mark T. McIntyre, PharmD, pharmacotherapy specialist at the Sinai Health System in Toronto, told this news organization.

“Importantly, this is not a study that defines quality of care,” he said. “We looked at natural variation in practice and association with outcomes. So, I don’t want clinicians to think, ‘Well, I’m high, therefore I’m bad,’ or, ‘I’m low, therefore I’m good.’

“This is an early explanatory analysis that asks whether this is an opportunity to optimize prescribing in ways we hadn’t thought of before,” he said. “Now that we don’t have an association with higher or lower prescribing and outcomes, we can look at what else is driving that antimicrobial prescribing and what we can do about it. Comfort level, risk tolerance, and social, cultural, and contextual factors all likely play a role.”

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Antimicrobial reductions possible

The investigators conducted a retrospective cohort study using the General Medicine Inpatient Initiative database to assess physician-level volume and spectrum of antimicrobial prescribing in adult general medical wards. Four academic hospitals in Toronto were evaluated for the period 2010 to 2019.

The investigators stratified physicians into quartiles by hospital site on the basis of volume of antimicrobial prescribing (specifically, days of therapy per 100 patient-days and antimicrobial-free days) and antibacterial spectrum (modified spectrum score, which assigns a value to each antibacterial agent on the basis of its breadth of coverage).

They also examined potential differences between physician quartiles in patient characteristics, such as age, sex, the Laboratory-Based Acute Physiology Score, discharge diagnosis, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index.

Multilevel modeling allowed the investigators to evaluate the association between clinical outcomes and antimicrobial volume and spectrum.

The primary measure was days of therapy per 100 patient-days.

As noted, the cohort included 124 physicians who were responsible for 124,158 hospital admissions. The median physician-level volume of antimicrobial prescribing was 56.1 days of therapy per 100 patient-days. Patient characteristics were balanced across the quartiles of physician prescribing.

The difference in mean prescribing between physician quartile 4 and quartile 1 was 15.8 days of therapy per 100 patient-days, meaning the median physician in quartile 4 prescribed antimicrobials at a volume that was 30% higher than that of the median physician in quartile 1.

No significant differences were noted for any clinical outcome with regard to quartile of days of therapy, antimicrobial-free days, or modified spectrum score after adjustment for patient-level characteristics.

In addition, no significant differences in the case mix between quartile 4 and quartile 1 were found when the cohort was restricted to patients admitted and discharged by the same most responsible person, nor were differences found in an analysis that was restricted to those without a discharge diagnosis code of palliative care.

In-hospital mortality was higher among patients cared for by prescribers with higher modified spectrum scores (odds ratio, 1.13). “We still can’t fully explain this finding,” Dr. McIntyre acknowledged. “We only saw that in our primary analysis. When we did several sensitivity analyses, that finding didn’t appear.”

The authors concluded, “Ultimately, without discernible benefit in outcomes of patients of physicians who prescribe more frequently, less antimicrobial exposure may be possible, leading to lower risk of antimicrobial resistance.”
 

Decision-making support

Commenting on the study, Lawrence I. Kaplan, MD, section chief of general internal medicine and associate dean for interprofessional education at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia, said, “Trying to get to the lowest quartile would be a goal, and given that physician characteristics are involved, I think there needs to be much better training in clinical management decision-making: how you come about making a decision based on a diagnosis for a particular patient, in or out of the hospital.” Dr. Kaplan was not involved in the research.

“Clinical decision-making tools that can be plugged into the electronic health record can help,” he suggested. “The tools basically ask if a patient meets certain criteria and then might give a prompt that says, for example, ‘These symptoms are not consistent with bacterial sinusitis. The patient should be treated with decongestants, nasal steroids, et cetera, because antibiotics aren’t appropriate.’

“It’s a bit like checkbox medicine, which a lot of physicians bridle at,” he said. “But if it’s really based on evidence, I think that’s an appropriate use of evidence-based medicine.”

Dr. Kaplan said that more research is needed into the best way to get a physician or any provider to step back and say, “Is this the right decision?” or, “I’m doing this but I’m really on shaky ground. What am I missing?’” He noted that the Society for Medical Decision Making publishes research and resources in this area.

“I love the fact that the paper was authored by an interdisciplinary group,” Dr. Kaplan added. “A pharmacist embedded in the team can, for example, help with treatment decision-making and point out potential drug interactions that prescribers might not be aware of.

“We need to stop practicing medicine siloed, which is what we do a lot of ways, both in the hospital and out of the hospital, because it’s the path of least resistance,” Dr. Kaplan added. “But when we can say, ‘Hey, I have a question about this,’ be it to a computer or a colleague, I would argue that we come up with better care.”

No funding was provided for the study. Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Kaplan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The understanding that human papillomavirus (HPV) causes oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) has been linked with increased likelihood of adults having been vaccinated for HPV, new research indicates.

In a study published online in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, most of the 288 adults surveyed with validated questions were not aware that HPV causes OPSCC and had not been told of the relationship by their health care provider.

Researchers found that when participants knew about the relationship between HPV infection and OPSCC they were more than three times as likely to be vaccinated (odds ratio, 3.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-7.6) as those without the knowledge.

The survey was paired with a novel point-of-care adult vaccination program within an otolaryngology clinic. 

“Targeted education aimed at unvaccinated adults establishing the relationship between HPV infection and OPSCC, paired with point-of-care vaccination, may be an innovative strategy for increasing HPV vaccination rates in adults,” write the authors, led by Jacob C. Bloom, MD, with the department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at Boston Medical Center.

Current HPV vaccination recommendations include three parts:

• Routine vaccination at age 11 or 12 years
• Catch-up vaccination at ages 13-26 years if not adequately vaccinated
• Shared clinical decision-making in adults aged 27-45 years if the vaccine series has not been completed.

Despite proven efficacy and safety of the HPV vaccine, vaccination rates are low for adults. Although 75% of adolescents aged 13-17 years have initiated the HPV vaccine, recent studies show only 16% of U.S. men aged 18-21 years have received at least 1 dose of the HPV vaccine, the authors write.

Christiana Zhang, MD, with the division of internal medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who was not part of the study, said she was not surprised by the lack of knowledge about the HPV-OPSCC link.

Patients are often counseled on the relationship between HPV and genital warts or anogenital cancers like cervical cancer, she says, but there is less patient education surrounding the relationship between HPV and oropharyngeal cancers.

She says she does counsel patients on the link with OPSCC, but not all providers do and provider knowledge in general surrounding HPV is low.

“Research has shown that knowledge and confidence among health care providers surrounding HPV vaccination is generally low, and this corresponds with a low vaccination recommendation rate,” she says.

She adds, “Patient education on HPV infection and its relationship with OPSCC, paired with point-of-care vaccination for qualifying patients, is a great approach.”

But the education needs to go beyond patients, she says.

“Given the important role that health care providers play in vaccine uptake, I think further efforts are needed to educate providers on HPV vaccination as well,” she says.

The study included patients aged 18-45 years who sought routine outpatient care at the otolaryngology clinic at Boston Medical Center from Sept. 1, 2020, to May 19, 2021.

Limitations of this study include studying a population from a single otolaryngology clinic in an urban, academic medical center. The population was more racially and ethnically diverse than the U.S. population with 60.3% identifying as racial and ethnic minorities. Gender and educational levels were also not reflective of U.S. demographics as half (50.8%) of the participants had a college degree or higher and 58.3% were women.

Dr. Bloom reports grants from the American Head and Neck Cancer Society during the conduct of the study. Coauthor Dr. Faden reports personal fees from Merck, Neotic, Focus, BMS, Chrystalis Biomedical Advisors, and Guidepoint; receiving nonfinancial support from BostonGene and Predicine; and receiving grants from Calico outside the submitted work. Dr. Zhang reports no relevant financial relationships.

The understanding that human papillomavirus (HPV) causes oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) has been linked with increased likelihood of adults having been vaccinated for HPV, new research indicates.

In a study published online in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, most of the 288 adults surveyed with validated questions were not aware that HPV causes OPSCC and had not been told of the relationship by their health care provider.

Researchers found that when participants knew about the relationship between HPV infection and OPSCC they were more than three times as likely to be vaccinated (odds ratio, 3.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-7.6) as those without the knowledge.

The survey was paired with a novel point-of-care adult vaccination program within an otolaryngology clinic. 

“Targeted education aimed at unvaccinated adults establishing the relationship between HPV infection and OPSCC, paired with point-of-care vaccination, may be an innovative strategy for increasing HPV vaccination rates in adults,” write the authors, led by Jacob C. Bloom, MD, with the department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at Boston Medical Center.

Current HPV vaccination recommendations include three parts:

• Routine vaccination at age 11 or 12 years
• Catch-up vaccination at ages 13-26 years if not adequately vaccinated
• Shared clinical decision-making in adults aged 27-45 years if the vaccine series has not been completed.

