Vaccines

I have been wrong about the COVID-19 pandemic any number of times. During the early days of the pandemic, a colleague asked me if he should book his airline ticket to Chicago for our annual Essential Evidence conference. I told him to go ahead. The country shut down the next week.

In September of this year, I was ready to book my flight to Phoenix for a presentation at the Arizona Academy of Family Physicians annual meeting. I thought ­COVID-19 activity was winding down. I was wrong again. The conference was changed to virtual presentations.

And now, as I write this editorial late in November, I find myself wrong a third time. I figured the smoldering COVID-19 activity in Michigan, where I live, would wind down before Thanksgiving. But it is expanding wildly throughout the Midwest.

Wrong again, and again.

There is no question that everyone in the United States— and most likely, the entire world—will eventually get vaccinated against COVID-19 or get infected with it.

I figured most everyone would be vaccinated as soon as vaccines were available, given the dangerous nature of the virus and the benign nature of the vaccines. But here we are, more than 750,000 deaths later and, as a country, we still have not learned our lesson. I won’t get into the disinformation campaign against the existence of the pandemic and the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines; this disinformation campaign seems to be designed to kill as many Americans as possible.

The COVID-19 epidemic is personal for all of us. Not one of us has been immune to its effects. All of us have had a relative or friend die of COVID-19 infection. All of us have had to wear masks and be cautious about contacts with others. All of us have cancelled or restricted travel. My wife and I are debating whether or not we should gather for the holidays with our children and grandchildren in Michigan, despite the fact that all of us have been immunized. One of my sons has a mother-in-law with pulmonary fibrosis; he and his family will all be doing home testing for COVID-19 the day before visiting her.

When will this nightmare end? There is no question that everyone in the United States—and most likely, the entire world—will eventually get vaccinated against COVID-19 or get infected with it. We must continue urging everyone to make the smart, safe choice and get vaccinated.

There are still hundreds of thousands of lives to be saved.

I have been wrong about the COVID-19 pandemic any number of times. During the early days of the pandemic, a colleague asked me if he should book his airline ticket to Chicago for our annual Essential Evidence conference. I told him to go ahead. The country shut down the next week.

In September of this year, I was ready to book my flight to Phoenix for a presentation at the Arizona Academy of Family Physicians annual meeting. I thought ­COVID-19 activity was winding down. I was wrong again. The conference was changed to virtual presentations.

And now, as I write this editorial late in November, I find myself wrong a third time. I figured the smoldering COVID-19 activity in Michigan, where I live, would wind down before Thanksgiving. But it is expanding wildly throughout the Midwest.

Wrong again, and again.

There is no question that everyone in the United States— and most likely, the entire world—will eventually get vaccinated against COVID-19 or get infected with it.

I figured most everyone would be vaccinated as soon as vaccines were available, given the dangerous nature of the virus and the benign nature of the vaccines. But here we are, more than 750,000 deaths later and, as a country, we still have not learned our lesson. I won’t get into the disinformation campaign against the existence of the pandemic and the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines; this disinformation campaign seems to be designed to kill as many Americans as possible.

The COVID-19 epidemic is personal for all of us. Not one of us has been immune to its effects. All of us have had a relative or friend die of COVID-19 infection. All of us have had to wear masks and be cautious about contacts with others. All of us have cancelled or restricted travel. My wife and I are debating whether or not we should gather for the holidays with our children and grandchildren in Michigan, despite the fact that all of us have been immunized. One of my sons has a mother-in-law with pulmonary fibrosis; he and his family will all be doing home testing for COVID-19 the day before visiting her.

When will this nightmare end? There is no question that everyone in the United States—and most likely, the entire world—will eventually get vaccinated against COVID-19 or get infected with it. We must continue urging everyone to make the smart, safe choice and get vaccinated.

There are still hundreds of thousands of lives to be saved.

I have been wrong about the COVID-19 pandemic any number of times. During the early days of the pandemic, a colleague asked me if he should book his airline ticket to Chicago for our annual Essential Evidence conference. I told him to go ahead. The country shut down the next week.

In September of this year, I was ready to book my flight to Phoenix for a presentation at the Arizona Academy of Family Physicians annual meeting. I thought ­COVID-19 activity was winding down. I was wrong again. The conference was changed to virtual presentations.

And now, as I write this editorial late in November, I find myself wrong a third time. I figured the smoldering COVID-19 activity in Michigan, where I live, would wind down before Thanksgiving. But it is expanding wildly throughout the Midwest.

Wrong again, and again.

There is no question that everyone in the United States— and most likely, the entire world—will eventually get vaccinated against COVID-19 or get infected with it.

I figured most everyone would be vaccinated as soon as vaccines were available, given the dangerous nature of the virus and the benign nature of the vaccines. But here we are, more than 750,000 deaths later and, as a country, we still have not learned our lesson. I won’t get into the disinformation campaign against the existence of the pandemic and the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines; this disinformation campaign seems to be designed to kill as many Americans as possible.

The COVID-19 epidemic is personal for all of us. Not one of us has been immune to its effects. All of us have had a relative or friend die of COVID-19 infection. All of us have had to wear masks and be cautious about contacts with others. All of us have cancelled or restricted travel. My wife and I are debating whether or not we should gather for the holidays with our children and grandchildren in Michigan, despite the fact that all of us have been immunized. One of my sons has a mother-in-law with pulmonary fibrosis; he and his family will all be doing home testing for COVID-19 the day before visiting her.

When will this nightmare end? There is no question that everyone in the United States—and most likely, the entire world—will eventually get vaccinated against COVID-19 or get infected with it. We must continue urging everyone to make the smart, safe choice and get vaccinated.

There are still hundreds of thousands of lives to be saved.

The World Health Organization estimates that, in 2020, worldwide, there were 604,000 new cases of uterine cervical cancer and approximately 342,000 deaths, 84% of which occurred in developing countries.¹ In the United States, as of 2018, the lifetime risk of death from cervical cancer was 2.2 for every 100,000, with a mean age of 50 years at diagnosis.²

In this article, we summarize recent updates in the epidemiology, prevention, and treatment of cervical cancer. We emphasize recent information of value to family physicians, including updates in clinical guidelines and other pertinent national recommendations.

Spotlight continues to shine on HPV

It has been known for several decades that cervical cancer is caused by human papillomavirus (HPV). Of more than 100 known HPV types, 14 or 15 are classified as carcinogenic. HPV 16 is the most common oncogenic type, causing more than 60% of cases of cervical cancer^3,4; HPV 18 is second, causing 16.5% of cases—taken together, the 2 types account for more than 75% of cervical cancers.

HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection, with as many as 80% of sexually active people becoming infected during their lifetime, generally before 50 years of age.⁵ HPV also causes other anogenital and oropharyngeal cancers; however, worldwide, more than 80% of HPV-associated cancers are cervical.⁶ Risk factors for cervical cancer are listed in TABLE 1.⁷ Cervical cancer is less common when partners are circumcised.⁷

Most cases of HPV infection clear in 1 or 2 years. In approximately 1% of untreated cases, cancer develops. Once infection progresses to high-grade dysplasia (ie, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN] 3), further progression to invasive cervical cancer occurs in approximately 30% of untreated cases.⁸ Patients who develop cervical cancer generally test positive for a high-risk HPV genotype for at least 3 to 5 years before infection progresses to cancer.⁹

At least 70% of cervical cancers are squamous cell carcinoma (SCC); 20% to 25% are adenocarcinoma (ADC); and < 3% to 5% are adenosquamous carcinoma.¹⁰ Almost 100% of cervical SCCs are HPV+, as are 86% of cervical ADCs. The most common reason for HPV-negative status in patients with cervical cancer is false-negative testing because of inadequate methods.

Primary prevention through vaccination

HPV vaccination was introduced in 2006 in the United States for girls,^a and for boys^a in 2011. The primary reason for vaccinating boys is to reduce the rates of HPV-related anal and oropharyngeal cancer. The only available HPV vaccine in the United States is Gardasil 9 (9-valent vaccine, recombinant; Merck), which provides coverage for 7 high-risk HPV types that account for approximately 90% of cervical cancers and 2 types (6 and 11) that are the principal causes of condylomata acuminata (genital warts). Future generations of prophylactic vaccines are expected to cover additional strains.

Continue to: Vaccine studies...

Vaccine studies have been summarized in a Cochrane review,¹¹ showing that vaccination is highly effective for prevention of cervical dysplasia, especially when given to young girls and women^a previously unexposed to the virus. It has not been fully established how long protection lasts, but vaccination appears to be 70% to 90% effective for ≥ 10 years.

Dosing schedule. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends a 2-dose schedule 6 to 15 months apart, for both girls and boys between 9 and 14 years of age.¹² A third dose is indicated if the first and second doses were given less than 5 months apart, or the person is older than 15 years or is immunocompromised. No recommendation has been made for revaccination after the primary series.

In 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration approved Gardasil 9 for adults 27 to 45 years of age. In June 2019, ACIP recommended vaccination for men^a as old as 26 years, and adopted a recommendation that unvaccinated men and women between 27 and 45 years discuss HPV vaccination with their physician.¹³

The adolescent HPV vaccination rate varies by state; however, all states lag behind the CDC’s Healthy People 2020 goal of 80%.¹⁴ Barriers to vaccination include cost, infrastructure limitations, and social stigma.

Secondary prevention: Screening and Tx of precancerous lesions

Cervical cancer screening identifies patients at increased risk of cervical cancer and reassures the great majority of them that their risk of cervical cancer is very low. There are 3 general approaches to cervical cancer screening:

• cytology-based screening, which has been implemented for decades in many countries
• primary testing for DNA or RNA markers of high-risk HPV types
• co-testing with cytology-based screening plus HPV testing.

Continue to: USPSTF guidance

USPSTF guidance. Recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) for cervical cancer screening were updated in 2018 (TABLE 2¹⁵). The recommendations state that high-risk HPV screening alone is a strategy that is amenable to patient self-sampling and self-mailing for processing—a protocol that has the potential to improve access to testing for patients who are inadequately screened.

ASCCP guidance. The American Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) makes nearly the same recommendations for cervical cancer screening. An exception is that ASCCP guidelines allow for the possibility of screening using primary high-risk HPV testing for patients starting at 25 years of age.¹⁶

Screening programs that can be initiated at a later age and longer intervals should be possible once the adolescent vaccination rate is optimized and vaccination registries are widely implemented.

Cervical cytology protocol

Cervical cytologic abnormalities are reported using the Bethesda system. Specimen adequacy is the most important component of quality assurance,¹⁷ and is determined primarily by sufficient cellularity. However, any specimen containing abnormal squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) or atypical glandular cells (AGCs) is considered satisfactory, regardless of the number of cells. Obscuring factors that impair quality include excessive blood; inflammation; air-drying artifact; and an interfering substance, such as lubricant. The presence of reactive changes resulting from inflammation does not require further evaluation unless the patient is immunosuppressed.

Abnormalities are most often of squamous cells, of 2 categories: low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSILs) and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs). HSILs are more likely to be associated with persistent HPV infection and higher risk of progression to cervical cancer.

Continue to: Cytologic findings...

Cytologic findings can be associated with histologic findings that are sometimes more, sometimes less, severe. LSIL cytology specimens that contain a few cells that are suspicious for HSIL, but that do not contain enough cells to be diagnostic, are reported as atypical squamous cells, and do not exclude a high-grade intraepithelial lesion.

Glandular-cell abnormalities usually originate from the glandular epithelium of the endocervix or the endometrium—most often, AGCs. Less frequent are AGCs, favor neoplasia; endocervical adenocarcinoma in situ; and ADC. Rarely, AGCs are associated with adenosquamous carcinoma. Endometrial polyps are a typical benign pathology that can be associated with AGCs.

High-risk HPV screening alone is amenable to patient selfsampling and self-mailing for processing—a protocol that has the potential to improve access to testing.

In about 30% of cases, AGCs are associated with premalignant or malignant disease.¹⁸ The risk of malignancy in patients with AGCs increases with age, from < 2% among patients younger than 40 years to approximately 15% among those > 50 years.¹⁹ Endometrial malignancy is more common than cervical malignancy among patients > 40 years.

AGC cytology requires endocervical curettage, plus endometrial sampling for patients ≥ 35 years. Patients with a history of AGCs are at higher risk of cervical cancer for as long as 15 years.

Cytology-based screening has limitations. Sensitivity is relatively low and dependent on the expertise of the cytologist, although regular repeat testing has been used to overcome this limitation. A substantial subset of results are reported as equivocal—ie, ASCUS.

Continue to: Primary HPV screening

Primary HPV screening

Primary HPV testing was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2015 and recommended as an appropriate screening option by professional societies.

In contrast to cytology-based screening, HPV testing has high sensitivity (≥ 90%); the population-based negative likelihood ratio is near zero.²⁰ This degree of sensitivity allows for extended screening intervals. However, primary HPV testing lacks specificity for persistent infection and high-grade or invasive lesions, which approximately doubles the number of patients who screen positive. The potential for excess patients to be referred for colposcopy led to the need for secondary triage.

Instituting secondary triage. Cytology is, currently, the primary method of secondary triage, reducing the number of referrals for colposcopy by nearly one-half, compared to referrals for all high-risk HPV results, and with better overall accuracy over cytology with high-risk HPV triage.²¹ When cytology shows ASCUS, or worse, refer the patient for colposcopy; alternatively, if so-called reflex testing for HPV types 16 and 18 is available and positive, direct referral to colposcopy without cytology is also appropriate.

In the future, secondary triage for cytology is likely to be replaced with improved technologies, such as immunostaining of the specimen for biomarkers associated with cervical precancer or cancer, or for viral genome methylation testing.²²

Management of abnormal cervical cancer screening results

Routine screening applies to asymptomatic patients who do not require surveillance because they have not had prior abnormal screening results. In 2020, ASCCP published risk-based management consensus guidelines that were developed for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and for cancer precursors.¹⁶ Guiding principles, and screening situations in which the guidelines can be applied, are summarized in TABLE 3.¹⁶

Continue to: ASCCP guidelines...

ASCCP guidelines provide a framework to incorporate new data and technologies without major revision. The web-based ASCCP resource can be obtained at no cost at http://asccp.org; there is also a smartphone app resource ($9.99).

Some noteworthy scenarios in ASCCP risk-based management are:

• For unsatisfactory cytology with a negative HPV test or no HPV test, repeat age-based screening in 2 to 4 months. (Note: A negative HPV test might reflect an inadequate specimen; do not interpret this result as a true negative.)
• An absent transformation zone (ie, between glandular and squamous cervical cells) with an otherwise adequate specimen should be interpreted as satisfactory for screening in patients 21 to 29 years of age. For those ≥ 30 years and with no HPV testing in this circumstance, HPV testing is preferred; repeating cytology, in 3 years, is also acceptable.
• After a finding of LSIL/CIN1 without evidence of a high-grade abnormality, and after 2 negative annual screenings (including HPV testing), a return to 3-year (not 5-year) screening is ­recommended.
• A cytology result of an HSIL carries a risk of 26% for CIN3+, in which case colposcopy is recommended, regardless of HPV test results.
• For long-term management after treatment for CIN2+, continue surveillance testing every 3 years after 3 consecutive negative HPV tests or cytology findings, for at least 25 years. If the 25-year threshold is reached before 65 years of age, continuing surveillance every 3 years is optional, as long as the patient is in good health (ie, life expectancy ≥ 10 years).
• After hysterectomy for a high-grade abnormality, annual vaginal HPV testing is recommended until 3 negative tests are returned; after that, surveillance shifts to a 3-year interval until the 25-year threshold.

Treatment of cancer precursors

Treatment for cervical dysplasia is excisional or ablative.

Excisional therapy. In most cases, excisional therapy (either a loop electrosurgical excision procedure [LEEP; also known as large loop excision of the transformation zone, cold knife conization, and laser conization] or cone biopsy) is required, or preferred. Excisional treatment has the advantage of providing a diagnostic specimen.

In about 30% of cases, atypical glandular cells (AGCs) found on cytology are associated with premalignant or malignant disease. The risk of malignancy with AGCs increases with age.

The World Health Organization recommends LEEP over ablation in settings in which LEEP is available.²³ ASCCP states that, in the relatively few cases in which treatment is needed and it is for CIN1, either excision or ablation is acceptable. TABLE 4¹⁶ lists situations in which excisional treatment is required because a diagnostic specimen is needed.

Continue to: Ablative treatments

Ablative treatments are cryotherapy, CO₂ laser ablation, and thermal ablation. Ablative therapy has the advantage of presenting less risk of adverse obstetric outcomes (eg, preterm birth); it can be used if the indication for therapy is:

• CIN1 or CIN2 and HPV type 16 or 18 positivity
• concordant cytology and histology
• satisfactory colposcopy
• negative endocervical curettage.

The most common ablative treatment is liquid nitrogen applied to a metal tip under local anesthesia.

Hysterectomy can be considered for patients with recurrent CIN2+ who have completed childbearing or for whom repeat excision is infeasible (eg, scarring or a short cervix), or both.

Cost, availability, and convenience might play a role in decision-making with regard to the treatment choice for cancer precursors.

Is care after treatment called for? Patients who continue to be at increased risk of (and thus mortality from) cervical and vaginal cancer require enhanced surveillance. The risk of cancer is more than triple for patients who were given their diagnosis, and treated, when they were > 60 years, compared to patients treated in their 30s.¹ The excess period of risk covers at least 25 years after treatment, even among patients who have had 3 posttreatment screenings.

Continue to: Persistent HPV positivity...

Persistent HPV positivity is more challenging. Patients infected with HPV type 16 have an increased risk of residual disease.

Cancer management

Invasive cancer. Most cervical cancers (60%) occur among patients who have not been screened during the 5 years before their diagnosis.²⁴ For patients who have a diagnosis of cancer, those detected through screening have a much better prognosis than those identified by symptoms (mean cure rate, 92% and 66%, respectively).²⁵ The median 5-year survival for patients who were not screened during the 5 years before their diagnosis of cervical cancer is 66%.²

In unscreened patients, cervical cancer usually manifests as abnormal vaginal bleeding, especially postcoitally. In approximately 45% of cases, the patient has localized disease at diagnosis; in 36%, regional disease; and in 15%, distant metastases.²⁶

For cancers marked by stromal invasion < 3 mm, appropriate treatment is cone biopsy or simple hysterectomy.²⁷

Most patients with early-stage cervical cancer undergo modified radical hysterectomy. The ovaries are usually conserved, unless the cancer is adenocarcinoma. Sentinel-node dissection has become standard practice. Primary radiation therapy is most often used for patients who are a poor surgical candidate because of medical comorbidity or poor functional status. Antiangiogenic agents (eg, bevacizumab) can be used as adjuvant palliative therapy for advanced and recurrent disease.²⁸

Continue to: After treatment for...