Despite proven efficacy and safety of the HPV vaccine, vaccination rates are low for adults. Although 75% of adolescents aged 13-17 years have initiated the HPV vaccine, recent studies show only 16% of U.S. men aged 18-21 years have received at least 1 dose of the HPV vaccine, the authors write.

Christiana Zhang, MD, with the division of internal medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who was not part of the study, said she was not surprised by the lack of knowledge about the HPV-OPSCC link.

Patients are often counseled on the relationship between HPV and genital warts or anogenital cancers like cervical cancer, she says, but there is less patient education surrounding the relationship between HPV and oropharyngeal cancers.

She says she does counsel patients on the link with OPSCC, but not all providers do and provider knowledge in general surrounding HPV is low.

“Research has shown that knowledge and confidence among health care providers surrounding HPV vaccination is generally low, and this corresponds with a low vaccination recommendation rate,” she says.

She adds, “Patient education on HPV infection and its relationship with OPSCC, paired with point-of-care vaccination for qualifying patients, is a great approach.”

But the education needs to go beyond patients, she says.

“Given the important role that health care providers play in vaccine uptake, I think further efforts are needed to educate providers on HPV vaccination as well,” she says.

The study included patients aged 18-45 years who sought routine outpatient care at the otolaryngology clinic at Boston Medical Center from Sept. 1, 2020, to May 19, 2021.

Limitations of this study include studying a population from a single otolaryngology clinic in an urban, academic medical center. The population was more racially and ethnically diverse than the U.S. population with 60.3% identifying as racial and ethnic minorities. Gender and educational levels were also not reflective of U.S. demographics as half (50.8%) of the participants had a college degree or higher and 58.3% were women.

Dr. Bloom reports grants from the American Head and Neck Cancer Society during the conduct of the study. Coauthor Dr. Faden reports personal fees from Merck, Neotic, Focus, BMS, Chrystalis Biomedical Advisors, and Guidepoint; receiving nonfinancial support from BostonGene and Predicine; and receiving grants from Calico outside the submitted work. Dr. Zhang reports no relevant financial relationships.

The understanding that human papillomavirus (HPV) causes oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) has been linked with increased likelihood of adults having been vaccinated for HPV, new research indicates.

In a study published online in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, most of the 288 adults surveyed with validated questions were not aware that HPV causes OPSCC and had not been told of the relationship by their health care provider.

Researchers found that when participants knew about the relationship between HPV infection and OPSCC they were more than three times as likely to be vaccinated (odds ratio, 3.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-7.6) as those without the knowledge.

The survey was paired with a novel point-of-care adult vaccination program within an otolaryngology clinic. 

“Targeted education aimed at unvaccinated adults establishing the relationship between HPV infection and OPSCC, paired with point-of-care vaccination, may be an innovative strategy for increasing HPV vaccination rates in adults,” write the authors, led by Jacob C. Bloom, MD, with the department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at Boston Medical Center.

Current HPV vaccination recommendations include three parts:

• Routine vaccination at age 11 or 12 years
• Catch-up vaccination at ages 13-26 years if not adequately vaccinated
• Shared clinical decision-making in adults aged 27-45 years if the vaccine series has not been completed.

Despite proven efficacy and safety of the HPV vaccine, vaccination rates are low for adults. Although 75% of adolescents aged 13-17 years have initiated the HPV vaccine, recent studies show only 16% of U.S. men aged 18-21 years have received at least 1 dose of the HPV vaccine, the authors write.

Christiana Zhang, MD, with the division of internal medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who was not part of the study, said she was not surprised by the lack of knowledge about the HPV-OPSCC link.

Patients are often counseled on the relationship between HPV and genital warts or anogenital cancers like cervical cancer, she says, but there is less patient education surrounding the relationship between HPV and oropharyngeal cancers.

She says she does counsel patients on the link with OPSCC, but not all providers do and provider knowledge in general surrounding HPV is low.

“Research has shown that knowledge and confidence among health care providers surrounding HPV vaccination is generally low, and this corresponds with a low vaccination recommendation rate,” she says.

She adds, “Patient education on HPV infection and its relationship with OPSCC, paired with point-of-care vaccination for qualifying patients, is a great approach.”

But the education needs to go beyond patients, she says.

“Given the important role that health care providers play in vaccine uptake, I think further efforts are needed to educate providers on HPV vaccination as well,” she says.

The study included patients aged 18-45 years who sought routine outpatient care at the otolaryngology clinic at Boston Medical Center from Sept. 1, 2020, to May 19, 2021.

Limitations of this study include studying a population from a single otolaryngology clinic in an urban, academic medical center. The population was more racially and ethnically diverse than the U.S. population with 60.3% identifying as racial and ethnic minorities. Gender and educational levels were also not reflective of U.S. demographics as half (50.8%) of the participants had a college degree or higher and 58.3% were women.

Dr. Bloom reports grants from the American Head and Neck Cancer Society during the conduct of the study. Coauthor Dr. Faden reports personal fees from Merck, Neotic, Focus, BMS, Chrystalis Biomedical Advisors, and Guidepoint; receiving nonfinancial support from BostonGene and Predicine; and receiving grants from Calico outside the submitted work. Dr. Zhang reports no relevant financial relationships.

SAN DIEGO – The need for antibiotic prophylaxis in dermatologic surgery depends on the type of procedure, the patient, what infection you’re trying to keep at bay, and the type of wound, according to Tissa Hata, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.

Among the many studies in the medical literature that have examined the use of antibiotics to prevent surgical site infections, one study published in 2006 has the largest number of patients to date, Dr. Hata said at a conference on superficial anatomy and cutaneous surgery sponsored by UCSD and Scripps Clinic. In the prospective study of wound infections in patients undergoing dermatologic surgery without prophylactic antibiotics, researchers in Australia prospectively examined 5,091 lesions, mostly nonmelanoma skin cancers, in 2,424 patients over the course of 3 years.

By procedure, the infection rate was highest for skin grafts (8.70%) and wedge excision of the lip or ear (8.57%), followed by skin flap repairs (2.94%), curettage (0.73%), and simple excision and closure (0.54%). By anatomic site, groin excisional surgery had the highest infection rate (10%), followed by surgical procedures below the knee (6.92%), while those performed on the face had a low rate (0.81%). “Based on their analysis, they suggest antibiotic prophylaxis for all procedures below the knee and groin, wedge excisions of the lip and ear, and all skin grafts,” Dr. Hata said.

In 2008, an advisory statement published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology expanded the procedure location and techniques requiring antibiotic prophylaxis to include procedures on the nose and the lower extremity (especially the leg), and for patients with extensive inflammatory disease. According to the statement, in patients without a penicillin allergy, the suggested antibiotic prophylaxis regimen for wedge excision of the lip/ear, flaps on the nose, or all skin grafts include 2 g oral cephalexin or dicloxacillin. In patients with penicillin allergy, the recommended prophylaxis regimen for wedge excision of the lip/ear, flaps on the nose, or all skin grafts include 600 mg oral clindamycin or 500 mg oral azithromycin/clarithromycin.

In the statement, for patients with no penicillin allergy, the suggested prophylaxis regimen for lesions in the groin or on the lower extremities include 2 g oral cephalexin, 1 tablet of oral trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) DS, or 500 mg of levofloxacin. In patients with penicillin allergy, the recommended prophylaxis regimen for lesions on the groin and lower extremities is 1 tablet of TMP-SMX DS or 500 mg of levofloxacin.

In 2020, a meta-analysis of surgical site infections in patients undergoing Mohs surgery of the ear and nose found that there was no difference in infections in those locations whether patients received oral antibiotic prophylaxis or not. “But the researchers did not specify the type of closure, whether it was a graft or a flap closure,” Dr. Hata commented.

Endocarditis prophylaxis

Dr. Hata also discussed antibiotic recommendations for endocarditis prophylaxis, noting that the mortality rate from endocarditis is as high as 76%, and an estimated 40% of affected patients require heart valve replacement within 5-8 years. “But the good news is that fewer than 10 cases have been possibly linked to dermatologic procedures,” she said.

During outpatient dermatologic surgery, the incidence of bacteremia is in the range of 1.9%-3%, similar to the incidence of 2% that occurs spontaneously in healthy adults, according to Dr. Hata. She said that the following activities or procedures pose a much higher risk of bacteremia: mastication (17%-24%), tooth brushing (24%-40%), tooth extraction (60%-90%), and incision and drainage of an abscess (38%).

American Heart Association guidelines from 2007 recommend antibiotic prophylaxis in only the highest-risk categories of patients. These guidelines were updated in 2017 to include patients with transcatheter prosthetic valves and those with prosthetic material in valve repair. “The primary reason for revision of guidelines is that endocarditis is much more likely to result from frequent exposure to random bacteremia associated with daily activity such as brushing our teeth or having a tooth extracted,” Dr. Hata explained. “Prophylaxis may prevent an exceedingly small number of cases. Authors of the guidelines concluded that the risk of antibiotic-associated adverse event exceeds the benefit of prophylactic therapy, and that maintenance of optimal oral health is more important than prophylactic antibiotics.”

The 2017 AHA guidelines recommend antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with the following cardiac conditions: those with a prosthetic cardiac valve including transcatheter-implanted prostheses and homografts; those with previous endocarditis; those with prosthetic material used for heart valve repair, such as annuloplasty rings, chords or clips; cardiac transplantation recipients who develop cardiac valvulopathy; and those with certain types of congenital heart disease, including unrepaired cyanotic CHD, a completely repaired congenital heart defect with a prosthetic material or device during the first 6 months after the procedure, and repaired CHD with residual defects at the site or adjacent to the site of a prosthetic patch or prosthetic device.

Procedures that may require prophylaxis for endocarditis include all dental procedures that involve manipulation of the gingival tissue or the periapical region of teeth or perforation of the oral mucosa, and respiratory tract procedures that involve incision or biopsy of the respiratory mucosa such as tonsillectomy or adenoidectomy. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended for procedures involving the gastrointestinal tract or the genitourinary tract unless an active infection is present. As for skin procedures, the guidelines recommend antibiotic prophylaxis for patients in the high-risk category who undergo a surgical procedure that involves infected skin, skin structure, or musculoskeletal tissue.

In the 2017 AHA guidelines, patients with no penicillin allergy, the suggested antibiotic prophylaxis regimen for endocarditis in non-oral sites includes 2 g oral cephalexin or dicloxacillin, while in patients with penicillin allergy, the suggested prophylaxis for endocarditis in non-oral sites includes 600 mg oral clindamycin or 500 mg oral azithromycin/clarithromycin. In patients without a penicillin allergy, the suggested prophylaxis for endocarditis in oral sites is 2 g oral amoxicillin, while in those with penicillin allergy, the suggested antibiotic prophylaxis for endocarditis in oral sites is 500 mg azithromycin/clarithromycin or doxycycline 100 mg.

“Antibiotic prophylaxis for endocarditis should be given 30-60 minutes prior to surgery, and a follow-up dose of antibiotics is no longer recommended,” Dr. Hata said. “If you forget [to administer the antibiotics] or the patient forgets, antibiotics may be given up to 2 hours after the procedure.”

Dr. Hata reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – The need for antibiotic prophylaxis in dermatologic surgery depends on the type of procedure, the patient, what infection you’re trying to keep at bay, and the type of wound, according to Tissa Hata, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.

Among the many studies in the medical literature that have examined the use of antibiotics to prevent surgical site infections, one study published in 2006 has the largest number of patients to date, Dr. Hata said at a conference on superficial anatomy and cutaneous surgery sponsored by UCSD and Scripps Clinic. In the prospective study of wound infections in patients undergoing dermatologic surgery without prophylactic antibiotics, researchers in Australia prospectively examined 5,091 lesions, mostly nonmelanoma skin cancers, in 2,424 patients over the course of 3 years.

By procedure, the infection rate was highest for skin grafts (8.70%) and wedge excision of the lip or ear (8.57%), followed by skin flap repairs (2.94%), curettage (0.73%), and simple excision and closure (0.54%). By anatomic site, groin excisional surgery had the highest infection rate (10%), followed by surgical procedures below the knee (6.92%), while those performed on the face had a low rate (0.81%). “Based on their analysis, they suggest antibiotic prophylaxis for all procedures below the knee and groin, wedge excisions of the lip and ear, and all skin grafts,” Dr. Hata said.

In 2008, an advisory statement published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology expanded the procedure location and techniques requiring antibiotic prophylaxis to include procedures on the nose and the lower extremity (especially the leg), and for patients with extensive inflammatory disease. According to the statement, in patients without a penicillin allergy, the suggested antibiotic prophylaxis regimen for wedge excision of the lip/ear, flaps on the nose, or all skin grafts include 2 g oral cephalexin or dicloxacillin. In patients with penicillin allergy, the recommended prophylaxis regimen for wedge excision of the lip/ear, flaps on the nose, or all skin grafts include 600 mg oral clindamycin or 500 mg oral azithromycin/clarithromycin.

In the statement, for patients with no penicillin allergy, the suggested prophylaxis regimen for lesions in the groin or on the lower extremities include 2 g oral cephalexin, 1 tablet of oral trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) DS, or 500 mg of levofloxacin. In patients with penicillin allergy, the recommended prophylaxis regimen for lesions on the groin and lower extremities is 1 tablet of TMP-SMX DS or 500 mg of levofloxacin.

In 2020, a meta-analysis of surgical site infections in patients undergoing Mohs surgery of the ear and nose found that there was no difference in infections in those locations whether patients received oral antibiotic prophylaxis or not. “But the researchers did not specify the type of closure, whether it was a graft or a flap closure,” Dr. Hata commented.

Endocarditis prophylaxis

Dr. Hata also discussed antibiotic recommendations for endocarditis prophylaxis, noting that the mortality rate from endocarditis is as high as 76%, and an estimated 40% of affected patients require heart valve replacement within 5-8 years. “But the good news is that fewer than 10 cases have been possibly linked to dermatologic procedures,” she said.

During outpatient dermatologic surgery, the incidence of bacteremia is in the range of 1.9%-3%, similar to the incidence of 2% that occurs spontaneously in healthy adults, according to Dr. Hata. She said that the following activities or procedures pose a much higher risk of bacteremia: mastication (17%-24%), tooth brushing (24%-40%), tooth extraction (60%-90%), and incision and drainage of an abscess (38%).

American Heart Association guidelines from 2007 recommend antibiotic prophylaxis in only the highest-risk categories of patients. These guidelines were updated in 2017 to include patients with transcatheter prosthetic valves and those with prosthetic material in valve repair. “The primary reason for revision of guidelines is that endocarditis is much more likely to result from frequent exposure to random bacteremia associated with daily activity such as brushing our teeth or having a tooth extracted,” Dr. Hata explained. “Prophylaxis may prevent an exceedingly small number of cases. Authors of the guidelines concluded that the risk of antibiotic-associated adverse event exceeds the benefit of prophylactic therapy, and that maintenance of optimal oral health is more important than prophylactic antibiotics.”

The 2017 AHA guidelines recommend antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with the following cardiac conditions: those with a prosthetic cardiac valve including transcatheter-implanted prostheses and homografts; those with previous endocarditis; those with prosthetic material used for heart valve repair, such as annuloplasty rings, chords or clips; cardiac transplantation recipients who develop cardiac valvulopathy; and those with certain types of congenital heart disease, including unrepaired cyanotic CHD, a completely repaired congenital heart defect with a prosthetic material or device during the first 6 months after the procedure, and repaired CHD with residual defects at the site or adjacent to the site of a prosthetic patch or prosthetic device.

Procedures that may require prophylaxis for endocarditis include all dental procedures that involve manipulation of the gingival tissue or the periapical region of teeth or perforation of the oral mucosa, and respiratory tract procedures that involve incision or biopsy of the respiratory mucosa such as tonsillectomy or adenoidectomy. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended for procedures involving the gastrointestinal tract or the genitourinary tract unless an active infection is present. As for skin procedures, the guidelines recommend antibiotic prophylaxis for patients in the high-risk category who undergo a surgical procedure that involves infected skin, skin structure, or musculoskeletal tissue.

In the 2017 AHA guidelines, patients with no penicillin allergy, the suggested antibiotic prophylaxis regimen for endocarditis in non-oral sites includes 2 g oral cephalexin or dicloxacillin, while in patients with penicillin allergy, the suggested prophylaxis for endocarditis in non-oral sites includes 600 mg oral clindamycin or 500 mg oral azithromycin/clarithromycin. In patients without a penicillin allergy, the suggested prophylaxis for endocarditis in oral sites is 2 g oral amoxicillin, while in those with penicillin allergy, the suggested antibiotic prophylaxis for endocarditis in oral sites is 500 mg azithromycin/clarithromycin or doxycycline 100 mg.

“Antibiotic prophylaxis for endocarditis should be given 30-60 minutes prior to surgery, and a follow-up dose of antibiotics is no longer recommended,” Dr. Hata said. “If you forget [to administer the antibiotics] or the patient forgets, antibiotics may be given up to 2 hours after the procedure.”

Dr. Hata reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – The need for antibiotic prophylaxis in dermatologic surgery depends on the type of procedure, the patient, what infection you’re trying to keep at bay, and the type of wound, according to Tissa Hata, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.

Among the many studies in the medical literature that have examined the use of antibiotics to prevent surgical site infections, one study published in 2006 has the largest number of patients to date, Dr. Hata said at a conference on superficial anatomy and cutaneous surgery sponsored by UCSD and Scripps Clinic. In the prospective study of wound infections in patients undergoing dermatologic surgery without prophylactic antibiotics, researchers in Australia prospectively examined 5,091 lesions, mostly nonmelanoma skin cancers, in 2,424 patients over the course of 3 years.