After treatment for invasive cervical cancer, the goal is early detection of recurrence, although there is no consensus on a protocol. Most recurrences are detected within the first 2 years.

After treatment for invasive cervical cancer, the goal is early detection of recurrence. Most recurrences are detected within the first 2 years.

Long-term sequelae after treatment for advanced cancer are considerable. Patients report significantly lower quality of life, comparatively, across multiple dimensions, including mental health, physical health, and sexual function.²⁹

Hormone replacement therapy is generally considered acceptable after treatment of cervical cancer because it does not increase replication of HPV.

Recurrent or metastatic cancer. Recurrence or metastases will develop in 15% to 60% of patients,³⁰ usually within the first 2 years after treatment.

Management depends on location and extent of disease, using mainly radiation therapy or surgical resection. Recurrence or metastasis is usually incurable.

Continue to: Last, there are promising...

Last, there are promising areas of research for more effective treatment for cervical cancer precursors and cancers, including gene editing tools³¹ and therapeutic vaccination,³² which is intended to target and kill infected cells.

Prospects for better cervical cancer care

Prevention. HPV vaccination is likely to have a large impact on population-based risk of both cancer and cancer precursors in the next generation.

Screening in the foreseeable future will gravitate toward reliance on primary HPV screening, with a self-sampling option.

Surveillance after dysplastic disease. The 2019 ASCCP guidelines for surveillance and intervention decisions after abnormal cancer screening results will evolve to incorporate introduction of new technology into computerized algorithms.

Treatment. New biologic therapies, including monoclonal antibodies and therapeutic vaccines against HPV, will likely be introduced for treating cancer precursors and invasive cancer.

A NOTE FROM THE EDITORS The Editors of The Journal of Family Practice recognize the importance of addressing the reproductive health of gender-diverse individuals. In this article, we use the words “women,” “men,” “girls,” and “boys” in limited circumstances (1) for ease of reading and (2) to reflect the official language of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The reader should consider the information and guidance offered in this discussion of cervical cancer and other human papillomavirus-related cancers to speak to the care of people with a uterine cervix and people with a penis.

CORRESPONDENCE
Linda Speer, MD, 3000 Arlington Avenue, MS 1179, Toledo, OH 43614; Linda.speer@utoledo.edu

The World Health Organization estimates that, in 2020, worldwide, there were 604,000 new cases of uterine cervical cancer and approximately 342,000 deaths, 84% of which occurred in developing countries.¹ In the United States, as of 2018, the lifetime risk of death from cervical cancer was 2.2 for every 100,000, with a mean age of 50 years at diagnosis.²

In this article, we summarize recent updates in the epidemiology, prevention, and treatment of cervical cancer. We emphasize recent information of value to family physicians, including updates in clinical guidelines and other pertinent national recommendations.

Spotlight continues to shine on HPV

It has been known for several decades that cervical cancer is caused by human papillomavirus (HPV). Of more than 100 known HPV types, 14 or 15 are classified as carcinogenic. HPV 16 is the most common oncogenic type, causing more than 60% of cases of cervical cancer^3,4; HPV 18 is second, causing 16.5% of cases—taken together, the 2 types account for more than 75% of cervical cancers.

HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection, with as many as 80% of sexually active people becoming infected during their lifetime, generally before 50 years of age.⁵ HPV also causes other anogenital and oropharyngeal cancers; however, worldwide, more than 80% of HPV-associated cancers are cervical.⁶ Risk factors for cervical cancer are listed in TABLE 1.⁷ Cervical cancer is less common when partners are circumcised.⁷

Most cases of HPV infection clear in 1 or 2 years. In approximately 1% of untreated cases, cancer develops. Once infection progresses to high-grade dysplasia (ie, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN] 3), further progression to invasive cervical cancer occurs in approximately 30% of untreated cases.⁸ Patients who develop cervical cancer generally test positive for a high-risk HPV genotype for at least 3 to 5 years before infection progresses to cancer.⁹

At least 70% of cervical cancers are squamous cell carcinoma (SCC); 20% to 25% are adenocarcinoma (ADC); and < 3% to 5% are adenosquamous carcinoma.¹⁰ Almost 100% of cervical SCCs are HPV+, as are 86% of cervical ADCs. The most common reason for HPV-negative status in patients with cervical cancer is false-negative testing because of inadequate methods.

Primary prevention through vaccination

HPV vaccination was introduced in 2006 in the United States for girls,^a and for boys^a in 2011. The primary reason for vaccinating boys is to reduce the rates of HPV-related anal and oropharyngeal cancer. The only available HPV vaccine in the United States is Gardasil 9 (9-valent vaccine, recombinant; Merck), which provides coverage for 7 high-risk HPV types that account for approximately 90% of cervical cancers and 2 types (6 and 11) that are the principal causes of condylomata acuminata (genital warts). Future generations of prophylactic vaccines are expected to cover additional strains.

Continue to: Vaccine studies...

Vaccine studies have been summarized in a Cochrane review,¹¹ showing that vaccination is highly effective for prevention of cervical dysplasia, especially when given to young girls and women^a previously unexposed to the virus. It has not been fully established how long protection lasts, but vaccination appears to be 70% to 90% effective for ≥ 10 years.

Dosing schedule. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends a 2-dose schedule 6 to 15 months apart, for both girls and boys between 9 and 14 years of age.¹² A third dose is indicated if the first and second doses were given less than 5 months apart, or the person is older than 15 years or is immunocompromised. No recommendation has been made for revaccination after the primary series.

In 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration approved Gardasil 9 for adults 27 to 45 years of age. In June 2019, ACIP recommended vaccination for men^a as old as 26 years, and adopted a recommendation that unvaccinated men and women between 27 and 45 years discuss HPV vaccination with their physician.¹³

The adolescent HPV vaccination rate varies by state; however, all states lag behind the CDC’s Healthy People 2020 goal of 80%.¹⁴ Barriers to vaccination include cost, infrastructure limitations, and social stigma.

Secondary prevention: Screening and Tx of precancerous lesions

Cervical cancer screening identifies patients at increased risk of cervical cancer and reassures the great majority of them that their risk of cervical cancer is very low. There are 3 general approaches to cervical cancer screening:

• cytology-based screening, which has been implemented for decades in many countries
• primary testing for DNA or RNA markers of high-risk HPV types
• co-testing with cytology-based screening plus HPV testing.

Continue to: USPSTF guidance

USPSTF guidance. Recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) for cervical cancer screening were updated in 2018 (TABLE 2¹⁵). The recommendations state that high-risk HPV screening alone is a strategy that is amenable to patient self-sampling and self-mailing for processing—a protocol that has the potential to improve access to testing for patients who are inadequately screened.

ASCCP guidance. The American Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) makes nearly the same recommendations for cervical cancer screening. An exception is that ASCCP guidelines allow for the possibility of screening using primary high-risk HPV testing for patients starting at 25 years of age.¹⁶

Screening programs that can be initiated at a later age and longer intervals should be possible once the adolescent vaccination rate is optimized and vaccination registries are widely implemented.

Cervical cytology protocol

Cervical cytologic abnormalities are reported using the Bethesda system. Specimen adequacy is the most important component of quality assurance,¹⁷ and is determined primarily by sufficient cellularity. However, any specimen containing abnormal squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) or atypical glandular cells (AGCs) is considered satisfactory, regardless of the number of cells. Obscuring factors that impair quality include excessive blood; inflammation; air-drying artifact; and an interfering substance, such as lubricant. The presence of reactive changes resulting from inflammation does not require further evaluation unless the patient is immunosuppressed.

Abnormalities are most often of squamous cells, of 2 categories: low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSILs) and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs). HSILs are more likely to be associated with persistent HPV infection and higher risk of progression to cervical cancer.

Continue to: Cytologic findings...

Cytologic findings can be associated with histologic findings that are sometimes more, sometimes less, severe. LSIL cytology specimens that contain a few cells that are suspicious for HSIL, but that do not contain enough cells to be diagnostic, are reported as atypical squamous cells, and do not exclude a high-grade intraepithelial lesion.

Glandular-cell abnormalities usually originate from the glandular epithelium of the endocervix or the endometrium—most often, AGCs. Less frequent are AGCs, favor neoplasia; endocervical adenocarcinoma in situ; and ADC. Rarely, AGCs are associated with adenosquamous carcinoma. Endometrial polyps are a typical benign pathology that can be associated with AGCs.

High-risk HPV screening alone is amenable to patient selfsampling and self-mailing for processing—a protocol that has the potential to improve access to testing.

In about 30% of cases, AGCs are associated with premalignant or malignant disease.¹⁸ The risk of malignancy in patients with AGCs increases with age, from < 2% among patients younger than 40 years to approximately 15% among those > 50 years.¹⁹ Endometrial malignancy is more common than cervical malignancy among patients > 40 years.

AGC cytology requires endocervical curettage, plus endometrial sampling for patients ≥ 35 years. Patients with a history of AGCs are at higher risk of cervical cancer for as long as 15 years.

Cytology-based screening has limitations. Sensitivity is relatively low and dependent on the expertise of the cytologist, although regular repeat testing has been used to overcome this limitation. A substantial subset of results are reported as equivocal—ie, ASCUS.

Continue to: Primary HPV screening

Primary HPV screening

Primary HPV testing was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2015 and recommended as an appropriate screening option by professional societies.

In contrast to cytology-based screening, HPV testing has high sensitivity (≥ 90%); the population-based negative likelihood ratio is near zero.²⁰ This degree of sensitivity allows for extended screening intervals. However, primary HPV testing lacks specificity for persistent infection and high-grade or invasive lesions, which approximately doubles the number of patients who screen positive. The potential for excess patients to be referred for colposcopy led to the need for secondary triage.

Instituting secondary triage. Cytology is, currently, the primary method of secondary triage, reducing the number of referrals for colposcopy by nearly one-half, compared to referrals for all high-risk HPV results, and with better overall accuracy over cytology with high-risk HPV triage.²¹ When cytology shows ASCUS, or worse, refer the patient for colposcopy; alternatively, if so-called reflex testing for HPV types 16 and 18 is available and positive, direct referral to colposcopy without cytology is also appropriate.

In the future, secondary triage for cytology is likely to be replaced with improved technologies, such as immunostaining of the specimen for biomarkers associated with cervical precancer or cancer, or for viral genome methylation testing.²²

Management of abnormal cervical cancer screening results

Routine screening applies to asymptomatic patients who do not require surveillance because they have not had prior abnormal screening results. In 2020, ASCCP published risk-based management consensus guidelines that were developed for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and for cancer precursors.¹⁶ Guiding principles, and screening situations in which the guidelines can be applied, are summarized in TABLE 3.¹⁶

Continue to: ASCCP guidelines...

ASCCP guidelines provide a framework to incorporate new data and technologies without major revision. The web-based ASCCP resource can be obtained at no cost at http://asccp.org; there is also a smartphone app resource ($9.99).

Some noteworthy scenarios in ASCCP risk-based management are:

• For unsatisfactory cytology with a negative HPV test or no HPV test, repeat age-based screening in 2 to 4 months. (Note: A negative HPV test might reflect an inadequate specimen; do not interpret this result as a true negative.)
• An absent transformation zone (ie, between glandular and squamous cervical cells) with an otherwise adequate specimen should be interpreted as satisfactory for screening in patients 21 to 29 years of age. For those ≥ 30 years and with no HPV testing in this circumstance, HPV testing is preferred; repeating cytology, in 3 years, is also acceptable.
• After a finding of LSIL/CIN1 without evidence of a high-grade abnormality, and after 2 negative annual screenings (including HPV testing), a return to 3-year (not 5-year) screening is ­recommended.
• A cytology result of an HSIL carries a risk of 26% for CIN3+, in which case colposcopy is recommended, regardless of HPV test results.
• For long-term management after treatment for CIN2+, continue surveillance testing every 3 years after 3 consecutive negative HPV tests or cytology findings, for at least 25 years. If the 25-year threshold is reached before 65 years of age, continuing surveillance every 3 years is optional, as long as the patient is in good health (ie, life expectancy ≥ 10 years).
• After hysterectomy for a high-grade abnormality, annual vaginal HPV testing is recommended until 3 negative tests are returned; after that, surveillance shifts to a 3-year interval until the 25-year threshold.

Treatment of cancer precursors

Treatment for cervical dysplasia is excisional or ablative.

Excisional therapy. In most cases, excisional therapy (either a loop electrosurgical excision procedure [LEEP; also known as large loop excision of the transformation zone, cold knife conization, and laser conization] or cone biopsy) is required, or preferred. Excisional treatment has the advantage of providing a diagnostic specimen.

In about 30% of cases, atypical glandular cells (AGCs) found on cytology are associated with premalignant or malignant disease. The risk of malignancy with AGCs increases with age.

The World Health Organization recommends LEEP over ablation in settings in which LEEP is available.²³ ASCCP states that, in the relatively few cases in which treatment is needed and it is for CIN1, either excision or ablation is acceptable. TABLE 4¹⁶ lists situations in which excisional treatment is required because a diagnostic specimen is needed.

Continue to: Ablative treatments

Ablative treatments are cryotherapy, CO₂ laser ablation, and thermal ablation. Ablative therapy has the advantage of presenting less risk of adverse obstetric outcomes (eg, preterm birth); it can be used if the indication for therapy is:

• CIN1 or CIN2 and HPV type 16 or 18 positivity
• concordant cytology and histology
• satisfactory colposcopy
• negative endocervical curettage.

The most common ablative treatment is liquid nitrogen applied to a metal tip under local anesthesia.

Hysterectomy can be considered for patients with recurrent CIN2+ who have completed childbearing or for whom repeat excision is infeasible (eg, scarring or a short cervix), or both.

Cost, availability, and convenience might play a role in decision-making with regard to the treatment choice for cancer precursors.

Is care after treatment called for? Patients who continue to be at increased risk of (and thus mortality from) cervical and vaginal cancer require enhanced surveillance. The risk of cancer is more than triple for patients who were given their diagnosis, and treated, when they were > 60 years, compared to patients treated in their 30s.¹ The excess period of risk covers at least 25 years after treatment, even among patients who have had 3 posttreatment screenings.

Continue to: Persistent HPV positivity...

Persistent HPV positivity is more challenging. Patients infected with HPV type 16 have an increased risk of residual disease.

Cancer management

Invasive cancer. Most cervical cancers (60%) occur among patients who have not been screened during the 5 years before their diagnosis.²⁴ For patients who have a diagnosis of cancer, those detected through screening have a much better prognosis than those identified by symptoms (mean cure rate, 92% and 66%, respectively).²⁵ The median 5-year survival for patients who were not screened during the 5 years before their diagnosis of cervical cancer is 66%.²

In unscreened patients, cervical cancer usually manifests as abnormal vaginal bleeding, especially postcoitally. In approximately 45% of cases, the patient has localized disease at diagnosis; in 36%, regional disease; and in 15%, distant metastases.²⁶

For cancers marked by stromal invasion < 3 mm, appropriate treatment is cone biopsy or simple hysterectomy.²⁷

Most patients with early-stage cervical cancer undergo modified radical hysterectomy. The ovaries are usually conserved, unless the cancer is adenocarcinoma. Sentinel-node dissection has become standard practice. Primary radiation therapy is most often used for patients who are a poor surgical candidate because of medical comorbidity or poor functional status. Antiangiogenic agents (eg, bevacizumab) can be used as adjuvant palliative therapy for advanced and recurrent disease.²⁸

Continue to: After treatment for...

After treatment for invasive cervical cancer, the goal is early detection of recurrence, although there is no consensus on a protocol. Most recurrences are detected within the first 2 years.

After treatment for invasive cervical cancer, the goal is early detection of recurrence. Most recurrences are detected within the first 2 years.

Long-term sequelae after treatment for advanced cancer are considerable. Patients report significantly lower quality of life, comparatively, across multiple dimensions, including mental health, physical health, and sexual function.²⁹

Hormone replacement therapy is generally considered acceptable after treatment of cervical cancer because it does not increase replication of HPV.

Recurrent or metastatic cancer. Recurrence or metastases will develop in 15% to 60% of patients,³⁰ usually within the first 2 years after treatment.

Management depends on location and extent of disease, using mainly radiation therapy or surgical resection. Recurrence or metastasis is usually incurable.

Continue to: Last, there are promising...

Last, there are promising areas of research for more effective treatment for cervical cancer precursors and cancers, including gene editing tools³¹ and therapeutic vaccination,³² which is intended to target and kill infected cells.

Prospects for better cervical cancer care

Prevention. HPV vaccination is likely to have a large impact on population-based risk of both cancer and cancer precursors in the next generation.

Screening in the foreseeable future will gravitate toward reliance on primary HPV screening, with a self-sampling option.

Surveillance after dysplastic disease. The 2019 ASCCP guidelines for surveillance and intervention decisions after abnormal cancer screening results will evolve to incorporate introduction of new technology into computerized algorithms.

Treatment. New biologic therapies, including monoclonal antibodies and therapeutic vaccines against HPV, will likely be introduced for treating cancer precursors and invasive cancer.

A NOTE FROM THE EDITORS The Editors of The Journal of Family Practice recognize the importance of addressing the reproductive health of gender-diverse individuals. In this article, we use the words “women,” “men,” “girls,” and “boys” in limited circumstances (1) for ease of reading and (2) to reflect the official language of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The reader should consider the information and guidance offered in this discussion of cervical cancer and other human papillomavirus-related cancers to speak to the care of people with a uterine cervix and people with a penis.

CORRESPONDENCE
Linda Speer, MD, 3000 Arlington Avenue, MS 1179, Toledo, OH 43614; Linda.speer@utoledo.edu

The World Health Organization estimates that, in 2020, worldwide, there were 604,000 new cases of uterine cervical cancer and approximately 342,000 deaths, 84% of which occurred in developing countries.¹ In the United States, as of 2018, the lifetime risk of death from cervical cancer was 2.2 for every 100,000, with a mean age of 50 years at diagnosis.²

In this article, we summarize recent updates in the epidemiology, prevention, and treatment of cervical cancer. We emphasize recent information of value to family physicians, including updates in clinical guidelines and other pertinent national recommendations.