By procedure, the infection rate was highest for skin grafts (8.70%) and wedge excision of the lip or ear (8.57%), followed by skin flap repairs (2.94%), curettage (0.73%), and simple excision and closure (0.54%). By anatomic site, groin excisional surgery had the highest infection rate (10%), followed by surgical procedures below the knee (6.92%), while those performed on the face had a low rate (0.81%). “Based on their analysis, they suggest antibiotic prophylaxis for all procedures below the knee and groin, wedge excisions of the lip and ear, and all skin grafts,” Dr. Hata said.

In 2008, an advisory statement published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology expanded the procedure location and techniques requiring antibiotic prophylaxis to include procedures on the nose and the lower extremity (especially the leg), and for patients with extensive inflammatory disease. According to the statement, in patients without a penicillin allergy, the suggested antibiotic prophylaxis regimen for wedge excision of the lip/ear, flaps on the nose, or all skin grafts include 2 g oral cephalexin or dicloxacillin. In patients with penicillin allergy, the recommended prophylaxis regimen for wedge excision of the lip/ear, flaps on the nose, or all skin grafts include 600 mg oral clindamycin or 500 mg oral azithromycin/clarithromycin.

In the statement, for patients with no penicillin allergy, the suggested prophylaxis regimen for lesions in the groin or on the lower extremities include 2 g oral cephalexin, 1 tablet of oral trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) DS, or 500 mg of levofloxacin. In patients with penicillin allergy, the recommended prophylaxis regimen for lesions on the groin and lower extremities is 1 tablet of TMP-SMX DS or 500 mg of levofloxacin.

In 2020, a meta-analysis of surgical site infections in patients undergoing Mohs surgery of the ear and nose found that there was no difference in infections in those locations whether patients received oral antibiotic prophylaxis or not. “But the researchers did not specify the type of closure, whether it was a graft or a flap closure,” Dr. Hata commented.

Endocarditis prophylaxis

Dr. Hata also discussed antibiotic recommendations for endocarditis prophylaxis, noting that the mortality rate from endocarditis is as high as 76%, and an estimated 40% of affected patients require heart valve replacement within 5-8 years. “But the good news is that fewer than 10 cases have been possibly linked to dermatologic procedures,” she said.

During outpatient dermatologic surgery, the incidence of bacteremia is in the range of 1.9%-3%, similar to the incidence of 2% that occurs spontaneously in healthy adults, according to Dr. Hata. She said that the following activities or procedures pose a much higher risk of bacteremia: mastication (17%-24%), tooth brushing (24%-40%), tooth extraction (60%-90%), and incision and drainage of an abscess (38%).

American Heart Association guidelines from 2007 recommend antibiotic prophylaxis in only the highest-risk categories of patients. These guidelines were updated in 2017 to include patients with transcatheter prosthetic valves and those with prosthetic material in valve repair. “The primary reason for revision of guidelines is that endocarditis is much more likely to result from frequent exposure to random bacteremia associated with daily activity such as brushing our teeth or having a tooth extracted,” Dr. Hata explained. “Prophylaxis may prevent an exceedingly small number of cases. Authors of the guidelines concluded that the risk of antibiotic-associated adverse event exceeds the benefit of prophylactic therapy, and that maintenance of optimal oral health is more important than prophylactic antibiotics.”

The 2017 AHA guidelines recommend antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with the following cardiac conditions: those with a prosthetic cardiac valve including transcatheter-implanted prostheses and homografts; those with previous endocarditis; those with prosthetic material used for heart valve repair, such as annuloplasty rings, chords or clips; cardiac transplantation recipients who develop cardiac valvulopathy; and those with certain types of congenital heart disease, including unrepaired cyanotic CHD, a completely repaired congenital heart defect with a prosthetic material or device during the first 6 months after the procedure, and repaired CHD with residual defects at the site or adjacent to the site of a prosthetic patch or prosthetic device.

Procedures that may require prophylaxis for endocarditis include all dental procedures that involve manipulation of the gingival tissue or the periapical region of teeth or perforation of the oral mucosa, and respiratory tract procedures that involve incision or biopsy of the respiratory mucosa such as tonsillectomy or adenoidectomy. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended for procedures involving the gastrointestinal tract or the genitourinary tract unless an active infection is present. As for skin procedures, the guidelines recommend antibiotic prophylaxis for patients in the high-risk category who undergo a surgical procedure that involves infected skin, skin structure, or musculoskeletal tissue.

In the 2017 AHA guidelines, patients with no penicillin allergy, the suggested antibiotic prophylaxis regimen for endocarditis in non-oral sites includes 2 g oral cephalexin or dicloxacillin, while in patients with penicillin allergy, the suggested prophylaxis for endocarditis in non-oral sites includes 600 mg oral clindamycin or 500 mg oral azithromycin/clarithromycin. In patients without a penicillin allergy, the suggested prophylaxis for endocarditis in oral sites is 2 g oral amoxicillin, while in those with penicillin allergy, the suggested antibiotic prophylaxis for endocarditis in oral sites is 500 mg azithromycin/clarithromycin or doxycycline 100 mg.

“Antibiotic prophylaxis for endocarditis should be given 30-60 minutes prior to surgery, and a follow-up dose of antibiotics is no longer recommended,” Dr. Hata said. “If you forget [to administer the antibiotics] or the patient forgets, antibiotics may be given up to 2 hours after the procedure.”

Dr. Hata reported having no relevant disclosures.

Pregnant women with atopic dermatitis (AD) are more likely to be colonized with group B streptococcus (GBS), compared with other pregnant women, results from a large cross-sectional study suggest.

“The rate of GBS colonization among pregnant females with a history of AD has not been previously reported, but AD could be a risk factor for maternal carriage of GBS,” corresponding author David J. Margolis, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published as a letter to the editor online in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology. “GBS reporting in a large administrative database represents a unique opportunity to conduct a population-based evaluation of GBS carriage with AD. Understanding this association could expand our understanding of microbial changes associated with AD,” they noted.

To determine if an association between GBS and AD in pregnant women exists, the researchers performed a cross-sectional study using a random sample from an Optum administrative database of pregnant women who had vaginal deliveries between May of 2007 and September 2021. The primary outcome of interest was the presence of GBS based on American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists–recommended codes for GBS during 36 0/7 to 37 6/7 weeks of pregnancy. They used descriptive statistics to summarize categorical and continuous variables as proportions and means, and logistic regression to examine the association between AD and GBS status.

The cohort included 566,467 pregnant women with an average age of 38.8 years. Of these, 2.9% had a diagnosis of AD or a history of AD, and 24.9% had diagnoses of asthma, seasonal allergies, or both. Women with AD had an increased odds ratio of asthma (OR, 2.55), seasonal allergies (OR, 3.39), or both (OR, 5.35), compared with those without AD.

GBS was reported in 20.6% of the cohort. The median time of follow-up for those with and without GBS was 494 days and 468 days, respectively (P = .134). Among the women with AD, 24.1% had GBS, compared with 20.51% of the women without AD (P <.0001), which translated into an OR of 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.27).

Among the women with GBS, the OR of asthma was 1.08 (95% CI, 1.06-1.10) and was 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.09) among those with seasonal allergies. When adjusted for potential confounders, these findings did not change substantively.

“It is not apparent why pregnant females with AD are more likely to specifically carry GBS,” the authors wrote. “However, several studies have shown that individuals with AD are more likely to carry [Staphylococcus] aureus and that individuals with AD might be deficient in host defenses against S. aureus and other pathogens,” they added.

“Individuals with AD frequently receive antibiotics as part of their AD treatment and this might alter their resident microbiome. Carriage rates may be enhanced by the inhibition of an important barrier protein called filaggrin (FLG) and FLG loss of function genetic variation is known to decrease barrier proteins thought to inhibit the colonization of S. aureus and other pathogens,” the researchers wrote.

They acknowledged certain limitations of their study, including its reliance on an administrative database that does not contain information on past disease.

Asked to comment on the results, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was not involved with the study, characterized AD as “the poster child for cutaneous dysbiosis – an altered petri dish, so to speak, [that] facilitates survival of the few, leading to decreased microbial diversity that can both enable potential pathogen invasion and immune dysregulation.”

Though it’s not surprising that pregnant AD patients have dysbiosis, the focus on GBS, “which can be a bad actor in the perinatal period, is an interesting connection,” he said. “Will this change practices? Pregnant women should be screened for GBS regardless, but maybe more attention or counseling can be offered to AD patients about the importance of screening. Would decolonization regimens be employed early in pregnancy? This study can’t answer that but certainly raises good questions.”