Spotlight continues to shine on HPV

It has been known for several decades that cervical cancer is caused by human papillomavirus (HPV). Of more than 100 known HPV types, 14 or 15 are classified as carcinogenic. HPV 16 is the most common oncogenic type, causing more than 60% of cases of cervical cancer^3,4; HPV 18 is second, causing 16.5% of cases—taken together, the 2 types account for more than 75% of cervical cancers.

HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection, with as many as 80% of sexually active people becoming infected during their lifetime, generally before 50 years of age.⁵ HPV also causes other anogenital and oropharyngeal cancers; however, worldwide, more than 80% of HPV-associated cancers are cervical.⁶ Risk factors for cervical cancer are listed in TABLE 1.⁷ Cervical cancer is less common when partners are circumcised.⁷

Most cases of HPV infection clear in 1 or 2 years. In approximately 1% of untreated cases, cancer develops. Once infection progresses to high-grade dysplasia (ie, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN] 3), further progression to invasive cervical cancer occurs in approximately 30% of untreated cases.⁸ Patients who develop cervical cancer generally test positive for a high-risk HPV genotype for at least 3 to 5 years before infection progresses to cancer.⁹

At least 70% of cervical cancers are squamous cell carcinoma (SCC); 20% to 25% are adenocarcinoma (ADC); and < 3% to 5% are adenosquamous carcinoma.¹⁰ Almost 100% of cervical SCCs are HPV+, as are 86% of cervical ADCs. The most common reason for HPV-negative status in patients with cervical cancer is false-negative testing because of inadequate methods.

Primary prevention through vaccination

HPV vaccination was introduced in 2006 in the United States for girls,^a and for boys^a in 2011. The primary reason for vaccinating boys is to reduce the rates of HPV-related anal and oropharyngeal cancer. The only available HPV vaccine in the United States is Gardasil 9 (9-valent vaccine, recombinant; Merck), which provides coverage for 7 high-risk HPV types that account for approximately 90% of cervical cancers and 2 types (6 and 11) that are the principal causes of condylomata acuminata (genital warts). Future generations of prophylactic vaccines are expected to cover additional strains.

Continue to: Vaccine studies...

Vaccine studies have been summarized in a Cochrane review,¹¹ showing that vaccination is highly effective for prevention of cervical dysplasia, especially when given to young girls and women^a previously unexposed to the virus. It has not been fully established how long protection lasts, but vaccination appears to be 70% to 90% effective for ≥ 10 years.

Dosing schedule. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends a 2-dose schedule 6 to 15 months apart, for both girls and boys between 9 and 14 years of age.¹² A third dose is indicated if the first and second doses were given less than 5 months apart, or the person is older than 15 years or is immunocompromised. No recommendation has been made for revaccination after the primary series.

In 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration approved Gardasil 9 for adults 27 to 45 years of age. In June 2019, ACIP recommended vaccination for men^a as old as 26 years, and adopted a recommendation that unvaccinated men and women between 27 and 45 years discuss HPV vaccination with their physician.¹³

The adolescent HPV vaccination rate varies by state; however, all states lag behind the CDC’s Healthy People 2020 goal of 80%.¹⁴ Barriers to vaccination include cost, infrastructure limitations, and social stigma.

Secondary prevention: Screening and Tx of precancerous lesions

Cervical cancer screening identifies patients at increased risk of cervical cancer and reassures the great majority of them that their risk of cervical cancer is very low. There are 3 general approaches to cervical cancer screening:

• cytology-based screening, which has been implemented for decades in many countries
• primary testing for DNA or RNA markers of high-risk HPV types
• co-testing with cytology-based screening plus HPV testing.

Continue to: USPSTF guidance

USPSTF guidance. Recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) for cervical cancer screening were updated in 2018 (TABLE 2¹⁵). The recommendations state that high-risk HPV screening alone is a strategy that is amenable to patient self-sampling and self-mailing for processing—a protocol that has the potential to improve access to testing for patients who are inadequately screened.

ASCCP guidance. The American Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) makes nearly the same recommendations for cervical cancer screening. An exception is that ASCCP guidelines allow for the possibility of screening using primary high-risk HPV testing for patients starting at 25 years of age.¹⁶

Screening programs that can be initiated at a later age and longer intervals should be possible once the adolescent vaccination rate is optimized and vaccination registries are widely implemented.

Cervical cytology protocol

Cervical cytologic abnormalities are reported using the Bethesda system. Specimen adequacy is the most important component of quality assurance,¹⁷ and is determined primarily by sufficient cellularity. However, any specimen containing abnormal squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) or atypical glandular cells (AGCs) is considered satisfactory, regardless of the number of cells. Obscuring factors that impair quality include excessive blood; inflammation; air-drying artifact; and an interfering substance, such as lubricant. The presence of reactive changes resulting from inflammation does not require further evaluation unless the patient is immunosuppressed.

Abnormalities are most often of squamous cells, of 2 categories: low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSILs) and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs). HSILs are more likely to be associated with persistent HPV infection and higher risk of progression to cervical cancer.

Continue to: Cytologic findings...

Cytologic findings can be associated with histologic findings that are sometimes more, sometimes less, severe. LSIL cytology specimens that contain a few cells that are suspicious for HSIL, but that do not contain enough cells to be diagnostic, are reported as atypical squamous cells, and do not exclude a high-grade intraepithelial lesion.

Glandular-cell abnormalities usually originate from the glandular epithelium of the endocervix or the endometrium—most often, AGCs. Less frequent are AGCs, favor neoplasia; endocervical adenocarcinoma in situ; and ADC. Rarely, AGCs are associated with adenosquamous carcinoma. Endometrial polyps are a typical benign pathology that can be associated with AGCs.

High-risk HPV screening alone is amenable to patient selfsampling and self-mailing for processing—a protocol that has the potential to improve access to testing.

In about 30% of cases, AGCs are associated with premalignant or malignant disease.¹⁸ The risk of malignancy in patients with AGCs increases with age, from < 2% among patients younger than 40 years to approximately 15% among those > 50 years.¹⁹ Endometrial malignancy is more common than cervical malignancy among patients > 40 years.

AGC cytology requires endocervical curettage, plus endometrial sampling for patients ≥ 35 years. Patients with a history of AGCs are at higher risk of cervical cancer for as long as 15 years.

Cytology-based screening has limitations. Sensitivity is relatively low and dependent on the expertise of the cytologist, although regular repeat testing has been used to overcome this limitation. A substantial subset of results are reported as equivocal—ie, ASCUS.

Continue to: Primary HPV screening

Primary HPV screening

Primary HPV testing was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2015 and recommended as an appropriate screening option by professional societies.

In contrast to cytology-based screening, HPV testing has high sensitivity (≥ 90%); the population-based negative likelihood ratio is near zero.²⁰ This degree of sensitivity allows for extended screening intervals. However, primary HPV testing lacks specificity for persistent infection and high-grade or invasive lesions, which approximately doubles the number of patients who screen positive. The potential for excess patients to be referred for colposcopy led to the need for secondary triage.

Instituting secondary triage. Cytology is, currently, the primary method of secondary triage, reducing the number of referrals for colposcopy by nearly one-half, compared to referrals for all high-risk HPV results, and with better overall accuracy over cytology with high-risk HPV triage.²¹ When cytology shows ASCUS, or worse, refer the patient for colposcopy; alternatively, if so-called reflex testing for HPV types 16 and 18 is available and positive, direct referral to colposcopy without cytology is also appropriate.

In the future, secondary triage for cytology is likely to be replaced with improved technologies, such as immunostaining of the specimen for biomarkers associated with cervical precancer or cancer, or for viral genome methylation testing.²²

Management of abnormal cervical cancer screening results

Routine screening applies to asymptomatic patients who do not require surveillance because they have not had prior abnormal screening results. In 2020, ASCCP published risk-based management consensus guidelines that were developed for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and for cancer precursors.¹⁶ Guiding principles, and screening situations in which the guidelines can be applied, are summarized in TABLE 3.¹⁶

Continue to: ASCCP guidelines...

ASCCP guidelines provide a framework to incorporate new data and technologies without major revision. The web-based ASCCP resource can be obtained at no cost at http://asccp.org; there is also a smartphone app resource ($9.99).

Some noteworthy scenarios in ASCCP risk-based management are:

• For unsatisfactory cytology with a negative HPV test or no HPV test, repeat age-based screening in 2 to 4 months. (Note: A negative HPV test might reflect an inadequate specimen; do not interpret this result as a true negative.)
• An absent transformation zone (ie, between glandular and squamous cervical cells) with an otherwise adequate specimen should be interpreted as satisfactory for screening in patients 21 to 29 years of age. For those ≥ 30 years and with no HPV testing in this circumstance, HPV testing is preferred; repeating cytology, in 3 years, is also acceptable.
• After a finding of LSIL/CIN1 without evidence of a high-grade abnormality, and after 2 negative annual screenings (including HPV testing), a return to 3-year (not 5-year) screening is ­recommended.
• A cytology result of an HSIL carries a risk of 26% for CIN3+, in which case colposcopy is recommended, regardless of HPV test results.
• For long-term management after treatment for CIN2+, continue surveillance testing every 3 years after 3 consecutive negative HPV tests or cytology findings, for at least 25 years. If the 25-year threshold is reached before 65 years of age, continuing surveillance every 3 years is optional, as long as the patient is in good health (ie, life expectancy ≥ 10 years).
• After hysterectomy for a high-grade abnormality, annual vaginal HPV testing is recommended until 3 negative tests are returned; after that, surveillance shifts to a 3-year interval until the 25-year threshold.

Treatment of cancer precursors

Treatment for cervical dysplasia is excisional or ablative.

Excisional therapy. In most cases, excisional therapy (either a loop electrosurgical excision procedure [LEEP; also known as large loop excision of the transformation zone, cold knife conization, and laser conization] or cone biopsy) is required, or preferred. Excisional treatment has the advantage of providing a diagnostic specimen.

In about 30% of cases, atypical glandular cells (AGCs) found on cytology are associated with premalignant or malignant disease. The risk of malignancy with AGCs increases with age.

The World Health Organization recommends LEEP over ablation in settings in which LEEP is available.²³ ASCCP states that, in the relatively few cases in which treatment is needed and it is for CIN1, either excision or ablation is acceptable. TABLE 4¹⁶ lists situations in which excisional treatment is required because a diagnostic specimen is needed.

Continue to: Ablative treatments

Ablative treatments are cryotherapy, CO₂ laser ablation, and thermal ablation. Ablative therapy has the advantage of presenting less risk of adverse obstetric outcomes (eg, preterm birth); it can be used if the indication for therapy is:

• CIN1 or CIN2 and HPV type 16 or 18 positivity
• concordant cytology and histology
• satisfactory colposcopy
• negative endocervical curettage.

The most common ablative treatment is liquid nitrogen applied to a metal tip under local anesthesia.

Hysterectomy can be considered for patients with recurrent CIN2+ who have completed childbearing or for whom repeat excision is infeasible (eg, scarring or a short cervix), or both.

Cost, availability, and convenience might play a role in decision-making with regard to the treatment choice for cancer precursors.

Is care after treatment called for? Patients who continue to be at increased risk of (and thus mortality from) cervical and vaginal cancer require enhanced surveillance. The risk of cancer is more than triple for patients who were given their diagnosis, and treated, when they were > 60 years, compared to patients treated in their 30s.¹ The excess period of risk covers at least 25 years after treatment, even among patients who have had 3 posttreatment screenings.

Continue to: Persistent HPV positivity...

Persistent HPV positivity is more challenging. Patients infected with HPV type 16 have an increased risk of residual disease.

Cancer management

Invasive cancer. Most cervical cancers (60%) occur among patients who have not been screened during the 5 years before their diagnosis.²⁴ For patients who have a diagnosis of cancer, those detected through screening have a much better prognosis than those identified by symptoms (mean cure rate, 92% and 66%, respectively).²⁵ The median 5-year survival for patients who were not screened during the 5 years before their diagnosis of cervical cancer is 66%.²

In unscreened patients, cervical cancer usually manifests as abnormal vaginal bleeding, especially postcoitally. In approximately 45% of cases, the patient has localized disease at diagnosis; in 36%, regional disease; and in 15%, distant metastases.²⁶

For cancers marked by stromal invasion < 3 mm, appropriate treatment is cone biopsy or simple hysterectomy.²⁷

Most patients with early-stage cervical cancer undergo modified radical hysterectomy. The ovaries are usually conserved, unless the cancer is adenocarcinoma. Sentinel-node dissection has become standard practice. Primary radiation therapy is most often used for patients who are a poor surgical candidate because of medical comorbidity or poor functional status. Antiangiogenic agents (eg, bevacizumab) can be used as adjuvant palliative therapy for advanced and recurrent disease.²⁸

Continue to: After treatment for...

After treatment for invasive cervical cancer, the goal is early detection of recurrence, although there is no consensus on a protocol. Most recurrences are detected within the first 2 years.

After treatment for invasive cervical cancer, the goal is early detection of recurrence. Most recurrences are detected within the first 2 years.

Long-term sequelae after treatment for advanced cancer are considerable. Patients report significantly lower quality of life, comparatively, across multiple dimensions, including mental health, physical health, and sexual function.²⁹

Hormone replacement therapy is generally considered acceptable after treatment of cervical cancer because it does not increase replication of HPV.

Recurrent or metastatic cancer. Recurrence or metastases will develop in 15% to 60% of patients,³⁰ usually within the first 2 years after treatment.

Management depends on location and extent of disease, using mainly radiation therapy or surgical resection. Recurrence or metastasis is usually incurable.

Continue to: Last, there are promising...

Last, there are promising areas of research for more effective treatment for cervical cancer precursors and cancers, including gene editing tools³¹ and therapeutic vaccination,³² which is intended to target and kill infected cells.

Prospects for better cervical cancer care

Prevention. HPV vaccination is likely to have a large impact on population-based risk of both cancer and cancer precursors in the next generation.

Screening in the foreseeable future will gravitate toward reliance on primary HPV screening, with a self-sampling option.

Surveillance after dysplastic disease. The 2019 ASCCP guidelines for surveillance and intervention decisions after abnormal cancer screening results will evolve to incorporate introduction of new technology into computerized algorithms.

Treatment. New biologic therapies, including monoclonal antibodies and therapeutic vaccines against HPV, will likely be introduced for treating cancer precursors and invasive cancer.

A NOTE FROM THE EDITORS The Editors of The Journal of Family Practice recognize the importance of addressing the reproductive health of gender-diverse individuals. In this article, we use the words “women,” “men,” “girls,” and “boys” in limited circumstances (1) for ease of reading and (2) to reflect the official language of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The reader should consider the information and guidance offered in this discussion of cervical cancer and other human papillomavirus-related cancers to speak to the care of people with a uterine cervix and people with a penis.

CORRESPONDENCE
Linda Speer, MD, 3000 Arlington Avenue, MS 1179, Toledo, OH 43614; Linda.speer@utoledo.edu

In July 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published its updated guidelines on the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of sexually transmitted infections (STIs).¹ These guidelines were last published in 2015.² Family physicians should be familiar with these guidelines as they are considered the standard of care for the treatment and prevention of STIs.

To revise the guidelines, the CDC convened a large panel that included CDC staff and subject matter experts from around the country. Using methodology borrowed from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF),³ the panel developed key questions and completed systematic reviews using a standard approach. The evidence behind key recommendations was ranked as high, medium, or low. However, the specific recommendations presented in the published guidelines appear without strength-of-recommendation descriptions or rankings of the levels of evidence supporting them.

The CDC approach to STI control involves 5 strategies (TABLE 1),¹ which family physicians can implement as follows:

• Elicit an accurate sexual history.
• Discuss with patients and advise them on preventive interventions including barrier methods, microbicides, vaccines, and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis.
• Order recommended screening tests for specific STIs from all sites of potential infection.
• Recognize the signs and symptoms of STIs and order recommended tests for confirmation.
• Treat confirmed infections using current recommended medications.
• Seek to advise, evaluate, and treat sex partners of those with documented STIs, and offer expedited partner therapy if allowed by state law.
• Perform recommended follow-up services for treated individuals.

Details on each of these strategies can be found in the new guidelines and are described for each specific pathogen and for specific demographic groups. Recommendations on screening for asymptomatic STIs can be found on the USPSTF website.⁴

The first step leading to targeted prevention strategies such as behavioral counseling, vaccination, and screening involves taking an accurate and complete sexual history. The CDC offers a 5-step process it calls the “5 Ps approach” to gathering needed information (TABLE 2).¹

Major updates on the treatment of specific infections

Gonorrhea

The current recommendation for treating uncomplicated gonococcal infections of the cervix, urethra, pharynx, and rectum in adults and adolescents weighing < 150 kg is ceftriaxone 500 mg intramuscularly (IM) as a single dose; give 1 g for those weighing ≥ 150 kg.¹ If co-infection with chlamydia has not been ruled out, co-treatment with doxycycline 100 mg po twice a day for 7 days is also recommended.¹

This differs from the first-line treatment recommended in the previous guideline, which was dual therapy with ceftriaxone 250 mg IM and azithromycin 1 g po as a single dose, regardless of testing results for chlamydia.² The higher dose for ceftriaxone now recommended is due to a gradual decrease in gonorrhea susceptibility to cephalosporins in recent years, although complete resistance remains rare. The move away from universal dual therapy reflects a concern about antibiotic stewardship and the potential effects of antibiotics on the microbiome. The elimination of azithromycin from recommended first-line therapies is due to a 10-fold increase in the proportion of bacterium isolates demonstrating reduced susceptibility, as measured by minimal inhibitory concentrations in the past few years.

Continue to: If ceftriaxone...

If ceftriaxone is unavailable, there are 2 alternative regimens: gentamicin 240 mg IM in a single dose, plus azithromycin 2 g po in a single dose; or cefixime 800 mg po in a single dose.¹ However, these alternatives are not recommended for gonococcal infection of the pharynx, for which ceftriaxone should be used.

Counsel those treated for gonorrhea to avoid sexual activity for 7 days after treatment and until all sex partners have been treated. Because of the high rates of asymptomatic infections, tell patients to refer those with whom they have had sexual contact during the previous 60 days for evaluation, testing, and presumptive treatment.