Dr. Margolis disclosed that he is or recently has been a consultant for Pfizer, Leo, and Sanofi with respect to studies of atopic dermatitis and served on an advisory board for the National Eczema Association. Another author disclosed receiving grants from companies related to work with AD; other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant disclosures.

Pregnant women with atopic dermatitis (AD) are more likely to be colonized with group B streptococcus (GBS), compared with other pregnant women, results from a large cross-sectional study suggest.

“The rate of GBS colonization among pregnant females with a history of AD has not been previously reported, but AD could be a risk factor for maternal carriage of GBS,” corresponding author David J. Margolis, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published as a letter to the editor online in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology. “GBS reporting in a large administrative database represents a unique opportunity to conduct a population-based evaluation of GBS carriage with AD. Understanding this association could expand our understanding of microbial changes associated with AD,” they noted.

To determine if an association between GBS and AD in pregnant women exists, the researchers performed a cross-sectional study using a random sample from an Optum administrative database of pregnant women who had vaginal deliveries between May of 2007 and September 2021. The primary outcome of interest was the presence of GBS based on American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists–recommended codes for GBS during 36 0/7 to 37 6/7 weeks of pregnancy. They used descriptive statistics to summarize categorical and continuous variables as proportions and means, and logistic regression to examine the association between AD and GBS status.

The cohort included 566,467 pregnant women with an average age of 38.8 years. Of these, 2.9% had a diagnosis of AD or a history of AD, and 24.9% had diagnoses of asthma, seasonal allergies, or both. Women with AD had an increased odds ratio of asthma (OR, 2.55), seasonal allergies (OR, 3.39), or both (OR, 5.35), compared with those without AD.

GBS was reported in 20.6% of the cohort. The median time of follow-up for those with and without GBS was 494 days and 468 days, respectively (P = .134). Among the women with AD, 24.1% had GBS, compared with 20.51% of the women without AD (P <.0001), which translated into an OR of 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.27).

Among the women with GBS, the OR of asthma was 1.08 (95% CI, 1.06-1.10) and was 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.09) among those with seasonal allergies. When adjusted for potential confounders, these findings did not change substantively.

“It is not apparent why pregnant females with AD are more likely to specifically carry GBS,” the authors wrote. “However, several studies have shown that individuals with AD are more likely to carry [Staphylococcus] aureus and that individuals with AD might be deficient in host defenses against S. aureus and other pathogens,” they added.

“Individuals with AD frequently receive antibiotics as part of their AD treatment and this might alter their resident microbiome. Carriage rates may be enhanced by the inhibition of an important barrier protein called filaggrin (FLG) and FLG loss of function genetic variation is known to decrease barrier proteins thought to inhibit the colonization of S. aureus and other pathogens,” the researchers wrote.

They acknowledged certain limitations of their study, including its reliance on an administrative database that does not contain information on past disease.

Asked to comment on the results, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was not involved with the study, characterized AD as “the poster child for cutaneous dysbiosis – an altered petri dish, so to speak, [that] facilitates survival of the few, leading to decreased microbial diversity that can both enable potential pathogen invasion and immune dysregulation.”

Though it’s not surprising that pregnant AD patients have dysbiosis, the focus on GBS, “which can be a bad actor in the perinatal period, is an interesting connection,” he said. “Will this change practices? Pregnant women should be screened for GBS regardless, but maybe more attention or counseling can be offered to AD patients about the importance of screening. Would decolonization regimens be employed early in pregnancy? This study can’t answer that but certainly raises good questions.”

Dr. Margolis disclosed that he is or recently has been a consultant for Pfizer, Leo, and Sanofi with respect to studies of atopic dermatitis and served on an advisory board for the National Eczema Association. Another author disclosed receiving grants from companies related to work with AD; other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant disclosures.

Pregnant women with atopic dermatitis (AD) are more likely to be colonized with group B streptococcus (GBS), compared with other pregnant women, results from a large cross-sectional study suggest.

“The rate of GBS colonization among pregnant females with a history of AD has not been previously reported, but AD could be a risk factor for maternal carriage of GBS,” corresponding author David J. Margolis, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published as a letter to the editor online in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology. “GBS reporting in a large administrative database represents a unique opportunity to conduct a population-based evaluation of GBS carriage with AD. Understanding this association could expand our understanding of microbial changes associated with AD,” they noted.

To determine if an association between GBS and AD in pregnant women exists, the researchers performed a cross-sectional study using a random sample from an Optum administrative database of pregnant women who had vaginal deliveries between May of 2007 and September 2021. The primary outcome of interest was the presence of GBS based on American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists–recommended codes for GBS during 36 0/7 to 37 6/7 weeks of pregnancy. They used descriptive statistics to summarize categorical and continuous variables as proportions and means, and logistic regression to examine the association between AD and GBS status.

The cohort included 566,467 pregnant women with an average age of 38.8 years. Of these, 2.9% had a diagnosis of AD or a history of AD, and 24.9% had diagnoses of asthma, seasonal allergies, or both. Women with AD had an increased odds ratio of asthma (OR, 2.55), seasonal allergies (OR, 3.39), or both (OR, 5.35), compared with those without AD.

GBS was reported in 20.6% of the cohort. The median time of follow-up for those with and without GBS was 494 days and 468 days, respectively (P = .134). Among the women with AD, 24.1% had GBS, compared with 20.51% of the women without AD (P <.0001), which translated into an OR of 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.27).

Among the women with GBS, the OR of asthma was 1.08 (95% CI, 1.06-1.10) and was 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.09) among those with seasonal allergies. When adjusted for potential confounders, these findings did not change substantively.

“It is not apparent why pregnant females with AD are more likely to specifically carry GBS,” the authors wrote. “However, several studies have shown that individuals with AD are more likely to carry [Staphylococcus] aureus and that individuals with AD might be deficient in host defenses against S. aureus and other pathogens,” they added.

“Individuals with AD frequently receive antibiotics as part of their AD treatment and this might alter their resident microbiome. Carriage rates may be enhanced by the inhibition of an important barrier protein called filaggrin (FLG) and FLG loss of function genetic variation is known to decrease barrier proteins thought to inhibit the colonization of S. aureus and other pathogens,” the researchers wrote.

They acknowledged certain limitations of their study, including its reliance on an administrative database that does not contain information on past disease.

Asked to comment on the results, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was not involved with the study, characterized AD as “the poster child for cutaneous dysbiosis – an altered petri dish, so to speak, [that] facilitates survival of the few, leading to decreased microbial diversity that can both enable potential pathogen invasion and immune dysregulation.”

Though it’s not surprising that pregnant AD patients have dysbiosis, the focus on GBS, “which can be a bad actor in the perinatal period, is an interesting connection,” he said. “Will this change practices? Pregnant women should be screened for GBS regardless, but maybe more attention or counseling can be offered to AD patients about the importance of screening. Would decolonization regimens be employed early in pregnancy? This study can’t answer that but certainly raises good questions.”

Dr. Margolis disclosed that he is or recently has been a consultant for Pfizer, Leo, and Sanofi with respect to studies of atopic dermatitis and served on an advisory board for the National Eczema Association. Another author disclosed receiving grants from companies related to work with AD; other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant disclosures.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is expanding its recommendation for antiretrovirals in HIV now that more options are available on the market.

“With these new options we could potentially extend pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to a wider population,” says James Stevermer, MD, a member of the task force and a professor of family and community medicine at the University of Missouri–Columbia.

The guidance, published in JAMA, updates the group’s previous recommendation from 2019 to take into account the new options that have become available since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals that included a long-acting injectable form.

In the original report, daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with emtricitabine was the only approved medication available and the task force recommended it. Since then, two new regimens have been approved: daily oral tenofovir alafenamide with emtricitabine and the long-acting injectable cabotegravir.

The task force is backing all three options and is recommending that clinicians use whichever formulation is most appropriate for their patients at risk for HIV infection.
 

Task force in primary and preventive care

The USPSTF is a volunteer group of experts in primary and preventive care who make recommendations on the best preventative interventions clinicians should take on everything from cancer screening, to preventive aspirin use, to behavioral counseling. The group is convened and supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Recommendations from this group are particularly helpful for clinicians who may not see HIV as their area of expertise, says Carolyn Chu, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of HIV Medicine. “Hopefully, this will catch the eye of people who are not tracking all of the HIV updates,” she says.

A person’s risk for infection is mostly based on their behavior, Dr. Stevermer says. Those who use injectable drugs, particularly if they share needles, those who use condoms inconsistently and do not know their partner’s HIV status, and those who have recently had bacterial sexually transmitted infections like gonorrhea and syphilis are all at higher risk.

The efficacy of each of the three options is close enough to equal that it doesn’t usually matter which is prescribed, according to the task force. However, daily oral tenofovir alafenamide with emtricitabine is not approved for use by people engaging in receptive vaginal sex. For most people, the best medication option is the one they are most likely able to integrate into their routine. Cabotegravir, for example, which requires injections every 2 months, is an easier method for some people, particularly those who don’t think they could successfully take a daily pill.
 

Reducing risk

“The evidence is very clear that being able to adhere to taking the medication daily was very closely associated with the effectiveness of PrEP,” Dr. Stevermer says. “So, everything that we can do to make sure that the person who wants to prevent HIV is getting their PrEP as it is supposed to be taken makes it that much more effective.”

Expanding access to antiretrovirals among at-risk groups is an important part of the Ending the HIV Epidemic in the United States initiative that aims to reduce new HIV cases by 90% by 2030.

But an editorial published alongside the recommendation in JAMA notes that uptake of PrEP has been disproportionately low among populations most heavily affected by HIV.

In 2021, 78% of White people expected to benefit from PrEP received it, compared with just 11% of Black people and 21% of Hispanic people, despite both of those populations having a higher incidence of HIV than Whites. PrEP use is also substantially lower among cisgender and transgender women, youth, and people who inject drugs.

“We have an intervention that can markedly reduce people’s risk of getting HIV and so we want to make sure we get this out to all those populations at increased risk,” Dr. Stevermer says.

Having multiple options when it comes to PrEP is a big part of expanding access to the treatment for underserved groups, Dr. Chu says. “Even though oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with emtricitabine has been out for a while, we know it’s not getting to everyone, and there may be clinical circumstances that means it’s not the right option,” she says. “Making sure we are supporting choices so people can make the decision for themselves is important.”

But doctors also need to be willing to have an open conversation with their patients and bring up the topic of PrEP in a way that doesn’t feel judgmental or stigmatizing, Dr. Chu says.

It is also important not to make assumptions about who would want to talk about medication, she adds. “How can we change the narrative around PrEP?” she asks. “The evidence is there, these medications are effective and safe; weave PrEP into your preventive care portfolio to at least start the conversation.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is expanding its recommendation for antiretrovirals in HIV now that more options are available on the market.

“With these new options we could potentially extend pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to a wider population,” says James Stevermer, MD, a member of the task force and a professor of family and community medicine at the University of Missouri–Columbia.

The guidance, published in JAMA, updates the group’s previous recommendation from 2019 to take into account the new options that have become available since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals that included a long-acting injectable form.

In the original report, daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with emtricitabine was the only approved medication available and the task force recommended it. Since then, two new regimens have been approved: daily oral tenofovir alafenamide with emtricitabine and the long-acting injectable cabotegravir.

The task force is backing all three options and is recommending that clinicians use whichever formulation is most appropriate for their patients at risk for HIV infection.
 

Task force in primary and preventive care

The USPSTF is a volunteer group of experts in primary and preventive care who make recommendations on the best preventative interventions clinicians should take on everything from cancer screening, to preventive aspirin use, to behavioral counseling. The group is convened and supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Recommendations from this group are particularly helpful for clinicians who may not see HIV as their area of expertise, says Carolyn Chu, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of HIV Medicine. “Hopefully, this will catch the eye of people who are not tracking all of the HIV updates,” she says.

A person’s risk for infection is mostly based on their behavior, Dr. Stevermer says. Those who use injectable drugs, particularly if they share needles, those who use condoms inconsistently and do not know their partner’s HIV status, and those who have recently had bacterial sexually transmitted infections like gonorrhea and syphilis are all at higher risk.

The efficacy of each of the three options is close enough to equal that it doesn’t usually matter which is prescribed, according to the task force. However, daily oral tenofovir alafenamide with emtricitabine is not approved for use by people engaging in receptive vaginal sex. For most people, the best medication option is the one they are most likely able to integrate into their routine. Cabotegravir, for example, which requires injections every 2 months, is an easier method for some people, particularly those who don’t think they could successfully take a daily pill.
 

Reducing risk

“The evidence is very clear that being able to adhere to taking the medication daily was very closely associated with the effectiveness of PrEP,” Dr. Stevermer says. “So, everything that we can do to make sure that the person who wants to prevent HIV is getting their PrEP as it is supposed to be taken makes it that much more effective.”

Expanding access to antiretrovirals among at-risk groups is an important part of the Ending the HIV Epidemic in the United States initiative that aims to reduce new HIV cases by 90% by 2030.

But an editorial published alongside the recommendation in JAMA notes that uptake of PrEP has been disproportionately low among populations most heavily affected by HIV.

In 2021, 78% of White people expected to benefit from PrEP received it, compared with just 11% of Black people and 21% of Hispanic people, despite both of those populations having a higher incidence of HIV than Whites. PrEP use is also substantially lower among cisgender and transgender women, youth, and people who inject drugs.

“We have an intervention that can markedly reduce people’s risk of getting HIV and so we want to make sure we get this out to all those populations at increased risk,” Dr. Stevermer says.

Having multiple options when it comes to PrEP is a big part of expanding access to the treatment for underserved groups, Dr. Chu says. “Even though oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with emtricitabine has been out for a while, we know it’s not getting to everyone, and there may be clinical circumstances that means it’s not the right option,” she says. “Making sure we are supporting choices so people can make the decision for themselves is important.”

But doctors also need to be willing to have an open conversation with their patients and bring up the topic of PrEP in a way that doesn’t feel judgmental or stigmatizing, Dr. Chu says.

It is also important not to make assumptions about who would want to talk about medication, she adds. “How can we change the narrative around PrEP?” she asks. “The evidence is there, these medications are effective and safe; weave PrEP into your preventive care portfolio to at least start the conversation.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is expanding its recommendation for antiretrovirals in HIV now that more options are available on the market.

“With these new options we could potentially extend pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to a wider population,” says James Stevermer, MD, a member of the task force and a professor of family and community medicine at the University of Missouri–Columbia.

The guidance, published in JAMA, updates the group’s previous recommendation from 2019 to take into account the new options that have become available since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals that included a long-acting injectable form.

In the original report, daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with emtricitabine was the only approved medication available and the task force recommended it. Since then, two new regimens have been approved: daily oral tenofovir alafenamide with emtricitabine and the long-acting injectable cabotegravir.

The task force is backing all three options and is recommending that clinicians use whichever formulation is most appropriate for their patients at risk for HIV infection.
 

Task force in primary and preventive care

The USPSTF is a volunteer group of experts in primary and preventive care who make recommendations on the best preventative interventions clinicians should take on everything from cancer screening, to preventive aspirin use, to behavioral counseling. The group is convened and supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Recommendations from this group are particularly helpful for clinicians who may not see HIV as their area of expertise, says Carolyn Chu, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of HIV Medicine. “Hopefully, this will catch the eye of people who are not tracking all of the HIV updates,” she says.

A person’s risk for infection is mostly based on their behavior, Dr. Stevermer says. Those who use injectable drugs, particularly if they share needles, those who use condoms inconsistently and do not know their partner’s HIV status, and those who have recently had bacterial sexually transmitted infections like gonorrhea and syphilis are all at higher risk.

The efficacy of each of the three options is close enough to equal that it doesn’t usually matter which is prescribed, according to the task force. However, daily oral tenofovir alafenamide with emtricitabine is not approved for use by people engaging in receptive vaginal sex. For most people, the best medication option is the one they are most likely able to integrate into their routine. Cabotegravir, for example, which requires injections every 2 months, is an easier method for some people, particularly those who don’t think they could successfully take a daily pill.
 

Reducing risk

“The evidence is very clear that being able to adhere to taking the medication daily was very closely associated with the effectiveness of PrEP,” Dr. Stevermer says. “So, everything that we can do to make sure that the person who wants to prevent HIV is getting their PrEP as it is supposed to be taken makes it that much more effective.”

Expanding access to antiretrovirals among at-risk groups is an important part of the Ending the HIV Epidemic in the United States initiative that aims to reduce new HIV cases by 90% by 2030.

But an editorial published alongside the recommendation in JAMA notes that uptake of PrEP has been disproportionately low among populations most heavily affected by HIV.

In 2021, 78% of White people expected to benefit from PrEP received it, compared with just 11% of Black people and 21% of Hispanic people, despite both of those populations having a higher incidence of HIV than Whites. PrEP use is also substantially lower among cisgender and transgender women, youth, and people who inject drugs.

“We have an intervention that can markedly reduce people’s risk of getting HIV and so we want to make sure we get this out to all those populations at increased risk,” Dr. Stevermer says.

Having multiple options when it comes to PrEP is a big part of expanding access to the treatment for underserved groups, Dr. Chu says. “Even though oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with emtricitabine has been out for a while, we know it’s not getting to everyone, and there may be clinical circumstances that means it’s not the right option,” she says. “Making sure we are supporting choices so people can make the decision for themselves is important.”

But doctors also need to be willing to have an open conversation with their patients and bring up the topic of PrEP in a way that doesn’t feel judgmental or stigmatizing, Dr. Chu says.