Following treatment with the recommended dose of ceftriaxone, performing a test of cure is not recommended, with 1 exception: those with confirmed pharyngeal infection should be tested to confirm treatment success 7 to 14 days after being treated. However, all those treated for gonorrhea should be seen again in 3 months and retested to rule out reinfection, regardless of whether they think their sex partners have been adequately treated.

Chlamydia

The recommended first-line therapy for chlamydia is now doxycycline 100 mg twice a day for 7 days, which has proven to be superior to azithromycin (which was recommended as first-line therapy in 2015) for urogenital chlamydia in men and anal chlamydia in both men and women.^1,2 Alternatives to doxycycline include azithromycin 1 g po as a single dose or levofloxacin 500 mg po once a day for 7 days.¹ No test of cure is recommended; but as with gonorrhea, retesting at 3 months is recommended because of the risk for re-infection.

No test of cure is needed following gonococcal infection treated with a recommended dose of ceftriaxone, except in those with confirmed pharyngeal infection.

Instruct patients treated for chlamydia to avoid sexual intercourse for 7 days after therapy is initiated or until symptoms, if present, have resolved. To reduce the chances of reinfection, advise treated individuals to abstain from sexual intercourse until all of their sex partners have been treated.

Continue to: Sex partners...

Sex partners in the 60 days prior to the patient’s onset of symptoms or diagnosis should be advised to seek evaluation, testing, and presumptive treatment.

Trichomonas

The recommended first-line treatment for trichomonas now differs for men and women: metronidazole 2 g po as a single dose for men, and metronidazole 500 mg po twice a day for 7 days for women.¹ Tinidazole 2 g po as a single dose is an alternative for both men and women. Previously, the single metronidazole dose was recommended for men and women,² but there is now evidence that the 7-day course is markedly superior in achieving a cure in women.

No test of cure is recommended, but women should be retested at 3 months because of a high rate of re-infection. Current sex partners should be treated presumptively, and treated patients and their partners should avoid sex until all current sex partners have been treated. Consider expedited partner therapy if allowed by state law.

Bacterial vaginosis

First-line treatment recommendations for bacterial vaginosis (BV) have not changed: metronidazole 500 mg po twice a day for 7 days, or metronidazole gel 0.75% intravaginally daily for 5 days, or clindamycin cream 2% intravaginally at bedtime for 7 days. Advise women to avoid sexual activity or to use condoms for the duration of the treatment regimen.

A test of cure is not recommended if symptoms resolve, and no treatment or evaluation of sex partners is recommended. The guidelines describe several treatment options for women who have frequent, recurrent BV. To help prevent recurrences, they additionally suggest treating male partners with metronidazole 400 mg po twice a day and with 2% clindamycin cream applied to the penis twice a day, both for 7 days.

Continue to: Pelvic inflammatory disease

Recommended regimens for treating pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) have changed (TABLES 3 and 4).¹ Women with mild or moderate PID can be treated with intramuscular or oral regimens, as outcomes with these regimens are equivalent to those seen with intravenous treatments. The nonintravenous options all include 3 antibiotics: a cephalosporin, doxycycline, and metronidazole.

To minimize disease transmission, instruct women to avoid sex until therapy is complete, their symptoms have resolved, and sex partners have been treated. Sex partners of those with PID in the 60 days prior to the onset of symptoms should be evaluated, tested, and presumptively treated for chlamydia and gonorrhea.

Follow through on public health procedures

STIs are an important set of diseases from a public health perspective. Family physicians have the opportunity to assist with the prevention and control of these infections through screening, making accurate diagnoses, and applying recommended treatments. When you suspect that a patient has an STI, test for the most common ones: gonorrhea, chlamydia, HIV, and syphilis. Report all confirmed diagnoses to the local public health department and be prepared to refer patients’ sexual contacts to the local public health department or to provide contact evaluation and treatment.

Vaccines against STIs include hepatitis B vaccine, human papillomavirus vaccine, and hepatitis A vaccine. Offer these vaccines to all previously unvaccinated adolescents and young adults as per recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.⁵

In July 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published its updated guidelines on the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of sexually transmitted infections (STIs).¹ These guidelines were last published in 2015.² Family physicians should be familiar with these guidelines as they are considered the standard of care for the treatment and prevention of STIs.

To revise the guidelines, the CDC convened a large panel that included CDC staff and subject matter experts from around the country. Using methodology borrowed from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF),³ the panel developed key questions and completed systematic reviews using a standard approach. The evidence behind key recommendations was ranked as high, medium, or low. However, the specific recommendations presented in the published guidelines appear without strength-of-recommendation descriptions or rankings of the levels of evidence supporting them.

The CDC approach to STI control involves 5 strategies (TABLE 1),¹ which family physicians can implement as follows:

• Elicit an accurate sexual history.
• Discuss with patients and advise them on preventive interventions including barrier methods, microbicides, vaccines, and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis.
• Order recommended screening tests for specific STIs from all sites of potential infection.
• Recognize the signs and symptoms of STIs and order recommended tests for confirmation.
• Treat confirmed infections using current recommended medications.
• Seek to advise, evaluate, and treat sex partners of those with documented STIs, and offer expedited partner therapy if allowed by state law.
• Perform recommended follow-up services for treated individuals.

Details on each of these strategies can be found in the new guidelines and are described for each specific pathogen and for specific demographic groups. Recommendations on screening for asymptomatic STIs can be found on the USPSTF website.⁴

The first step leading to targeted prevention strategies such as behavioral counseling, vaccination, and screening involves taking an accurate and complete sexual history. The CDC offers a 5-step process it calls the “5 Ps approach” to gathering needed information (TABLE 2).¹

Major updates on the treatment of specific infections

Gonorrhea

The current recommendation for treating uncomplicated gonococcal infections of the cervix, urethra, pharynx, and rectum in adults and adolescents weighing < 150 kg is ceftriaxone 500 mg intramuscularly (IM) as a single dose; give 1 g for those weighing ≥ 150 kg.¹ If co-infection with chlamydia has not been ruled out, co-treatment with doxycycline 100 mg po twice a day for 7 days is also recommended.¹

This differs from the first-line treatment recommended in the previous guideline, which was dual therapy with ceftriaxone 250 mg IM and azithromycin 1 g po as a single dose, regardless of testing results for chlamydia.² The higher dose for ceftriaxone now recommended is due to a gradual decrease in gonorrhea susceptibility to cephalosporins in recent years, although complete resistance remains rare. The move away from universal dual therapy reflects a concern about antibiotic stewardship and the potential effects of antibiotics on the microbiome. The elimination of azithromycin from recommended first-line therapies is due to a 10-fold increase in the proportion of bacterium isolates demonstrating reduced susceptibility, as measured by minimal inhibitory concentrations in the past few years.

Continue to: If ceftriaxone...

If ceftriaxone is unavailable, there are 2 alternative regimens: gentamicin 240 mg IM in a single dose, plus azithromycin 2 g po in a single dose; or cefixime 800 mg po in a single dose.¹ However, these alternatives are not recommended for gonococcal infection of the pharynx, for which ceftriaxone should be used.

Counsel those treated for gonorrhea to avoid sexual activity for 7 days after treatment and until all sex partners have been treated. Because of the high rates of asymptomatic infections, tell patients to refer those with whom they have had sexual contact during the previous 60 days for evaluation, testing, and presumptive treatment.

Following treatment with the recommended dose of ceftriaxone, performing a test of cure is not recommended, with 1 exception: those with confirmed pharyngeal infection should be tested to confirm treatment success 7 to 14 days after being treated. However, all those treated for gonorrhea should be seen again in 3 months and retested to rule out reinfection, regardless of whether they think their sex partners have been adequately treated.

Chlamydia

The recommended first-line therapy for chlamydia is now doxycycline 100 mg twice a day for 7 days, which has proven to be superior to azithromycin (which was recommended as first-line therapy in 2015) for urogenital chlamydia in men and anal chlamydia in both men and women.^1,2 Alternatives to doxycycline include azithromycin 1 g po as a single dose or levofloxacin 500 mg po once a day for 7 days.¹ No test of cure is recommended; but as with gonorrhea, retesting at 3 months is recommended because of the risk for re-infection.

No test of cure is needed following gonococcal infection treated with a recommended dose of ceftriaxone, except in those with confirmed pharyngeal infection.

Instruct patients treated for chlamydia to avoid sexual intercourse for 7 days after therapy is initiated or until symptoms, if present, have resolved. To reduce the chances of reinfection, advise treated individuals to abstain from sexual intercourse until all of their sex partners have been treated.

Continue to: Sex partners...

Sex partners in the 60 days prior to the patient’s onset of symptoms or diagnosis should be advised to seek evaluation, testing, and presumptive treatment.

Trichomonas

The recommended first-line treatment for trichomonas now differs for men and women: metronidazole 2 g po as a single dose for men, and metronidazole 500 mg po twice a day for 7 days for women.¹ Tinidazole 2 g po as a single dose is an alternative for both men and women. Previously, the single metronidazole dose was recommended for men and women,² but there is now evidence that the 7-day course is markedly superior in achieving a cure in women.

No test of cure is recommended, but women should be retested at 3 months because of a high rate of re-infection. Current sex partners should be treated presumptively, and treated patients and their partners should avoid sex until all current sex partners have been treated. Consider expedited partner therapy if allowed by state law.

Bacterial vaginosis

First-line treatment recommendations for bacterial vaginosis (BV) have not changed: metronidazole 500 mg po twice a day for 7 days, or metronidazole gel 0.75% intravaginally daily for 5 days, or clindamycin cream 2% intravaginally at bedtime for 7 days. Advise women to avoid sexual activity or to use condoms for the duration of the treatment regimen.

A test of cure is not recommended if symptoms resolve, and no treatment or evaluation of sex partners is recommended. The guidelines describe several treatment options for women who have frequent, recurrent BV. To help prevent recurrences, they additionally suggest treating male partners with metronidazole 400 mg po twice a day and with 2% clindamycin cream applied to the penis twice a day, both for 7 days.

Continue to: Pelvic inflammatory disease

Recommended regimens for treating pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) have changed (TABLES 3 and 4).¹ Women with mild or moderate PID can be treated with intramuscular or oral regimens, as outcomes with these regimens are equivalent to those seen with intravenous treatments. The nonintravenous options all include 3 antibiotics: a cephalosporin, doxycycline, and metronidazole.

To minimize disease transmission, instruct women to avoid sex until therapy is complete, their symptoms have resolved, and sex partners have been treated. Sex partners of those with PID in the 60 days prior to the onset of symptoms should be evaluated, tested, and presumptively treated for chlamydia and gonorrhea.

Follow through on public health procedures

STIs are an important set of diseases from a public health perspective. Family physicians have the opportunity to assist with the prevention and control of these infections through screening, making accurate diagnoses, and applying recommended treatments. When you suspect that a patient has an STI, test for the most common ones: gonorrhea, chlamydia, HIV, and syphilis. Report all confirmed diagnoses to the local public health department and be prepared to refer patients’ sexual contacts to the local public health department or to provide contact evaluation and treatment.

Vaccines against STIs include hepatitis B vaccine, human papillomavirus vaccine, and hepatitis A vaccine. Offer these vaccines to all previously unvaccinated adolescents and young adults as per recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.⁵

In July 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published its updated guidelines on the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of sexually transmitted infections (STIs).¹ These guidelines were last published in 2015.² Family physicians should be familiar with these guidelines as they are considered the standard of care for the treatment and prevention of STIs.

To revise the guidelines, the CDC convened a large panel that included CDC staff and subject matter experts from around the country. Using methodology borrowed from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF),³ the panel developed key questions and completed systematic reviews using a standard approach. The evidence behind key recommendations was ranked as high, medium, or low. However, the specific recommendations presented in the published guidelines appear without strength-of-recommendation descriptions or rankings of the levels of evidence supporting them.

The CDC approach to STI control involves 5 strategies (TABLE 1),¹ which family physicians can implement as follows:

• Elicit an accurate sexual history.
• Discuss with patients and advise them on preventive interventions including barrier methods, microbicides, vaccines, and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis.
• Order recommended screening tests for specific STIs from all sites of potential infection.
• Recognize the signs and symptoms of STIs and order recommended tests for confirmation.
• Treat confirmed infections using current recommended medications.
• Seek to advise, evaluate, and treat sex partners of those with documented STIs, and offer expedited partner therapy if allowed by state law.
• Perform recommended follow-up services for treated individuals.

Details on each of these strategies can be found in the new guidelines and are described for each specific pathogen and for specific demographic groups. Recommendations on screening for asymptomatic STIs can be found on the USPSTF website.⁴

The first step leading to targeted prevention strategies such as behavioral counseling, vaccination, and screening involves taking an accurate and complete sexual history. The CDC offers a 5-step process it calls the “5 Ps approach” to gathering needed information (TABLE 2).¹

Major updates on the treatment of specific infections

Gonorrhea

The current recommendation for treating uncomplicated gonococcal infections of the cervix, urethra, pharynx, and rectum in adults and adolescents weighing < 150 kg is ceftriaxone 500 mg intramuscularly (IM) as a single dose; give 1 g for those weighing ≥ 150 kg.¹ If co-infection with chlamydia has not been ruled out, co-treatment with doxycycline 100 mg po twice a day for 7 days is also recommended.¹

This differs from the first-line treatment recommended in the previous guideline, which was dual therapy with ceftriaxone 250 mg IM and azithromycin 1 g po as a single dose, regardless of testing results for chlamydia.² The higher dose for ceftriaxone now recommended is due to a gradual decrease in gonorrhea susceptibility to cephalosporins in recent years, although complete resistance remains rare. The move away from universal dual therapy reflects a concern about antibiotic stewardship and the potential effects of antibiotics on the microbiome. The elimination of azithromycin from recommended first-line therapies is due to a 10-fold increase in the proportion of bacterium isolates demonstrating reduced susceptibility, as measured by minimal inhibitory concentrations in the past few years.

Continue to: If ceftriaxone...

If ceftriaxone is unavailable, there are 2 alternative regimens: gentamicin 240 mg IM in a single dose, plus azithromycin 2 g po in a single dose; or cefixime 800 mg po in a single dose.¹ However, these alternatives are not recommended for gonococcal infection of the pharynx, for which ceftriaxone should be used.

Counsel those treated for gonorrhea to avoid sexual activity for 7 days after treatment and until all sex partners have been treated. Because of the high rates of asymptomatic infections, tell patients to refer those with whom they have had sexual contact during the previous 60 days for evaluation, testing, and presumptive treatment.

Following treatment with the recommended dose of ceftriaxone, performing a test of cure is not recommended, with 1 exception: those with confirmed pharyngeal infection should be tested to confirm treatment success 7 to 14 days after being treated. However, all those treated for gonorrhea should be seen again in 3 months and retested to rule out reinfection, regardless of whether they think their sex partners have been adequately treated.

Chlamydia

The recommended first-line therapy for chlamydia is now doxycycline 100 mg twice a day for 7 days, which has proven to be superior to azithromycin (which was recommended as first-line therapy in 2015) for urogenital chlamydia in men and anal chlamydia in both men and women.^1,2 Alternatives to doxycycline include azithromycin 1 g po as a single dose or levofloxacin 500 mg po once a day for 7 days.¹ No test of cure is recommended; but as with gonorrhea, retesting at 3 months is recommended because of the risk for re-infection.

No test of cure is needed following gonococcal infection treated with a recommended dose of ceftriaxone, except in those with confirmed pharyngeal infection.

Instruct patients treated for chlamydia to avoid sexual intercourse for 7 days after therapy is initiated or until symptoms, if present, have resolved. To reduce the chances of reinfection, advise treated individuals to abstain from sexual intercourse until all of their sex partners have been treated.

Continue to: Sex partners...

Sex partners in the 60 days prior to the patient’s onset of symptoms or diagnosis should be advised to seek evaluation, testing, and presumptive treatment.

Trichomonas

The recommended first-line treatment for trichomonas now differs for men and women: metronidazole 2 g po as a single dose for men, and metronidazole 500 mg po twice a day for 7 days for women.¹ Tinidazole 2 g po as a single dose is an alternative for both men and women. Previously, the single metronidazole dose was recommended for men and women,² but there is now evidence that the 7-day course is markedly superior in achieving a cure in women.

No test of cure is recommended, but women should be retested at 3 months because of a high rate of re-infection. Current sex partners should be treated presumptively, and treated patients and their partners should avoid sex until all current sex partners have been treated. Consider expedited partner therapy if allowed by state law.

Bacterial vaginosis

First-line treatment recommendations for bacterial vaginosis (BV) have not changed: metronidazole 500 mg po twice a day for 7 days, or metronidazole gel 0.75% intravaginally daily for 5 days, or clindamycin cream 2% intravaginally at bedtime for 7 days. Advise women to avoid sexual activity or to use condoms for the duration of the treatment regimen.

A test of cure is not recommended if symptoms resolve, and no treatment or evaluation of sex partners is recommended. The guidelines describe several treatment options for women who have frequent, recurrent BV. To help prevent recurrences, they additionally suggest treating male partners with metronidazole 400 mg po twice a day and with 2% clindamycin cream applied to the penis twice a day, both for 7 days.

Continue to: Pelvic inflammatory disease

Recommended regimens for treating pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) have changed (TABLES 3 and 4).¹ Women with mild or moderate PID can be treated with intramuscular or oral regimens, as outcomes with these regimens are equivalent to those seen with intravenous treatments. The nonintravenous options all include 3 antibiotics: a cephalosporin, doxycycline, and metronidazole.

To minimize disease transmission, instruct women to avoid sex until therapy is complete, their symptoms have resolved, and sex partners have been treated. Sex partners of those with PID in the 60 days prior to the onset of symptoms should be evaluated, tested, and presumptively treated for chlamydia and gonorrhea.

Follow through on public health procedures

STIs are an important set of diseases from a public health perspective. Family physicians have the opportunity to assist with the prevention and control of these infections through screening, making accurate diagnoses, and applying recommended treatments. When you suspect that a patient has an STI, test for the most common ones: gonorrhea, chlamydia, HIV, and syphilis. Report all confirmed diagnoses to the local public health department and be prepared to refer patients’ sexual contacts to the local public health department or to provide contact evaluation and treatment.

Vaccines against STIs include hepatitis B vaccine, human papillomavirus vaccine, and hepatitis A vaccine. Offer these vaccines to all previously unvaccinated adolescents and young adults as per recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.⁵

The intention to vaccinate children against COVID-19 was lower among vaccine-hesitant parents when compared with parents who were willing to or had already received the COVID vaccine, a new survey finds.

“Parental vaccine hesitancy is a major issue for schools resuming in-person instruction, potentially requiring regular testing, strict mask wearing, and physical distancing for safe operation,” wrote lead author Madhura S. Rane, PhD, from the City University of New York in New York City, and colleagues in their paper, published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

The survey was conducted in June 2021 of 1,162 parents with children ranging in age from 2 to 17 years. The majority of parents (74.4%) were already vaccinated/vaccine-willing ,while 25.6% were vaccine hesitant. The study cohort, including both 1,652 children and their parents, was part of the nationwide CHASING COVID.

Vaccinated parents overall were more willing to vaccinate or had already vaccinated their eligible children when compared with vaccine-hesitant parents: 64.9% vs. 8.3% for children 2-4 years of age; 77.6% vs. 12.1% for children 5-11 years of age; 81.3% vs. 13.9% for children 12-15 years of age; and 86.4% vs. 12.7% for children 16-17 years of age; P < .001.

The researchers found greater hesitancy among Black and Hispanic parents, compared with parents who were non-Hispanic White, women, younger, and did not have a college education. Parents of children who were currently attending school remotely or only partially, were found to be more willing to vaccinate their children when compared to parents of children who were attending school fully in person.

The authors also found that parents who knew someone who had died of COVID-19 or had experienced a prior COVID-19 infection, were more willing to vaccinate their children.

Hesitance in vaccinated parents

Interestingly, 10% of COVID-vaccinated parents said they were still hesitant to vaccinate their kids because of concern for long-term adverse effects of the vaccine.

“These data point out that vaccine concerns may exist even among vaccinated or vaccine-favorable parents, so we should ask any parent who has not vaccinated their child whether we can discuss their concerns and perhaps move their opinions,” said William T. Basco Jr, MD, MS, a professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and director of the division of general pediatrics.

In an interview, when asked whether recent approval of the vaccine for children aged 5-11 will likely aid in overcoming parental hesitancy, Dr. Basco replied: “Absolutely. As more children get the vaccine and people know a neighbor or nephew or cousin, etc., who received the vaccine and did fine, it will engender greater comfort and allow parents to feel better about having their own child receive the vaccine.”

Advice for clinicians from outside expert

“We can always start by asking parents if we can help them understand the vaccine and the need for it. The tidal wave of disinformation is huge, but we can, on a daily basis, offer to help families navigate this decision,” concluded Dr. Basco, who was not involved with the new paper.

Funding for this study was provided through grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the CUNY Institute of Implementation Science in Population Health, and the COVID-19 Grant Program of the CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy. The authors and Dr. Basco have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The intention to vaccinate children against COVID-19 was lower among vaccine-hesitant parents when compared with parents who were willing to or had already received the COVID vaccine, a new survey finds.

“Parental vaccine hesitancy is a major issue for schools resuming in-person instruction, potentially requiring regular testing, strict mask wearing, and physical distancing for safe operation,” wrote lead author Madhura S. Rane, PhD, from the City University of New York in New York City, and colleagues in their paper, published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

The survey was conducted in June 2021 of 1,162 parents with children ranging in age from 2 to 17 years. The majority of parents (74.4%) were already vaccinated/vaccine-willing ,while 25.6% were vaccine hesitant. The study cohort, including both 1,652 children and their parents, was part of the nationwide CHASING COVID.

Vaccinated parents overall were more willing to vaccinate or had already vaccinated their eligible children when compared with vaccine-hesitant parents: 64.9% vs. 8.3% for children 2-4 years of age; 77.6% vs. 12.1% for children 5-11 years of age; 81.3% vs. 13.9% for children 12-15 years of age; and 86.4% vs. 12.7% for children 16-17 years of age; P < .001.

The researchers found greater hesitancy among Black and Hispanic parents, compared with parents who were non-Hispanic White, women, younger, and did not have a college education. Parents of children who were currently attending school remotely or only partially, were found to be more willing to vaccinate their children when compared to parents of children who were attending school fully in person.

The authors also found that parents who knew someone who had died of COVID-19 or had experienced a prior COVID-19 infection, were more willing to vaccinate their children.

Hesitance in vaccinated parents

Interestingly, 10% of COVID-vaccinated parents said they were still hesitant to vaccinate their kids because of concern for long-term adverse effects of the vaccine.

“These data point out that vaccine concerns may exist even among vaccinated or vaccine-favorable parents, so we should ask any parent who has not vaccinated their child whether we can discuss their concerns and perhaps move their opinions,” said William T. Basco Jr, MD, MS, a professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and director of the division of general pediatrics.

In an interview, when asked whether recent approval of the vaccine for children aged 5-11 will likely aid in overcoming parental hesitancy, Dr. Basco replied: “Absolutely. As more children get the vaccine and people know a neighbor or nephew or cousin, etc., who received the vaccine and did fine, it will engender greater comfort and allow parents to feel better about having their own child receive the vaccine.”

Advice for clinicians from outside expert

“We can always start by asking parents if we can help them understand the vaccine and the need for it. The tidal wave of disinformation is huge, but we can, on a daily basis, offer to help families navigate this decision,” concluded Dr. Basco, who was not involved with the new paper.

Funding for this study was provided through grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the CUNY Institute of Implementation Science in Population Health, and the COVID-19 Grant Program of the CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy. The authors and Dr. Basco have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The intention to vaccinate children against COVID-19 was lower among vaccine-hesitant parents when compared with parents who were willing to or had already received the COVID vaccine, a new survey finds.

“Parental vaccine hesitancy is a major issue for schools resuming in-person instruction, potentially requiring regular testing, strict mask wearing, and physical distancing for safe operation,” wrote lead author Madhura S. Rane, PhD, from the City University of New York in New York City, and colleagues in their paper, published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

The survey was conducted in June 2021 of 1,162 parents with children ranging in age from 2 to 17 years. The majority of parents (74.4%) were already vaccinated/vaccine-willing ,while 25.6% were vaccine hesitant. The study cohort, including both 1,652 children and their parents, was part of the nationwide CHASING COVID.

Vaccinated parents overall were more willing to vaccinate or had already vaccinated their eligible children when compared with vaccine-hesitant parents: 64.9% vs. 8.3% for children 2-4 years of age; 77.6% vs. 12.1% for children 5-11 years of age; 81.3% vs. 13.9% for children 12-15 years of age; and 86.4% vs. 12.7% for children 16-17 years of age; P < .001.

The researchers found greater hesitancy among Black and Hispanic parents, compared with parents who were non-Hispanic White, women, younger, and did not have a college education. Parents of children who were currently attending school remotely or only partially, were found to be more willing to vaccinate their children when compared to parents of children who were attending school fully in person.

The authors also found that parents who knew someone who had died of COVID-19 or had experienced a prior COVID-19 infection, were more willing to vaccinate their children.

Hesitance in vaccinated parents

Interestingly, 10% of COVID-vaccinated parents said they were still hesitant to vaccinate their kids because of concern for long-term adverse effects of the vaccine.

“These data point out that vaccine concerns may exist even among vaccinated or vaccine-favorable parents, so we should ask any parent who has not vaccinated their child whether we can discuss their concerns and perhaps move their opinions,” said William T. Basco Jr, MD, MS, a professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and director of the division of general pediatrics.

In an interview, when asked whether recent approval of the vaccine for children aged 5-11 will likely aid in overcoming parental hesitancy, Dr. Basco replied: “Absolutely. As more children get the vaccine and people know a neighbor or nephew or cousin, etc., who received the vaccine and did fine, it will engender greater comfort and allow parents to feel better about having their own child receive the vaccine.”

Advice for clinicians from outside expert

“We can always start by asking parents if we can help them understand the vaccine and the need for it. The tidal wave of disinformation is huge, but we can, on a daily basis, offer to help families navigate this decision,” concluded Dr. Basco, who was not involved with the new paper.

Funding for this study was provided through grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the CUNY Institute of Implementation Science in Population Health, and the COVID-19 Grant Program of the CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy. The authors and Dr. Basco have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A new survey from the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases shows that, despite the recommendation that patients who have chronic illnesses receive annual flu vaccines, only 45% of these patients do get them. People with chronic diseases are at increased risk for serious flu-related complications, including hospitalization and death.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

The survey looked at physicians’ practices toward flu vaccination and communication between health care providers (HCP) and their adult patients with chronic health conditions.

Overall, less than a third of HCPs (31%) said they recommend annual flu vaccination to all of their patients with chronic health conditions. There were some surprising differences between subspecialists. For example, 72% of patients with a heart problem who saw a cardiologist said that physician recommended the flu vaccine. The recommendation rate dropped to 32% of lung patients seeing a pulmonary physician and only 10% of people with diabetes who saw an endocrinologist.

There is quite a large gap between what physicians and patients say about their interactions. Fully 77% of HCPs who recommend annual flu vaccination say they tell patients when they are at higher risk of complications from influenza. Yet only 48% of patients say they have been given such information.

Although it is critically important information for patients to learn, their risk of influenza is often missing from the discussion. For example, patients with heart disease are six times more likely to have a heart attack within 7 days of flu infection. People with diabetes are six times more likely to be hospitalized from flu and three times more likely to die. Similarly, those with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder are at a much higher risk of complications.

One problem is that more than half of specialist physicians who do not offer flu vaccinations report that it is because they believe that immunizations are the responsibility of the primary care physician. Yet only 65% of patients with one of these chronic illnesses report seeing their primary care physician at least annually.

Much of the disparity between the patient’s perception of what they were told and the physician’s is “how the ‘recommendation’ is actually made,” William Schaffner, MD, NFID’s medical director and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Schaffner offered the following example: At the end of the visit, the doctor might say: “It’s that time of the year again – you want to think about getting your flu shot.”

“The doctor thinks they’ve recommended that, but the doctor really has opened the door for you to think about it and leave [yourself] unvaccinated.”

Dr. Schaffner’s alternative? Tell the patient: “‘You’ll get your flu vaccine on the way out. Tom or Sally will give it to you.’ That’s a very different kind of recommendation. And it’s a much greater assurance of providing the vaccine.”

Another major problem, Dr. Schaffner said, is that many specialists “don’t think of vaccination as something that’s included with their routine care” even though they do direct much of the patient’s care. He said that physicians should be more “directive” in their care and that immunizations should be better integrated into routine practice.

Jody Lanard, MD, a retired risk communication consultant who spent many years working with the World Health Organization on disease outbreak communications, said in an interview that this disconnect between physician and patient reports “was really jarring. And it’s actionable!”

She offered several practical suggestions. For one, she said, “the messaging to the specialists has to be very, very empathic. We know you’re already overburdened. And here we’re asking you to do something that you think of as somebody else’s job.” But if your patient gets flu, then your job as the cardiologist or endocrinologist will become more complicated and time-consuming. So getting the patients vaccinated will be a good investment and will make your job easier.

Because of the disparity in patient and physician reports, Dr. Lanard suggested implementing a “feedback mechanism where they [the health care providers] give out the prescription, and then the office calls [the patient] to see if they’ve gotten the shot or not. Because that way it will help correct the mismatch between them thinking that they told the patient and the patient not hearing it.”

Asked about why there might be a big gap between what physicians report they said and what patients heard, Dr. Lanard explained that “physicians often communicate in [a manner] sort of like a checklist. And the patients are focused on one or two things that are high in their minds. And the physician was mentioning some things that are on a separate topic that are not on a patient’s list and it goes right past them.”

Dr. Lanard recommended brief storytelling instead of checklists. For example: “I’ve been treating your diabetes for 10 years. During this last flu season, several of my diabetic patients had a really hard time when they caught the flu. So now I’m trying harder to remember to remind you to get your flu shots.”

She urged HCPs to “make it more personal ... but it can still be scripted in advance as part of something that [you’re] remembering to do during the check.” She added that their professional associations may be able to send them suggested language they can adapt.

Finally, Dr. Lanard cautioned about vaccine myths. “The word myth is so insulting. It’s basically a word that sends the signal that you’re an idiot.”

She advised specialists to avoid the word “myth,” which will make the person defensive. Instead, say something like, “A lot of people, even some of my own family members, think the flu vaccine gives you the flu. ... But it doesn’t. And then you go into the reality.”

Dr. Lanard suggested that specialists implement the follow-up calls and close the feedback loop, saying: “If they did the survey a few years later, I bet that gap would narrow.”

Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Lanard disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new survey from the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases shows that, despite the recommendation that patients who have chronic illnesses receive annual flu vaccines, only 45% of these patients do get them. People with chronic diseases are at increased risk for serious flu-related complications, including hospitalization and death.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

The survey looked at physicians’ practices toward flu vaccination and communication between health care providers (HCP) and their adult patients with chronic health conditions.

Overall, less than a third of HCPs (31%) said they recommend annual flu vaccination to all of their patients with chronic health conditions. There were some surprising differences between subspecialists. For example, 72% of patients with a heart problem who saw a cardiologist said that physician recommended the flu vaccine. The recommendation rate dropped to 32% of lung patients seeing a pulmonary physician and only 10% of people with diabetes who saw an endocrinologist.

There is quite a large gap between what physicians and patients say about their interactions. Fully 77% of HCPs who recommend annual flu vaccination say they tell patients when they are at higher risk of complications from influenza. Yet only 48% of patients say they have been given such information.

Although it is critically important information for patients to learn, their risk of influenza is often missing from the discussion. For example, patients with heart disease are six times more likely to have a heart attack within 7 days of flu infection. People with diabetes are six times more likely to be hospitalized from flu and three times more likely to die. Similarly, those with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder are at a much higher risk of complications.

One problem is that more than half of specialist physicians who do not offer flu vaccinations report that it is because they believe that immunizations are the responsibility of the primary care physician. Yet only 65% of patients with one of these chronic illnesses report seeing their primary care physician at least annually.

Much of the disparity between the patient’s perception of what they were told and the physician’s is “how the ‘recommendation’ is actually made,” William Schaffner, MD, NFID’s medical director and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Schaffner offered the following example: At the end of the visit, the doctor might say: “It’s that time of the year again – you want to think about getting your flu shot.”

“The doctor thinks they’ve recommended that, but the doctor really has opened the door for you to think about it and leave [yourself] unvaccinated.”

Dr. Schaffner’s alternative? Tell the patient: “‘You’ll get your flu vaccine on the way out. Tom or Sally will give it to you.’ That’s a very different kind of recommendation. And it’s a much greater assurance of providing the vaccine.”

Another major problem, Dr. Schaffner said, is that many specialists “don’t think of vaccination as something that’s included with their routine care” even though they do direct much of the patient’s care. He said that physicians should be more “directive” in their care and that immunizations should be better integrated into routine practice.

Jody Lanard, MD, a retired risk communication consultant who spent many years working with the World Health Organization on disease outbreak communications, said in an interview that this disconnect between physician and patient reports “was really jarring. And it’s actionable!”

She offered several practical suggestions. For one, she said, “the messaging to the specialists has to be very, very empathic. We know you’re already overburdened. And here we’re asking you to do something that you think of as somebody else’s job.” But if your patient gets flu, then your job as the cardiologist or endocrinologist will become more complicated and time-consuming. So getting the patients vaccinated will be a good investment and will make your job easier.

Because of the disparity in patient and physician reports, Dr. Lanard suggested implementing a “feedback mechanism where they [the health care providers] give out the prescription, and then the office calls [the patient] to see if they’ve gotten the shot or not. Because that way it will help correct the mismatch between them thinking that they told the patient and the patient not hearing it.”

Asked about why there might be a big gap between what physicians report they said and what patients heard, Dr. Lanard explained that “physicians often communicate in [a manner] sort of like a checklist. And the patients are focused on one or two things that are high in their minds. And the physician was mentioning some things that are on a separate topic that are not on a patient’s list and it goes right past them.”

Dr. Lanard recommended brief storytelling instead of checklists. For example: “I’ve been treating your diabetes for 10 years. During this last flu season, several of my diabetic patients had a really hard time when they caught the flu. So now I’m trying harder to remember to remind you to get your flu shots.”

She urged HCPs to “make it more personal ... but it can still be scripted in advance as part of something that [you’re] remembering to do during the check.” She added that their professional associations may be able to send them suggested language they can adapt.

Finally, Dr. Lanard cautioned about vaccine myths. “The word myth is so insulting. It’s basically a word that sends the signal that you’re an idiot.”

She advised specialists to avoid the word “myth,” which will make the person defensive. Instead, say something like, “A lot of people, even some of my own family members, think the flu vaccine gives you the flu. ... But it doesn’t. And then you go into the reality.”

Dr. Lanard suggested that specialists implement the follow-up calls and close the feedback loop, saying: “If they did the survey a few years later, I bet that gap would narrow.”

Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Lanard disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new survey from the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases shows that, despite the recommendation that patients who have chronic illnesses receive annual flu vaccines, only 45% of these patients do get them. People with chronic diseases are at increased risk for serious flu-related complications, including hospitalization and death.

MarianVejcik/Getty Images

The survey looked at physicians’ practices toward flu vaccination and communication between health care providers (HCP) and their adult patients with chronic health conditions.

Overall, less than a third of HCPs (31%) said they recommend annual flu vaccination to all of their patients with chronic health conditions. There were some surprising differences between subspecialists. For example, 72% of patients with a heart problem who saw a cardiologist said that physician recommended the flu vaccine. The recommendation rate dropped to 32% of lung patients seeing a pulmonary physician and only 10% of people with diabetes who saw an endocrinologist.

There is quite a large gap between what physicians and patients say about their interactions. Fully 77% of HCPs who recommend annual flu vaccination say they tell patients when they are at higher risk of complications from influenza. Yet only 48% of patients say they have been given such information.

Although it is critically important information for patients to learn, their risk of influenza is often missing from the discussion. For example, patients with heart disease are six times more likely to have a heart attack within 7 days of flu infection. People with diabetes are six times more likely to be hospitalized from flu and three times more likely to die. Similarly, those with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder are at a much higher risk of complications.

One problem is that more than half of specialist physicians who do not offer flu vaccinations report that it is because they believe that immunizations are the responsibility of the primary care physician. Yet only 65% of patients with one of these chronic illnesses report seeing their primary care physician at least annually.