It is also important not to make assumptions about who would want to talk about medication, she adds. “How can we change the narrative around PrEP?” she asks. “The evidence is there, these medications are effective and safe; weave PrEP into your preventive care portfolio to at least start the conversation.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For the first time in the fall of 2023, families will be offered season-long protection for infants and some children against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

The Food and Drug Administration in July approved a prevention called nirsevimab (Beyfortus, AstraZeneca/Sanofi) and it is expected to be widely rolled out in the coming weeks as the RSV season begins.

It’s not a vaccine, but a monoclonal antibody used for prevention. That may cause confusion because a vaccine for RSV was approved just 3 months ago for adults aged 60 and older. And monoclonal antibodies are often used for treatment rather than prevention.

Adding to potential confusion is the fact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has included nirsevimab in the Vaccines for Children program, which covers the costs for uninsured kids and makes it more accessible.

Nirsevimab is approved for infants (up to 8 months old) born during or entering their first RSV season, and in children up to 2 years of age who are still vulnerable to severe RSV through their second season.

It’s recommended that all infants get one injection in their first 8 months for prevention instead of the previous monthly shots used to help prevent kids at high risk from getting severe RSV.

If monoclonal antibodies can be used for preventing disease in infants, could they become a viable vaccine alternative for adults?

Specialists say no.

That’s partly because of the difference in body size. Although an injection is an option for a newborn, pediatricians suggest, it would take far too much of the treatment to work as a shot for adults.

Ruth Karron, MD, an expert in pediatric infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said that, while vaccines come in small amounts and activate immune cells, monoclonal antibodies are more like a drug, with the dose based on weight.

“You’d have to give it intravenously,” for larger doses, she explained, which has never been studied before and would also be very expensive. “It really couldn’t be an option for adults.”
 

What’s the difference between vaccines and antibodies?

Monoclonal antibodies are proteins made in a lab to mimic the immune system’s ability to fight pathogens such as viruses.

Dr. Karron explained that a wide variety of monoclonal antibodies have long been used to treat diseases such as cancers and autoimmune disease. In recent years, the antibodies have been used to treat COVID.

Monoclonal antibodies have also been used to treat RSV in children, but the effects don’t last long – they confer passive immunity and “when it’s gone, it’s gone,” Dr. Karron said.

That means kids at high risk for severe RSV have had to get monthly injections.

But with nirsevimab, the mutated antibodies stay in circulation longer so they can last 5 or 6 months, enough to cover the RSV season, Dr. Karron explained. “It’s highly, highly effective.”
 

Vaccines train the body

“The idea with vaccines is that you engage the individual’s immune system. You teach it to make antibodies,” Dr. Karron said. Conversely, “you give an antibody and it’s good for as long as the antibody lasts. It’s not teaching your body anything.”

Frank Esper, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s Hospital, said monoclonal antibody protection for RSV is particularly welcome. “We’ve been trying to make an RSV vaccine since the 1960s and have done nothing but fail miserably.”

“The best thing is always a vaccine,” Dr. Esper said, explaining that vaccines teach the body to make its own antibodies and confer long-term protection and are “probably more efficacious than anything that’s ever manmade.

“But since we’ve really not done very well for pediatric RSV vaccines, nirsevimab is certainly something I’m looking forward to,” he said.
 

Fast-acting monoclonal antibodies

An advantage for monoclonal antibodies is that they start working almost immediately.

Children can get sick with RSV in the first few months of life so the speed of the monoclonal antibodies to begin protection is important, Dr. Esper said, adding that RSV “is the worst during the first year of life.”

The peak age for babies getting infected enough to require hospitalization is about 2 months, he said.

By 14 months, he said, kids’ immune systems and airways have matured enough “that it’s not nearly as bad.”

To get protection from a vaccine, he added, “usually takes 2-4 weeks from the time you get your shot to the time you see some benefit. With an antibody, you’re bypassing the processing that the body has to do, and it goes straight to ‘protection’ mode,” Dr. Esper said. “You get protected pretty much as soon as you get the antibody.”

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

For the first time in the fall of 2023, families will be offered season-long protection for infants and some children against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

The Food and Drug Administration in July approved a prevention called nirsevimab (Beyfortus, AstraZeneca/Sanofi) and it is expected to be widely rolled out in the coming weeks as the RSV season begins.

It’s not a vaccine, but a monoclonal antibody used for prevention. That may cause confusion because a vaccine for RSV was approved just 3 months ago for adults aged 60 and older. And monoclonal antibodies are often used for treatment rather than prevention.

Adding to potential confusion is the fact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has included nirsevimab in the Vaccines for Children program, which covers the costs for uninsured kids and makes it more accessible.

Nirsevimab is approved for infants (up to 8 months old) born during or entering their first RSV season, and in children up to 2 years of age who are still vulnerable to severe RSV through their second season.

It’s recommended that all infants get one injection in their first 8 months for prevention instead of the previous monthly shots used to help prevent kids at high risk from getting severe RSV.

If monoclonal antibodies can be used for preventing disease in infants, could they become a viable vaccine alternative for adults?

Specialists say no.

That’s partly because of the difference in body size. Although an injection is an option for a newborn, pediatricians suggest, it would take far too much of the treatment to work as a shot for adults.

Ruth Karron, MD, an expert in pediatric infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said that, while vaccines come in small amounts and activate immune cells, monoclonal antibodies are more like a drug, with the dose based on weight.

“You’d have to give it intravenously,” for larger doses, she explained, which has never been studied before and would also be very expensive. “It really couldn’t be an option for adults.”
 

What’s the difference between vaccines and antibodies?

Monoclonal antibodies are proteins made in a lab to mimic the immune system’s ability to fight pathogens such as viruses.

Dr. Karron explained that a wide variety of monoclonal antibodies have long been used to treat diseases such as cancers and autoimmune disease. In recent years, the antibodies have been used to treat COVID.

Monoclonal antibodies have also been used to treat RSV in children, but the effects don’t last long – they confer passive immunity and “when it’s gone, it’s gone,” Dr. Karron said.

That means kids at high risk for severe RSV have had to get monthly injections.

But with nirsevimab, the mutated antibodies stay in circulation longer so they can last 5 or 6 months, enough to cover the RSV season, Dr. Karron explained. “It’s highly, highly effective.”
 

Vaccines train the body

“The idea with vaccines is that you engage the individual’s immune system. You teach it to make antibodies,” Dr. Karron said. Conversely, “you give an antibody and it’s good for as long as the antibody lasts. It’s not teaching your body anything.”

Frank Esper, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s Hospital, said monoclonal antibody protection for RSV is particularly welcome. “We’ve been trying to make an RSV vaccine since the 1960s and have done nothing but fail miserably.”

“The best thing is always a vaccine,” Dr. Esper said, explaining that vaccines teach the body to make its own antibodies and confer long-term protection and are “probably more efficacious than anything that’s ever manmade.

“But since we’ve really not done very well for pediatric RSV vaccines, nirsevimab is certainly something I’m looking forward to,” he said.
 

Fast-acting monoclonal antibodies

An advantage for monoclonal antibodies is that they start working almost immediately.

Children can get sick with RSV in the first few months of life so the speed of the monoclonal antibodies to begin protection is important, Dr. Esper said, adding that RSV “is the worst during the first year of life.”

The peak age for babies getting infected enough to require hospitalization is about 2 months, he said.

By 14 months, he said, kids’ immune systems and airways have matured enough “that it’s not nearly as bad.”

To get protection from a vaccine, he added, “usually takes 2-4 weeks from the time you get your shot to the time you see some benefit. With an antibody, you’re bypassing the processing that the body has to do, and it goes straight to ‘protection’ mode,” Dr. Esper said. “You get protected pretty much as soon as you get the antibody.”

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

For the first time in the fall of 2023, families will be offered season-long protection for infants and some children against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

The Food and Drug Administration in July approved a prevention called nirsevimab (Beyfortus, AstraZeneca/Sanofi) and it is expected to be widely rolled out in the coming weeks as the RSV season begins.

It’s not a vaccine, but a monoclonal antibody used for prevention. That may cause confusion because a vaccine for RSV was approved just 3 months ago for adults aged 60 and older. And monoclonal antibodies are often used for treatment rather than prevention.

Adding to potential confusion is the fact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has included nirsevimab in the Vaccines for Children program, which covers the costs for uninsured kids and makes it more accessible.

Nirsevimab is approved for infants (up to 8 months old) born during or entering their first RSV season, and in children up to 2 years of age who are still vulnerable to severe RSV through their second season.

It’s recommended that all infants get one injection in their first 8 months for prevention instead of the previous monthly shots used to help prevent kids at high risk from getting severe RSV.

If monoclonal antibodies can be used for preventing disease in infants, could they become a viable vaccine alternative for adults?

Specialists say no.

That’s partly because of the difference in body size. Although an injection is an option for a newborn, pediatricians suggest, it would take far too much of the treatment to work as a shot for adults.