Much of the disparity between the patient’s perception of what they were told and the physician’s is “how the ‘recommendation’ is actually made,” William Schaffner, MD, NFID’s medical director and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Schaffner offered the following example: At the end of the visit, the doctor might say: “It’s that time of the year again – you want to think about getting your flu shot.”

“The doctor thinks they’ve recommended that, but the doctor really has opened the door for you to think about it and leave [yourself] unvaccinated.”

Dr. Schaffner’s alternative? Tell the patient: “‘You’ll get your flu vaccine on the way out. Tom or Sally will give it to you.’ That’s a very different kind of recommendation. And it’s a much greater assurance of providing the vaccine.”

Another major problem, Dr. Schaffner said, is that many specialists “don’t think of vaccination as something that’s included with their routine care” even though they do direct much of the patient’s care. He said that physicians should be more “directive” in their care and that immunizations should be better integrated into routine practice.

Jody Lanard, MD, a retired risk communication consultant who spent many years working with the World Health Organization on disease outbreak communications, said in an interview that this disconnect between physician and patient reports “was really jarring. And it’s actionable!”

She offered several practical suggestions. For one, she said, “the messaging to the specialists has to be very, very empathic. We know you’re already overburdened. And here we’re asking you to do something that you think of as somebody else’s job.” But if your patient gets flu, then your job as the cardiologist or endocrinologist will become more complicated and time-consuming. So getting the patients vaccinated will be a good investment and will make your job easier.

Because of the disparity in patient and physician reports, Dr. Lanard suggested implementing a “feedback mechanism where they [the health care providers] give out the prescription, and then the office calls [the patient] to see if they’ve gotten the shot or not. Because that way it will help correct the mismatch between them thinking that they told the patient and the patient not hearing it.”

Asked about why there might be a big gap between what physicians report they said and what patients heard, Dr. Lanard explained that “physicians often communicate in [a manner] sort of like a checklist. And the patients are focused on one or two things that are high in their minds. And the physician was mentioning some things that are on a separate topic that are not on a patient’s list and it goes right past them.”

Dr. Lanard recommended brief storytelling instead of checklists. For example: “I’ve been treating your diabetes for 10 years. During this last flu season, several of my diabetic patients had a really hard time when they caught the flu. So now I’m trying harder to remember to remind you to get your flu shots.”

She urged HCPs to “make it more personal ... but it can still be scripted in advance as part of something that [you’re] remembering to do during the check.” She added that their professional associations may be able to send them suggested language they can adapt.

Finally, Dr. Lanard cautioned about vaccine myths. “The word myth is so insulting. It’s basically a word that sends the signal that you’re an idiot.”

She advised specialists to avoid the word “myth,” which will make the person defensive. Instead, say something like, “A lot of people, even some of my own family members, think the flu vaccine gives you the flu. ... But it doesn’t. And then you go into the reality.”

Dr. Lanard suggested that specialists implement the follow-up calls and close the feedback loop, saying: “If they did the survey a few years later, I bet that gap would narrow.”

Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Lanard disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A single dose of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was highly effective at preventing oncogenic infection, rivaling the protection offered by multidose regimens, according to results from the KEN SHE trial, based in Kenya.

The findings, published on the preprint server Research Square and presented Nov. 17 at the 34th International Papillomavirus Conference in Toronto, bring “renewed energy to the push to make cervical cancer the first cancer to be wiped out globally,” according to co–principal investigator Ruanne V. Barnabas, PhD, a professor of global health at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Decision-makers will consider these findings, which have not yet been peer-reviewed, along with other evidence to determine if dosing-schedule changes are warranted, she told this news organization.

In a press release, Samuel Kariuki, PhD, acting director general, Kenya Medical Research Institute, who was not involved in the research, called the findings a “game changer” that could “substantially reduce the incidence of HPV-attributable cervical cancer.”

Between 2018 and 2019, Dr. Barnabas and her colleagues enrolled 2,275 sexually active, HPV-vaccine–naive women in Kenya in their study. The women, 15-20 years of age, were randomly assigned to receive a bivalent vaccine (HPV 16/18), a nonavalent vaccine (HPV 16/18/31/33/45/52/58/6/11), or a vaccine against meningococcal meningitis.

Most participants (57%) were between 15 and 17 years of age, and 61% reported one lifetime sexual partner. The women underwent genital and cervical swabs at enrollment to test for HPV DNA and had blood drawn to test for antibodies. During 18 months of follow-up, they had cervical swabs every 6 months and a vaginal swab at 3 months to test for HPV DNA.

The researchers detected 38 persistent HPV 16/18 infections in women who had tested negative for HPV 16/18 antibodies at enrollment and for HPV 16/18 DNA at enrollment and month 3 – one in each of the HPV-vaccine groups and 36 in the meningococcal group. This infection rate corresponded to a vaccine efficacy of 97.5% (P < .001) against HPV 16/18 for both the bivalent and nonavalent vaccines, which is “comparable to that seen in multidose vaccine trials,” the researchers write.

Among women negative for HPV 16/18/31/33/45/52/58 at the beginning of the trial, 33 had persistent infections: four in the nonavalent vaccine group and 29 in the meningococcal group, demonstrating an efficacy of 89% (P < .001) against all seven oncogenic strains contained in the vaccine.

Even if women tested positive for one strain of HPV, the vaccine protected them from other strains of the virus, the investigators noted.

Serious adverse events occurred in 4.5%-5.2% of participants across the study arms.

The KEN SHE trial comes 15 years after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first HPV vaccine – Merck’s Gardasil. Two others, Cervarix and Gardasil-9, have since been approved, but cost and supply issues have inhibited coverage, particularly in areas where the cervical cancer burden is high, the researchers noted.

Recent data indicate that just 15% of girls globally are vaccinated against HPV, but a single-dose vaccine would “simplify logistics and decrease costs,” thereby improving the chances of reaching the World Health Organization goal of vaccinating 90% of 15-year-old girls against HPV by 2030, Dr. Barnabas said in a press release about the trial.

Co–principal investigator Nelly Mugo, MBChB, MPH, senior principal clinical research scientist with the Center for Clinical Research at the Kenya Medical Research Institute in Nairobi, further emphasized the importance of the findings, noting in the press release that the “trial brings new energy to the elimination of cervical cancer. It brings great hope to the women living in countries like Kenya, who have a high burden of the disease.”

Dr. Mugo is also an associate research professor of global health at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Dr. Barnabas said women have been given multiple doses of the HPV vaccine because of “gaps in evidence for the effectiveness of a single-dose vaccine and concerns about clinically meaningful differences in efficacy.

“Observational data suggested that the single-dose HPV vaccine could have good efficacy, but because the data were not from randomized trials, that could have been from chance,” she explained, noting, however, that “sufficient evidence supported the decrease in doses from three to two doses for girls 15 years of age and younger.”

Going forward, the researchers will conduct immunobridging studies to other populations and will continue follow-up to assess the durability of single-dose efficacy, Dr. Barnabas said.

“The results from the KEN SHE trial support the use of single-dose HPV vaccination to increase access and coverage,” she concluded.

The KEN SHE trial was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). Dr. Barnabas reports grants from BMGF and grants from King K. Holmes Professorship in STDs and AIDS during the conduct of the study, and grants from BMGF, National Institutes of Health, and manuscript and abstract writing support from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.

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

A single dose of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was highly effective at preventing oncogenic infection, rivaling the protection offered by multidose regimens, according to results from the KEN SHE trial, based in Kenya.

The findings, published on the preprint server Research Square and presented Nov. 17 at the 34th International Papillomavirus Conference in Toronto, bring “renewed energy to the push to make cervical cancer the first cancer to be wiped out globally,” according to co–principal investigator Ruanne V. Barnabas, PhD, a professor of global health at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Decision-makers will consider these findings, which have not yet been peer-reviewed, along with other evidence to determine if dosing-schedule changes are warranted, she told this news organization.

In a press release, Samuel Kariuki, PhD, acting director general, Kenya Medical Research Institute, who was not involved in the research, called the findings a “game changer” that could “substantially reduce the incidence of HPV-attributable cervical cancer.”

Between 2018 and 2019, Dr. Barnabas and her colleagues enrolled 2,275 sexually active, HPV-vaccine–naive women in Kenya in their study. The women, 15-20 years of age, were randomly assigned to receive a bivalent vaccine (HPV 16/18), a nonavalent vaccine (HPV 16/18/31/33/45/52/58/6/11), or a vaccine against meningococcal meningitis.

Most participants (57%) were between 15 and 17 years of age, and 61% reported one lifetime sexual partner. The women underwent genital and cervical swabs at enrollment to test for HPV DNA and had blood drawn to test for antibodies. During 18 months of follow-up, they had cervical swabs every 6 months and a vaginal swab at 3 months to test for HPV DNA.

The researchers detected 38 persistent HPV 16/18 infections in women who had tested negative for HPV 16/18 antibodies at enrollment and for HPV 16/18 DNA at enrollment and month 3 – one in each of the HPV-vaccine groups and 36 in the meningococcal group. This infection rate corresponded to a vaccine efficacy of 97.5% (P < .001) against HPV 16/18 for both the bivalent and nonavalent vaccines, which is “comparable to that seen in multidose vaccine trials,” the researchers write.

Among women negative for HPV 16/18/31/33/45/52/58 at the beginning of the trial, 33 had persistent infections: four in the nonavalent vaccine group and 29 in the meningococcal group, demonstrating an efficacy of 89% (P < .001) against all seven oncogenic strains contained in the vaccine.

Even if women tested positive for one strain of HPV, the vaccine protected them from other strains of the virus, the investigators noted.

Serious adverse events occurred in 4.5%-5.2% of participants across the study arms.

The KEN SHE trial comes 15 years after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first HPV vaccine – Merck’s Gardasil. Two others, Cervarix and Gardasil-9, have since been approved, but cost and supply issues have inhibited coverage, particularly in areas where the cervical cancer burden is high, the researchers noted.

Recent data indicate that just 15% of girls globally are vaccinated against HPV, but a single-dose vaccine would “simplify logistics and decrease costs,” thereby improving the chances of reaching the World Health Organization goal of vaccinating 90% of 15-year-old girls against HPV by 2030, Dr. Barnabas said in a press release about the trial.

Co–principal investigator Nelly Mugo, MBChB, MPH, senior principal clinical research scientist with the Center for Clinical Research at the Kenya Medical Research Institute in Nairobi, further emphasized the importance of the findings, noting in the press release that the “trial brings new energy to the elimination of cervical cancer. It brings great hope to the women living in countries like Kenya, who have a high burden of the disease.”

Dr. Mugo is also an associate research professor of global health at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Dr. Barnabas said women have been given multiple doses of the HPV vaccine because of “gaps in evidence for the effectiveness of a single-dose vaccine and concerns about clinically meaningful differences in efficacy.

“Observational data suggested that the single-dose HPV vaccine could have good efficacy, but because the data were not from randomized trials, that could have been from chance,” she explained, noting, however, that “sufficient evidence supported the decrease in doses from three to two doses for girls 15 years of age and younger.”

Going forward, the researchers will conduct immunobridging studies to other populations and will continue follow-up to assess the durability of single-dose efficacy, Dr. Barnabas said.

“The results from the KEN SHE trial support the use of single-dose HPV vaccination to increase access and coverage,” she concluded.

The KEN SHE trial was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). Dr. Barnabas reports grants from BMGF and grants from King K. Holmes Professorship in STDs and AIDS during the conduct of the study, and grants from BMGF, National Institutes of Health, and manuscript and abstract writing support from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.

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

A single dose of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was highly effective at preventing oncogenic infection, rivaling the protection offered by multidose regimens, according to results from the KEN SHE trial, based in Kenya.

The findings, published on the preprint server Research Square and presented Nov. 17 at the 34th International Papillomavirus Conference in Toronto, bring “renewed energy to the push to make cervical cancer the first cancer to be wiped out globally,” according to co–principal investigator Ruanne V. Barnabas, PhD, a professor of global health at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Decision-makers will consider these findings, which have not yet been peer-reviewed, along with other evidence to determine if dosing-schedule changes are warranted, she told this news organization.

In a press release, Samuel Kariuki, PhD, acting director general, Kenya Medical Research Institute, who was not involved in the research, called the findings a “game changer” that could “substantially reduce the incidence of HPV-attributable cervical cancer.”

Between 2018 and 2019, Dr. Barnabas and her colleagues enrolled 2,275 sexually active, HPV-vaccine–naive women in Kenya in their study. The women, 15-20 years of age, were randomly assigned to receive a bivalent vaccine (HPV 16/18), a nonavalent vaccine (HPV 16/18/31/33/45/52/58/6/11), or a vaccine against meningococcal meningitis.

Most participants (57%) were between 15 and 17 years of age, and 61% reported one lifetime sexual partner. The women underwent genital and cervical swabs at enrollment to test for HPV DNA and had blood drawn to test for antibodies. During 18 months of follow-up, they had cervical swabs every 6 months and a vaginal swab at 3 months to test for HPV DNA.

The researchers detected 38 persistent HPV 16/18 infections in women who had tested negative for HPV 16/18 antibodies at enrollment and for HPV 16/18 DNA at enrollment and month 3 – one in each of the HPV-vaccine groups and 36 in the meningococcal group. This infection rate corresponded to a vaccine efficacy of 97.5% (P < .001) against HPV 16/18 for both the bivalent and nonavalent vaccines, which is “comparable to that seen in multidose vaccine trials,” the researchers write.

Among women negative for HPV 16/18/31/33/45/52/58 at the beginning of the trial, 33 had persistent infections: four in the nonavalent vaccine group and 29 in the meningococcal group, demonstrating an efficacy of 89% (P < .001) against all seven oncogenic strains contained in the vaccine.

Even if women tested positive for one strain of HPV, the vaccine protected them from other strains of the virus, the investigators noted.

Serious adverse events occurred in 4.5%-5.2% of participants across the study arms.

The KEN SHE trial comes 15 years after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first HPV vaccine – Merck’s Gardasil. Two others, Cervarix and Gardasil-9, have since been approved, but cost and supply issues have inhibited coverage, particularly in areas where the cervical cancer burden is high, the researchers noted.

Recent data indicate that just 15% of girls globally are vaccinated against HPV, but a single-dose vaccine would “simplify logistics and decrease costs,” thereby improving the chances of reaching the World Health Organization goal of vaccinating 90% of 15-year-old girls against HPV by 2030, Dr. Barnabas said in a press release about the trial.

Co–principal investigator Nelly Mugo, MBChB, MPH, senior principal clinical research scientist with the Center for Clinical Research at the Kenya Medical Research Institute in Nairobi, further emphasized the importance of the findings, noting in the press release that the “trial brings new energy to the elimination of cervical cancer. It brings great hope to the women living in countries like Kenya, who have a high burden of the disease.”

Dr. Mugo is also an associate research professor of global health at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Dr. Barnabas said women have been given multiple doses of the HPV vaccine because of “gaps in evidence for the effectiveness of a single-dose vaccine and concerns about clinically meaningful differences in efficacy.

“Observational data suggested that the single-dose HPV vaccine could have good efficacy, but because the data were not from randomized trials, that could have been from chance,” she explained, noting, however, that “sufficient evidence supported the decrease in doses from three to two doses for girls 15 years of age and younger.”

Going forward, the researchers will conduct immunobridging studies to other populations and will continue follow-up to assess the durability of single-dose efficacy, Dr. Barnabas said.

“The results from the KEN SHE trial support the use of single-dose HPV vaccination to increase access and coverage,” she concluded.

The KEN SHE trial was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). Dr. Barnabas reports grants from BMGF and grants from King K. Holmes Professorship in STDs and AIDS during the conduct of the study, and grants from BMGF, National Institutes of Health, and manuscript and abstract writing support from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.

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

Children and adolescents with poorly controlled asthma were three to six times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 infections, based on data from a national study of more than 750,000 children in Scotland.

Although the majority of COVID-19 cases in children have been mild, some children require hospitalization, wrote Ting Shi, PhD, of the University of Edinburgh (Scotland) and colleagues.

Vaccination policies to potentially reduce infection and hospitalization of children remain inconsistent, the researchers said. Identifying which school-age children would derive the greatest benefit from vaccination “could help to reduce the risk of infection and consequently the need for children to have time off school; and might also reduce the risk of spread of SARS-CoV-2 within schools and households,” but the potential benefits of vaccination for children with asthma in particular have not been well studied, they wrote.

The United Kingdom’s Joint Commission on Vaccination and Immunisation commissioned research on the rates of hospitalization among children with poorly controlled asthma. In a national incidence cohort study published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from all children aged 5-17 years in Scotland who were enrolled in the linked dataset of Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 (EAVE II). The total number of children in the dataset was 752,867, and 63,463 (8.4%) of these had diagnosed asthma. Among the children with asthma, 4,339 (6.8%) had confirmed COVID-19 infections between March 1, 2020, and July 27, 2021. A total of 67 infected children were hospitalized. Of the 689,404 children without asthma, 40,231 (5.8%) had confirmed COVID-19 infections, and 382 (0.9%) of these children were hospitalized.

Overall, hospital admission rates for COVID-19 were significantly higher among children with asthma, compared to those without asthma (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.49), and the rates increased among children with poorly controlled asthma.

The researchers used previous hospital admission for asthma as a measure of uncontrolled asthma, and found that hospitalization was at least six times as likely for children with poorly controlled asthma, compared with those with no asthma (aHR, 6.40), although children with well-controlled asthma also had an increased risk of hospitalization, compared with those with no asthma (aHR, 1.36).

When the researchers used oral corticosteroid prescriptions as an indicator of uncontrolled asthma, the adjusted hazard ratios were 3.38, 3.53, 1.52, and 1.34 for children with prescribed corticosteroid courses of three or more, two, one, and none, respectively, compared with children with no asthma.

These hazard ratios remained significant after controlling for factors including age, sex, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, and previous hospital admission, the researchers wrote.

In an age-based analysis, results were similar for children aged 12-17 years, but in children aged 5-11 years, the hospitalization risk decreased for those with one course of corticosteroids and reached the highest rate for those with three or more courses, rather than two courses.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively small numbers of COVID-19 hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths in children with asthma, the researchers noted. Other limitations include potential changes in asthma control over the study period, and lack of data on certain confounders such as tobacco use, unsuitable housing, and ethnicity, they noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a large, national dataset, and access to electronic health records, they said.

The findings reflect data from previous studies suggesting increased risk of hospitalization for patients with respiratory illness who develop COVID-19 infections, the researchers wrote.

The results emphasize the importance of good asthma control to protect children from severe COVID-19, and careful monitoring of children with poorly controlled asthma who do become infected, they added.

“The findings from this linkage of multiple data sources have helped inform the prioritisation of school-aged children with poorly controlled asthma for vaccines,” they concluded.
 

Findings support value of vaccination for children with asthma

“Pediatricians see many children who suffer from asthma, and although one could assume that these children would have more serious consequences from contracting COVID-19, the current study examines a large database in a way not possible in the United States to address the severity question,” said Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “The authors used prior hospitalization rate or two prescriptions for oral corticosteroids as markers of asthma severity prior to the onset of COVID-19 in Scotland, and they collected retrospective data for 16 months of the pandemic through July of 2021, showing a significant increase in hospitalization for those children,” she said. Dr. Boulter said she was not surprised by this finding, given the impact of COVID-19 on the respiratory system.

“Pediatricians have found significant challenges from some groups of parents when discussing the indications and need for vaccination in their patients,” said Dr. Boulter. “Having this data on the increased risk of morbidity and mortality in children with asthma might help parents who are uncertain about the risk/benefit ratio of the vaccine make their decision,” she said.

Dr. Boulter said she hoped that additional studies will yield ongoing information about hospitalization rates for COVID-19 not only about asthma, but also other diagnoses affecting children in the United States and worldwide.

“It would also be important to see a breakdown of ethnic factors and adverse childhood experiences and how they relate to hospitalization and death from COVID-19,” Dr. Boulter said.

“The results of this study are not surprising, as we have known for a long time that children with severe asthma are more susceptible to severe respiratory viruses,” Francis E. Rushton, MD, a pediatrician in Beaufort, S.C., said in an interview. “But the study is still important, as it helps us determine which children are most urgently in need of protection from COVID-19 in any of its forms,” he emphasized. In particular, the current study underlines the importance of vaccinating children with unstable asthma, Dr. Rushton said.

Going forward, “it would be interesting to do additional studies looking at other markers for poor asthma control that could guide our vaccine efforts so that they are focused on those most at risk,” he added.

The study was supported by the UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK, and the Scottish Government. Lead author Dr. Shi had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Rushton and Dr. Boulter had no financial conflicts to disclose, but each serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

Children and adolescents with poorly controlled asthma were three to six times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 infections, based on data from a national study of more than 750,000 children in Scotland.

Although the majority of COVID-19 cases in children have been mild, some children require hospitalization, wrote Ting Shi, PhD, of the University of Edinburgh (Scotland) and colleagues.

Vaccination policies to potentially reduce infection and hospitalization of children remain inconsistent, the researchers said. Identifying which school-age children would derive the greatest benefit from vaccination “could help to reduce the risk of infection and consequently the need for children to have time off school; and might also reduce the risk of spread of SARS-CoV-2 within schools and households,” but the potential benefits of vaccination for children with asthma in particular have not been well studied, they wrote.

The United Kingdom’s Joint Commission on Vaccination and Immunisation commissioned research on the rates of hospitalization among children with poorly controlled asthma. In a national incidence cohort study published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from all children aged 5-17 years in Scotland who were enrolled in the linked dataset of Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 (EAVE II). The total number of children in the dataset was 752,867, and 63,463 (8.4%) of these had diagnosed asthma. Among the children with asthma, 4,339 (6.8%) had confirmed COVID-19 infections between March 1, 2020, and July 27, 2021. A total of 67 infected children were hospitalized. Of the 689,404 children without asthma, 40,231 (5.8%) had confirmed COVID-19 infections, and 382 (0.9%) of these children were hospitalized.

Overall, hospital admission rates for COVID-19 were significantly higher among children with asthma, compared to those without asthma (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.49), and the rates increased among children with poorly controlled asthma.

The researchers used previous hospital admission for asthma as a measure of uncontrolled asthma, and found that hospitalization was at least six times as likely for children with poorly controlled asthma, compared with those with no asthma (aHR, 6.40), although children with well-controlled asthma also had an increased risk of hospitalization, compared with those with no asthma (aHR, 1.36).

When the researchers used oral corticosteroid prescriptions as an indicator of uncontrolled asthma, the adjusted hazard ratios were 3.38, 3.53, 1.52, and 1.34 for children with prescribed corticosteroid courses of three or more, two, one, and none, respectively, compared with children with no asthma.

These hazard ratios remained significant after controlling for factors including age, sex, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, and previous hospital admission, the researchers wrote.

In an age-based analysis, results were similar for children aged 12-17 years, but in children aged 5-11 years, the hospitalization risk decreased for those with one course of corticosteroids and reached the highest rate for those with three or more courses, rather than two courses.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively small numbers of COVID-19 hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths in children with asthma, the researchers noted. Other limitations include potential changes in asthma control over the study period, and lack of data on certain confounders such as tobacco use, unsuitable housing, and ethnicity, they noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a large, national dataset, and access to electronic health records, they said.

The findings reflect data from previous studies suggesting increased risk of hospitalization for patients with respiratory illness who develop COVID-19 infections, the researchers wrote.

The results emphasize the importance of good asthma control to protect children from severe COVID-19, and careful monitoring of children with poorly controlled asthma who do become infected, they added.

“The findings from this linkage of multiple data sources have helped inform the prioritisation of school-aged children with poorly controlled asthma for vaccines,” they concluded.
 

Findings support value of vaccination for children with asthma

“Pediatricians see many children who suffer from asthma, and although one could assume that these children would have more serious consequences from contracting COVID-19, the current study examines a large database in a way not possible in the United States to address the severity question,” said Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “The authors used prior hospitalization rate or two prescriptions for oral corticosteroids as markers of asthma severity prior to the onset of COVID-19 in Scotland, and they collected retrospective data for 16 months of the pandemic through July of 2021, showing a significant increase in hospitalization for those children,” she said. Dr. Boulter said she was not surprised by this finding, given the impact of COVID-19 on the respiratory system.

“Pediatricians have found significant challenges from some groups of parents when discussing the indications and need for vaccination in their patients,” said Dr. Boulter. “Having this data on the increased risk of morbidity and mortality in children with asthma might help parents who are uncertain about the risk/benefit ratio of the vaccine make their decision,” she said.

Dr. Boulter said she hoped that additional studies will yield ongoing information about hospitalization rates for COVID-19 not only about asthma, but also other diagnoses affecting children in the United States and worldwide.

“It would also be important to see a breakdown of ethnic factors and adverse childhood experiences and how they relate to hospitalization and death from COVID-19,” Dr. Boulter said.

“The results of this study are not surprising, as we have known for a long time that children with severe asthma are more susceptible to severe respiratory viruses,” Francis E. Rushton, MD, a pediatrician in Beaufort, S.C., said in an interview. “But the study is still important, as it helps us determine which children are most urgently in need of protection from COVID-19 in any of its forms,” he emphasized. In particular, the current study underlines the importance of vaccinating children with unstable asthma, Dr. Rushton said.

Going forward, “it would be interesting to do additional studies looking at other markers for poor asthma control that could guide our vaccine efforts so that they are focused on those most at risk,” he added.

The study was supported by the UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK, and the Scottish Government. Lead author Dr. Shi had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Rushton and Dr. Boulter had no financial conflicts to disclose, but each serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

Children and adolescents with poorly controlled asthma were three to six times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 infections, based on data from a national study of more than 750,000 children in Scotland.

Although the majority of COVID-19 cases in children have been mild, some children require hospitalization, wrote Ting Shi, PhD, of the University of Edinburgh (Scotland) and colleagues.

Vaccination policies to potentially reduce infection and hospitalization of children remain inconsistent, the researchers said. Identifying which school-age children would derive the greatest benefit from vaccination “could help to reduce the risk of infection and consequently the need for children to have time off school; and might also reduce the risk of spread of SARS-CoV-2 within schools and households,” but the potential benefits of vaccination for children with asthma in particular have not been well studied, they wrote.

The United Kingdom’s Joint Commission on Vaccination and Immunisation commissioned research on the rates of hospitalization among children with poorly controlled asthma. In a national incidence cohort study published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from all children aged 5-17 years in Scotland who were enrolled in the linked dataset of Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 (EAVE II). The total number of children in the dataset was 752,867, and 63,463 (8.4%) of these had diagnosed asthma. Among the children with asthma, 4,339 (6.8%) had confirmed COVID-19 infections between March 1, 2020, and July 27, 2021. A total of 67 infected children were hospitalized. Of the 689,404 children without asthma, 40,231 (5.8%) had confirmed COVID-19 infections, and 382 (0.9%) of these children were hospitalized.

Overall, hospital admission rates for COVID-19 were significantly higher among children with asthma, compared to those without asthma (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.49), and the rates increased among children with poorly controlled asthma.

The researchers used previous hospital admission for asthma as a measure of uncontrolled asthma, and found that hospitalization was at least six times as likely for children with poorly controlled asthma, compared with those with no asthma (aHR, 6.40), although children with well-controlled asthma also had an increased risk of hospitalization, compared with those with no asthma (aHR, 1.36).

When the researchers used oral corticosteroid prescriptions as an indicator of uncontrolled asthma, the adjusted hazard ratios were 3.38, 3.53, 1.52, and 1.34 for children with prescribed corticosteroid courses of three or more, two, one, and none, respectively, compared with children with no asthma.

These hazard ratios remained significant after controlling for factors including age, sex, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, and previous hospital admission, the researchers wrote.

In an age-based analysis, results were similar for children aged 12-17 years, but in children aged 5-11 years, the hospitalization risk decreased for those with one course of corticosteroids and reached the highest rate for those with three or more courses, rather than two courses.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively small numbers of COVID-19 hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths in children with asthma, the researchers noted. Other limitations include potential changes in asthma control over the study period, and lack of data on certain confounders such as tobacco use, unsuitable housing, and ethnicity, they noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a large, national dataset, and access to electronic health records, they said.

The findings reflect data from previous studies suggesting increased risk of hospitalization for patients with respiratory illness who develop COVID-19 infections, the researchers wrote.

The results emphasize the importance of good asthma control to protect children from severe COVID-19, and careful monitoring of children with poorly controlled asthma who do become infected, they added.

“The findings from this linkage of multiple data sources have helped inform the prioritisation of school-aged children with poorly controlled asthma for vaccines,” they concluded.
 

Findings support value of vaccination for children with asthma

“Pediatricians see many children who suffer from asthma, and although one could assume that these children would have more serious consequences from contracting COVID-19, the current study examines a large database in a way not possible in the United States to address the severity question,” said Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “The authors used prior hospitalization rate or two prescriptions for oral corticosteroids as markers of asthma severity prior to the onset of COVID-19 in Scotland, and they collected retrospective data for 16 months of the pandemic through July of 2021, showing a significant increase in hospitalization for those children,” she said. Dr. Boulter said she was not surprised by this finding, given the impact of COVID-19 on the respiratory system.

“Pediatricians have found significant challenges from some groups of parents when discussing the indications and need for vaccination in their patients,” said Dr. Boulter. “Having this data on the increased risk of morbidity and mortality in children with asthma might help parents who are uncertain about the risk/benefit ratio of the vaccine make their decision,” she said.

Dr. Boulter said she hoped that additional studies will yield ongoing information about hospitalization rates for COVID-19 not only about asthma, but also other diagnoses affecting children in the United States and worldwide.

“It would also be important to see a breakdown of ethnic factors and adverse childhood experiences and how they relate to hospitalization and death from COVID-19,” Dr. Boulter said.

“The results of this study are not surprising, as we have known for a long time that children with severe asthma are more susceptible to severe respiratory viruses,” Francis E. Rushton, MD, a pediatrician in Beaufort, S.C., said in an interview. “But the study is still important, as it helps us determine which children are most urgently in need of protection from COVID-19 in any of its forms,” he emphasized. In particular, the current study underlines the importance of vaccinating children with unstable asthma, Dr. Rushton said.

Going forward, “it would be interesting to do additional studies looking at other markers for poor asthma control that could guide our vaccine efforts so that they are focused on those most at risk,” he added.

The study was supported by the UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK, and the Scottish Government. Lead author Dr. Shi had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Rushton and Dr. Boulter had no financial conflicts to disclose, but each serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

Two different studies have found that, provided young females are immunized with the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine at a young enough age, both the incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer can be dramatically curtailed, data from the United Kingdom and to a lesser extent, the United States indicate.

In the U.K. study, published online in The Lancet, researchers showed that the national vaccination program against HPV, initiated in England in 2008, has all but eradicated cervical cancer and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3) in young girls who received the vaccine at the age of 12 and 13 years (school year 8) prior to their sexual debut.

In this age group, cervical cancer rates were 87% lower than rates among previously nonvaccinated generations, while CIN3 rates were reduced by 97%, as researchers report. “It’s been incredible to see the impact of HPV vaccination, and now we can prove it prevented hundreds of women from developing cancer in England,” senior author Peter Sasieni, MD, King’s College London, said in a statement. “To see the real-life impact of the vaccine has been truly rewarding,” he added.

“This study provides the first direct evidence of the impact of the UK HPV vaccination campaign on cervical cancer incidence, showing a large reduction in cervical cancer rates in vaccinated cohorts,” Kate Soldan, MD, UK Health Security Agency, London, said in the same statement.

“This represents an important step forward in cervical cancer prevention, and we hope that these new results encourage uptake as the success of the vaccination programme relies not only on the efficacy of the vaccine but also the proportion of the population vaccinated,” she added.

Vanessa Saliba, MD, a consultant epidemiologist for the UK Health Security Agency, agreed, adding that “these remarkable findings confirm that the HPV vaccine saves lives by dramatically reducing cervical cancer rates among women.”

“This reminds us that vaccines are one of the most important tools we have to help us live longer, healthier lives,” she reemphasized.
 

British HPV program

When initiated in 2008, the national HPV vaccination program used the bivalent, Cervarix vaccine against HPV 16 and 18. As researchers noted, these two HPV types are responsible for 70%-80% of all cervical cancers in England.

However, in 2012, the program switched to the quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil) which is also effective against two additional HPV types, 6 and 11, both of which cause genital warts. The program also originally recommended the three-dose regimen for both HPV vaccines.

Now, only two doses of the vaccine are given to girls under the age of 15 even though it has been shown that a single dose of the HPV vaccine provides good protection against persistent infection, with efficacy rates that are similar to that of three doses, as the authors point out.

Among the cohort eligible for vaccination at 12 or 13 years of age, 89% received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine while 85% of the same age group received all three shots.
 

Cancer registry

Data from a population-based cancer registry was used to estimate the early effect of the bivalent HPV program on the incidence of cervical cancer and CIN3 in England between January 2006 and June 2019. During the study interval, there were 27,946 diagnoses of cervical cancer and 318,058 diagnoses of CIN3, lead author Milena Falcaro, MD, King’s College London, and colleagues report. Participants were then analyzed separately according to their age at the time of vaccination and the incidence rates calculated for both cervical cancer and CIN3 in the three separate groups.

For slightly older girls who received the vaccine between 14 and 16 years of age (school year 10-11), cervical cancer was reduced by 62% while CIN3 rates were reduced by 75%. For those who received the vaccine between 16 and 18 years of age (school year 12-13), cervical cancer rates were reduced by 34% while CIN3 rates were reduced by 39%, study authors add.

Indeed, the authors estimate that by June 2019 there were approximately 450 fewer cases of cervical cancer and 17,200 fewer cases of CIN3 than would otherwise have been expected in the vaccinated population in England.

The authors acknowledge that cervical cancer is rare in young women and vaccinated populations are still young. For example, the youngest recipients would have been immunized at the age of 12 in 2008 and would still be only 23 years old in 2019 when the study ended.

Thus, the authors emphasize that, because the vaccinated populations are still young, it’s too early to assess the full effect of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer rates.

Asked to comment on the study, Maurice Markman, MD, president, Medicine and Science Cancer Treatment Centers of America, pointed out that results from the British study are very similar to those from a Swedish study assessing the effect of the quadrivalent vaccine alone.

“You can put any superlatives you want in here, but these are stunningly positive results,” Dr. Markman said in an interview. As an oncologist who has been treating cervical cancer for 40 years – particularly advanced cervical cancer – “I can tell you this is one of the most devastating diseases to women, and the ability to eliminate this cancer with something as simple as a vaccine is the goal of cancer therapy, and it’s been remarkably successful,” he stressed.
 

Editorial commentary

Commenting on the findings, editorialists Maggie Cruickshank, MD, University of Aberdeen (Scotland), and Mihaela Grigore, MD, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Lasi, Romania, point out that published reports evaluating the effect of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer rates have been scarce until now.

“The most important issue, besides the availability of the vaccine ... is the education of the population to accept vaccination because a high rate of immunization is a key element of success,” they emphasize. “Even in a wealthy country such as England with free access to HPV immunization, uptake has not reached the 90% vaccination target of girls aged 15 years set by the WHO [World Health Organization],” the editorialists add.

Dr. Cruickshank and Dr. Grigore also suggest that the effect HPV vaccination is having on cervical cancer rates as shown in this study should also stimulate vaccination programs in low- and middle-income countries where cervical cancer is a far greater public health issue than it is in countries with established systems of vaccination and screening.
 

HPV vaccination in the United States

The HPV vaccination program is similarly reducing the incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer among younger women in the United States who are most likely to have received the vaccine. As reported by lead author, Justin Barnes, MD, Washington University, St. Louis, the incidence of cervical cancer dropped by 37.7% from 2001 through 2005 to 2010 through 2017 in girls and young women between 15 and 24 years of age.

The U.S. study was published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

“HPV vaccine coverage in the U.S. has improved over the last few years although it was quite poor for many years,” senior author of the U.K. study, Peter Sasieni, MD, King’s College London, said in an interview. “Thus, one would anticipate a lower impact on the population in the U.S., because vaccine uptake, particularly in those aged 11-14 years was so much lower than it was in the U.K.,” he noted.
 

SEER databases

National age-adjusted cervical cancer incidence and mortality data from January 2001 through December 2017 for women and girls between 15 and 39 years of age were obtained from the combined Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results as well as the National Program of Cancer Registries databases. Mortality data was obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Investigators then compared percentage changes in the incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer from January 2001 through December 2005 during the prevaccination years to that observed between January 2010 through December 2017 during the postvaccination years. They also compared incidence and mortality rates in three different cohorts: females between 15 and 24 years of age, those between 25 and 29 years of age, and those between 30 and 39 years of age.