Ruth Karron, MD, an expert in pediatric infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said that, while vaccines come in small amounts and activate immune cells, monoclonal antibodies are more like a drug, with the dose based on weight.

“You’d have to give it intravenously,” for larger doses, she explained, which has never been studied before and would also be very expensive. “It really couldn’t be an option for adults.”
 

What’s the difference between vaccines and antibodies?

Monoclonal antibodies are proteins made in a lab to mimic the immune system’s ability to fight pathogens such as viruses.

Dr. Karron explained that a wide variety of monoclonal antibodies have long been used to treat diseases such as cancers and autoimmune disease. In recent years, the antibodies have been used to treat COVID.

Monoclonal antibodies have also been used to treat RSV in children, but the effects don’t last long – they confer passive immunity and “when it’s gone, it’s gone,” Dr. Karron said.

That means kids at high risk for severe RSV have had to get monthly injections.

But with nirsevimab, the mutated antibodies stay in circulation longer so they can last 5 or 6 months, enough to cover the RSV season, Dr. Karron explained. “It’s highly, highly effective.”
 

Vaccines train the body

“The idea with vaccines is that you engage the individual’s immune system. You teach it to make antibodies,” Dr. Karron said. Conversely, “you give an antibody and it’s good for as long as the antibody lasts. It’s not teaching your body anything.”

Frank Esper, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s Hospital, said monoclonal antibody protection for RSV is particularly welcome. “We’ve been trying to make an RSV vaccine since the 1960s and have done nothing but fail miserably.”

“The best thing is always a vaccine,” Dr. Esper said, explaining that vaccines teach the body to make its own antibodies and confer long-term protection and are “probably more efficacious than anything that’s ever manmade.

“But since we’ve really not done very well for pediatric RSV vaccines, nirsevimab is certainly something I’m looking forward to,” he said.
 

Fast-acting monoclonal antibodies

An advantage for monoclonal antibodies is that they start working almost immediately.

Children can get sick with RSV in the first few months of life so the speed of the monoclonal antibodies to begin protection is important, Dr. Esper said, adding that RSV “is the worst during the first year of life.”

The peak age for babies getting infected enough to require hospitalization is about 2 months, he said.

By 14 months, he said, kids’ immune systems and airways have matured enough “that it’s not nearly as bad.”

To get protection from a vaccine, he added, “usually takes 2-4 weeks from the time you get your shot to the time you see some benefit. With an antibody, you’re bypassing the processing that the body has to do, and it goes straight to ‘protection’ mode,” Dr. Esper said. “You get protected pretty much as soon as you get the antibody.”

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

The long-awaited vaccine for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) that can be given during pregnancy has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The vaccine, known as Abrysvo, can be given between weeks 32 and 36 of pregnancy and is designed to protect infants from the virus from birth to 6 months of age.

Administered as a single-dose, intramuscular injection, the FDA approved Abrysvo at the end of May for the prevention of lower respiratory tract illness caused by RSV in people aged 60 years and older.

However, “RSV is a common cause of illness in children, and infants are among those at highest risk for severe disease, which can lead to hospitalization,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, pointed out in a news release. “This approval provides an option for health care providers and pregnant individuals to protect infants from this potentially life-threatening disease.”

Most children are infected with the contagious virus at least once by the time they reach age 2 years. Very young children are at particular risk of severe complications, such as pneumonia or bronchitis, and in clinical trials, the new vaccine reduced that risk by up to 82%.

Before the vaccine became available, up to 3% of infants infected with RSV needed to be hospitalized, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In the hospital, treatment typically includes oxygen, intravenous fluids, and mechanical ventilation.

RSV often causes common cold symptoms, but the virus poses the risk of severe complications that can lead to death among young children and older people. The CDC estimates 100-300 deaths of children younger than 5 years and 6,000-10,000 deaths of people aged 65 years and older are linked to RSV annually.

This is also the first year that an antibody shot is available to be given after birth to prevent severe RSV in infants younger than 1 year.

In its approval announcement, the FDA pointed out that preeclampsia occurred in 1.8% of pregnancies after Abrysvo, compared with 1.4% of those who received placebo. The FDA also reported that, in infants, low birth weight and jaundice occurred at a higher rate among the pregnant Abrysvo recipients, compared with the placebo group.

Studies have also shown that pregnant vaccine recipients experienced preterm birth at a rate of 5.7%, compared with a rate of 4.7% among those who received placebo. The FDA called the difference “a numerical imbalance” but said in the approval announcement that a “causal relationship” could not be established.

The FDA also noted that people already at high risk of preterm birth were excluded from clinical trials and that Pfizer must conduct ongoing studies to monitor the risk of preeclampsia as well as preterm birth.

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

The long-awaited vaccine for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) that can be given during pregnancy has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The vaccine, known as Abrysvo, can be given between weeks 32 and 36 of pregnancy and is designed to protect infants from the virus from birth to 6 months of age.

Administered as a single-dose, intramuscular injection, the FDA approved Abrysvo at the end of May for the prevention of lower respiratory tract illness caused by RSV in people aged 60 years and older.

However, “RSV is a common cause of illness in children, and infants are among those at highest risk for severe disease, which can lead to hospitalization,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, pointed out in a news release. “This approval provides an option for health care providers and pregnant individuals to protect infants from this potentially life-threatening disease.”

Most children are infected with the contagious virus at least once by the time they reach age 2 years. Very young children are at particular risk of severe complications, such as pneumonia or bronchitis, and in clinical trials, the new vaccine reduced that risk by up to 82%.

Before the vaccine became available, up to 3% of infants infected with RSV needed to be hospitalized, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In the hospital, treatment typically includes oxygen, intravenous fluids, and mechanical ventilation.

RSV often causes common cold symptoms, but the virus poses the risk of severe complications that can lead to death among young children and older people. The CDC estimates 100-300 deaths of children younger than 5 years and 6,000-10,000 deaths of people aged 65 years and older are linked to RSV annually.

This is also the first year that an antibody shot is available to be given after birth to prevent severe RSV in infants younger than 1 year.

In its approval announcement, the FDA pointed out that preeclampsia occurred in 1.8% of pregnancies after Abrysvo, compared with 1.4% of those who received placebo. The FDA also reported that, in infants, low birth weight and jaundice occurred at a higher rate among the pregnant Abrysvo recipients, compared with the placebo group.

Studies have also shown that pregnant vaccine recipients experienced preterm birth at a rate of 5.7%, compared with a rate of 4.7% among those who received placebo. The FDA called the difference “a numerical imbalance” but said in the approval announcement that a “causal relationship” could not be established.

The FDA also noted that people already at high risk of preterm birth were excluded from clinical trials and that Pfizer must conduct ongoing studies to monitor the risk of preeclampsia as well as preterm birth.

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

The long-awaited vaccine for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) that can be given during pregnancy has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The vaccine, known as Abrysvo, can be given between weeks 32 and 36 of pregnancy and is designed to protect infants from the virus from birth to 6 months of age.

Administered as a single-dose, intramuscular injection, the FDA approved Abrysvo at the end of May for the prevention of lower respiratory tract illness caused by RSV in people aged 60 years and older.

However, “RSV is a common cause of illness in children, and infants are among those at highest risk for severe disease, which can lead to hospitalization,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, pointed out in a news release. “This approval provides an option for health care providers and pregnant individuals to protect infants from this potentially life-threatening disease.”

Most children are infected with the contagious virus at least once by the time they reach age 2 years. Very young children are at particular risk of severe complications, such as pneumonia or bronchitis, and in clinical trials, the new vaccine reduced that risk by up to 82%.

Before the vaccine became available, up to 3% of infants infected with RSV needed to be hospitalized, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In the hospital, treatment typically includes oxygen, intravenous fluids, and mechanical ventilation.

RSV often causes common cold symptoms, but the virus poses the risk of severe complications that can lead to death among young children and older people. The CDC estimates 100-300 deaths of children younger than 5 years and 6,000-10,000 deaths of people aged 65 years and older are linked to RSV annually.

This is also the first year that an antibody shot is available to be given after birth to prevent severe RSV in infants younger than 1 year.

In its approval announcement, the FDA pointed out that preeclampsia occurred in 1.8% of pregnancies after Abrysvo, compared with 1.4% of those who received placebo. The FDA also reported that, in infants, low birth weight and jaundice occurred at a higher rate among the pregnant Abrysvo recipients, compared with the placebo group.

Studies have also shown that pregnant vaccine recipients experienced preterm birth at a rate of 5.7%, compared with a rate of 4.7% among those who received placebo. The FDA called the difference “a numerical imbalance” but said in the approval announcement that a “causal relationship” could not be established.

The FDA also noted that people already at high risk of preterm birth were excluded from clinical trials and that Pfizer must conduct ongoing studies to monitor the risk of preeclampsia as well as preterm birth.

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