“The older two groups were included as comparison, given their low vaccination rates,” the authors explained. Results showed that, during the same study interval from 2001 through 2005 to 2010 through 2017, the incidence of cervical cancer dropped by only 16.1% in women between 25 and 29 years of age and by only 8% for women between 30 and 39 years of age, the investigators report.

Reductions in mortality from cervical cancer were only strikingly so in the youngest age group of females between 15 and 24 years of age, among whom there was a 43.3% reduction in mortality from 2001-2005 to 2010-2017, as Dr. Barnes and colleagues note.

This pattern changed substantially in women between the ages of 25 and 29, among whom there was a 4.3% increase in mortality from cervical cancer during the same study interval and a small, 4.7% reduction among women between 30 and 39 years of age, investigators add. In actual numbers, mortality rates from cervical cancer were very low at only 0.6 per 100,000 in females between 15 and 24 years of age.

This compared to a mortality rate of 0.57 per 100,000 in women between 25 and 29 years of age and 1.89 per 100,000 in the oldest age group. “These nationwide data showed decreased cervical cancer incidence and mortality among women and girls aged 15-24 years after HPV vaccine introduction,” Dr. Barnes notes.

“Thus, the current study adds to knowledge by quantitatively comparing changes in cervical cancer incidence by age-based vaccine eligibility and providing suggestive evidence for vaccine-associated decreases in cervical cancer mortality,” investigators add.

However, as the authors also point out, while the reduction in mortality from cervical cancer associated with HPV vaccination may translate to older age groups as HPV-vaccinated cohorts age, “the number of deaths and hence the number of potentially averted deaths in young women and girls was small,” they caution, “and efforts to further improve vaccination uptake remain important.”

None of the authors or the editorialists had any conflicts of interest to declare.

Two different studies have found that, provided young females are immunized with the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine at a young enough age, both the incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer can be dramatically curtailed, data from the United Kingdom and to a lesser extent, the United States indicate.

In the U.K. study, published online in The Lancet, researchers showed that the national vaccination program against HPV, initiated in England in 2008, has all but eradicated cervical cancer and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3) in young girls who received the vaccine at the age of 12 and 13 years (school year 8) prior to their sexual debut.

In this age group, cervical cancer rates were 87% lower than rates among previously nonvaccinated generations, while CIN3 rates were reduced by 97%, as researchers report. “It’s been incredible to see the impact of HPV vaccination, and now we can prove it prevented hundreds of women from developing cancer in England,” senior author Peter Sasieni, MD, King’s College London, said in a statement. “To see the real-life impact of the vaccine has been truly rewarding,” he added.

“This study provides the first direct evidence of the impact of the UK HPV vaccination campaign on cervical cancer incidence, showing a large reduction in cervical cancer rates in vaccinated cohorts,” Kate Soldan, MD, UK Health Security Agency, London, said in the same statement.

“This represents an important step forward in cervical cancer prevention, and we hope that these new results encourage uptake as the success of the vaccination programme relies not only on the efficacy of the vaccine but also the proportion of the population vaccinated,” she added.

Vanessa Saliba, MD, a consultant epidemiologist for the UK Health Security Agency, agreed, adding that “these remarkable findings confirm that the HPV vaccine saves lives by dramatically reducing cervical cancer rates among women.”

“This reminds us that vaccines are one of the most important tools we have to help us live longer, healthier lives,” she reemphasized.
 

British HPV program

When initiated in 2008, the national HPV vaccination program used the bivalent, Cervarix vaccine against HPV 16 and 18. As researchers noted, these two HPV types are responsible for 70%-80% of all cervical cancers in England.

However, in 2012, the program switched to the quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil) which is also effective against two additional HPV types, 6 and 11, both of which cause genital warts. The program also originally recommended the three-dose regimen for both HPV vaccines.

Now, only two doses of the vaccine are given to girls under the age of 15 even though it has been shown that a single dose of the HPV vaccine provides good protection against persistent infection, with efficacy rates that are similar to that of three doses, as the authors point out.

Among the cohort eligible for vaccination at 12 or 13 years of age, 89% received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine while 85% of the same age group received all three shots.
 

Cancer registry

Data from a population-based cancer registry was used to estimate the early effect of the bivalent HPV program on the incidence of cervical cancer and CIN3 in England between January 2006 and June 2019. During the study interval, there were 27,946 diagnoses of cervical cancer and 318,058 diagnoses of CIN3, lead author Milena Falcaro, MD, King’s College London, and colleagues report. Participants were then analyzed separately according to their age at the time of vaccination and the incidence rates calculated for both cervical cancer and CIN3 in the three separate groups.

For slightly older girls who received the vaccine between 14 and 16 years of age (school year 10-11), cervical cancer was reduced by 62% while CIN3 rates were reduced by 75%. For those who received the vaccine between 16 and 18 years of age (school year 12-13), cervical cancer rates were reduced by 34% while CIN3 rates were reduced by 39%, study authors add.

Indeed, the authors estimate that by June 2019 there were approximately 450 fewer cases of cervical cancer and 17,200 fewer cases of CIN3 than would otherwise have been expected in the vaccinated population in England.

The authors acknowledge that cervical cancer is rare in young women and vaccinated populations are still young. For example, the youngest recipients would have been immunized at the age of 12 in 2008 and would still be only 23 years old in 2019 when the study ended.

Thus, the authors emphasize that, because the vaccinated populations are still young, it’s too early to assess the full effect of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer rates.

Asked to comment on the study, Maurice Markman, MD, president, Medicine and Science Cancer Treatment Centers of America, pointed out that results from the British study are very similar to those from a Swedish study assessing the effect of the quadrivalent vaccine alone.

“You can put any superlatives you want in here, but these are stunningly positive results,” Dr. Markman said in an interview. As an oncologist who has been treating cervical cancer for 40 years – particularly advanced cervical cancer – “I can tell you this is one of the most devastating diseases to women, and the ability to eliminate this cancer with something as simple as a vaccine is the goal of cancer therapy, and it’s been remarkably successful,” he stressed.
 

Editorial commentary

Commenting on the findings, editorialists Maggie Cruickshank, MD, University of Aberdeen (Scotland), and Mihaela Grigore, MD, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Lasi, Romania, point out that published reports evaluating the effect of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer rates have been scarce until now.

“The most important issue, besides the availability of the vaccine ... is the education of the population to accept vaccination because a high rate of immunization is a key element of success,” they emphasize. “Even in a wealthy country such as England with free access to HPV immunization, uptake has not reached the 90% vaccination target of girls aged 15 years set by the WHO [World Health Organization],” the editorialists add.

Dr. Cruickshank and Dr. Grigore also suggest that the effect HPV vaccination is having on cervical cancer rates as shown in this study should also stimulate vaccination programs in low- and middle-income countries where cervical cancer is a far greater public health issue than it is in countries with established systems of vaccination and screening.
 

HPV vaccination in the United States

The HPV vaccination program is similarly reducing the incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer among younger women in the United States who are most likely to have received the vaccine. As reported by lead author, Justin Barnes, MD, Washington University, St. Louis, the incidence of cervical cancer dropped by 37.7% from 2001 through 2005 to 2010 through 2017 in girls and young women between 15 and 24 years of age.

The U.S. study was published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

“HPV vaccine coverage in the U.S. has improved over the last few years although it was quite poor for many years,” senior author of the U.K. study, Peter Sasieni, MD, King’s College London, said in an interview. “Thus, one would anticipate a lower impact on the population in the U.S., because vaccine uptake, particularly in those aged 11-14 years was so much lower than it was in the U.K.,” he noted.
 

SEER databases

National age-adjusted cervical cancer incidence and mortality data from January 2001 through December 2017 for women and girls between 15 and 39 years of age were obtained from the combined Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results as well as the National Program of Cancer Registries databases. Mortality data was obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Investigators then compared percentage changes in the incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer from January 2001 through December 2005 during the prevaccination years to that observed between January 2010 through December 2017 during the postvaccination years. They also compared incidence and mortality rates in three different cohorts: females between 15 and 24 years of age, those between 25 and 29 years of age, and those between 30 and 39 years of age.

“The older two groups were included as comparison, given their low vaccination rates,” the authors explained. Results showed that, during the same study interval from 2001 through 2005 to 2010 through 2017, the incidence of cervical cancer dropped by only 16.1% in women between 25 and 29 years of age and by only 8% for women between 30 and 39 years of age, the investigators report.

Reductions in mortality from cervical cancer were only strikingly so in the youngest age group of females between 15 and 24 years of age, among whom there was a 43.3% reduction in mortality from 2001-2005 to 2010-2017, as Dr. Barnes and colleagues note.

This pattern changed substantially in women between the ages of 25 and 29, among whom there was a 4.3% increase in mortality from cervical cancer during the same study interval and a small, 4.7% reduction among women between 30 and 39 years of age, investigators add. In actual numbers, mortality rates from cervical cancer were very low at only 0.6 per 100,000 in females between 15 and 24 years of age.

This compared to a mortality rate of 0.57 per 100,000 in women between 25 and 29 years of age and 1.89 per 100,000 in the oldest age group. “These nationwide data showed decreased cervical cancer incidence and mortality among women and girls aged 15-24 years after HPV vaccine introduction,” Dr. Barnes notes.

“Thus, the current study adds to knowledge by quantitatively comparing changes in cervical cancer incidence by age-based vaccine eligibility and providing suggestive evidence for vaccine-associated decreases in cervical cancer mortality,” investigators add.

However, as the authors also point out, while the reduction in mortality from cervical cancer associated with HPV vaccination may translate to older age groups as HPV-vaccinated cohorts age, “the number of deaths and hence the number of potentially averted deaths in young women and girls was small,” they caution, “and efforts to further improve vaccination uptake remain important.”

None of the authors or the editorialists had any conflicts of interest to declare.

Two different studies have found that, provided young females are immunized with the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine at a young enough age, both the incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer can be dramatically curtailed, data from the United Kingdom and to a lesser extent, the United States indicate.

In the U.K. study, published online in The Lancet, researchers showed that the national vaccination program against HPV, initiated in England in 2008, has all but eradicated cervical cancer and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3) in young girls who received the vaccine at the age of 12 and 13 years (school year 8) prior to their sexual debut.

In this age group, cervical cancer rates were 87% lower than rates among previously nonvaccinated generations, while CIN3 rates were reduced by 97%, as researchers report. “It’s been incredible to see the impact of HPV vaccination, and now we can prove it prevented hundreds of women from developing cancer in England,” senior author Peter Sasieni, MD, King’s College London, said in a statement. “To see the real-life impact of the vaccine has been truly rewarding,” he added.

“This study provides the first direct evidence of the impact of the UK HPV vaccination campaign on cervical cancer incidence, showing a large reduction in cervical cancer rates in vaccinated cohorts,” Kate Soldan, MD, UK Health Security Agency, London, said in the same statement.

“This represents an important step forward in cervical cancer prevention, and we hope that these new results encourage uptake as the success of the vaccination programme relies not only on the efficacy of the vaccine but also the proportion of the population vaccinated,” she added.

Vanessa Saliba, MD, a consultant epidemiologist for the UK Health Security Agency, agreed, adding that “these remarkable findings confirm that the HPV vaccine saves lives by dramatically reducing cervical cancer rates among women.”

“This reminds us that vaccines are one of the most important tools we have to help us live longer, healthier lives,” she reemphasized.
 

British HPV program

When initiated in 2008, the national HPV vaccination program used the bivalent, Cervarix vaccine against HPV 16 and 18. As researchers noted, these two HPV types are responsible for 70%-80% of all cervical cancers in England.

However, in 2012, the program switched to the quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil) which is also effective against two additional HPV types, 6 and 11, both of which cause genital warts. The program also originally recommended the three-dose regimen for both HPV vaccines.

Now, only two doses of the vaccine are given to girls under the age of 15 even though it has been shown that a single dose of the HPV vaccine provides good protection against persistent infection, with efficacy rates that are similar to that of three doses, as the authors point out.

Among the cohort eligible for vaccination at 12 or 13 years of age, 89% received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine while 85% of the same age group received all three shots.
 

Cancer registry

Data from a population-based cancer registry was used to estimate the early effect of the bivalent HPV program on the incidence of cervical cancer and CIN3 in England between January 2006 and June 2019. During the study interval, there were 27,946 diagnoses of cervical cancer and 318,058 diagnoses of CIN3, lead author Milena Falcaro, MD, King’s College London, and colleagues report. Participants were then analyzed separately according to their age at the time of vaccination and the incidence rates calculated for both cervical cancer and CIN3 in the three separate groups.

For slightly older girls who received the vaccine between 14 and 16 years of age (school year 10-11), cervical cancer was reduced by 62% while CIN3 rates were reduced by 75%. For those who received the vaccine between 16 and 18 years of age (school year 12-13), cervical cancer rates were reduced by 34% while CIN3 rates were reduced by 39%, study authors add.

Indeed, the authors estimate that by June 2019 there were approximately 450 fewer cases of cervical cancer and 17,200 fewer cases of CIN3 than would otherwise have been expected in the vaccinated population in England.

The authors acknowledge that cervical cancer is rare in young women and vaccinated populations are still young. For example, the youngest recipients would have been immunized at the age of 12 in 2008 and would still be only 23 years old in 2019 when the study ended.

Thus, the authors emphasize that, because the vaccinated populations are still young, it’s too early to assess the full effect of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer rates.

Asked to comment on the study, Maurice Markman, MD, president, Medicine and Science Cancer Treatment Centers of America, pointed out that results from the British study are very similar to those from a Swedish study assessing the effect of the quadrivalent vaccine alone.

“You can put any superlatives you want in here, but these are stunningly positive results,” Dr. Markman said in an interview. As an oncologist who has been treating cervical cancer for 40 years – particularly advanced cervical cancer – “I can tell you this is one of the most devastating diseases to women, and the ability to eliminate this cancer with something as simple as a vaccine is the goal of cancer therapy, and it’s been remarkably successful,” he stressed.
 

Editorial commentary

Commenting on the findings, editorialists Maggie Cruickshank, MD, University of Aberdeen (Scotland), and Mihaela Grigore, MD, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Lasi, Romania, point out that published reports evaluating the effect of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer rates have been scarce until now.

“The most important issue, besides the availability of the vaccine ... is the education of the population to accept vaccination because a high rate of immunization is a key element of success,” they emphasize. “Even in a wealthy country such as England with free access to HPV immunization, uptake has not reached the 90% vaccination target of girls aged 15 years set by the WHO [World Health Organization],” the editorialists add.

Dr. Cruickshank and Dr. Grigore also suggest that the effect HPV vaccination is having on cervical cancer rates as shown in this study should also stimulate vaccination programs in low- and middle-income countries where cervical cancer is a far greater public health issue than it is in countries with established systems of vaccination and screening.
 

HPV vaccination in the United States

The HPV vaccination program is similarly reducing the incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer among younger women in the United States who are most likely to have received the vaccine. As reported by lead author, Justin Barnes, MD, Washington University, St. Louis, the incidence of cervical cancer dropped by 37.7% from 2001 through 2005 to 2010 through 2017 in girls and young women between 15 and 24 years of age.

The U.S. study was published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

“HPV vaccine coverage in the U.S. has improved over the last few years although it was quite poor for many years,” senior author of the U.K. study, Peter Sasieni, MD, King’s College London, said in an interview. “Thus, one would anticipate a lower impact on the population in the U.S., because vaccine uptake, particularly in those aged 11-14 years was so much lower than it was in the U.K.,” he noted.
 

SEER databases

National age-adjusted cervical cancer incidence and mortality data from January 2001 through December 2017 for women and girls between 15 and 39 years of age were obtained from the combined Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results as well as the National Program of Cancer Registries databases. Mortality data was obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Investigators then compared percentage changes in the incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer from January 2001 through December 2005 during the prevaccination years to that observed between January 2010 through December 2017 during the postvaccination years. They also compared incidence and mortality rates in three different cohorts: females between 15 and 24 years of age, those between 25 and 29 years of age, and those between 30 and 39 years of age.

“The older two groups were included as comparison, given their low vaccination rates,” the authors explained. Results showed that, during the same study interval from 2001 through 2005 to 2010 through 2017, the incidence of cervical cancer dropped by only 16.1% in women between 25 and 29 years of age and by only 8% for women between 30 and 39 years of age, the investigators report.

Reductions in mortality from cervical cancer were only strikingly so in the youngest age group of females between 15 and 24 years of age, among whom there was a 43.3% reduction in mortality from 2001-2005 to 2010-2017, as Dr. Barnes and colleagues note.

This pattern changed substantially in women between the ages of 25 and 29, among whom there was a 4.3% increase in mortality from cervical cancer during the same study interval and a small, 4.7% reduction among women between 30 and 39 years of age, investigators add. In actual numbers, mortality rates from cervical cancer were very low at only 0.6 per 100,000 in females between 15 and 24 years of age.

This compared to a mortality rate of 0.57 per 100,000 in women between 25 and 29 years of age and 1.89 per 100,000 in the oldest age group. “These nationwide data showed decreased cervical cancer incidence and mortality among women and girls aged 15-24 years after HPV vaccine introduction,” Dr. Barnes notes.

“Thus, the current study adds to knowledge by quantitatively comparing changes in cervical cancer incidence by age-based vaccine eligibility and providing suggestive evidence for vaccine-associated decreases in cervical cancer mortality,” investigators add.

However, as the authors also point out, while the reduction in mortality from cervical cancer associated with HPV vaccination may translate to older age groups as HPV-vaccinated cohorts age, “the number of deaths and hence the number of potentially averted deaths in young women and girls was small,” they caution, “and efforts to further improve vaccination uptake remain important.”

None of the authors or the editorialists had any conflicts of interest to declare.

The Moderna CEO says existing COVID-19 vaccines will likely be less effective against the new Omicron variant.

“There is no world, I think, where [the effectiveness] is the same level … we had with Delta,” Stephane Bancel told the Financial Times .

“I think it’s going to be a material drop,” he said. “I just don’t know how much, because we need to wait for the data. But all the scientists I’ve talked to … are like, ‘This is not going to be good.’”

Vaccine companies are now studying whether the new Omicron variant could evade the current shots. Some data is expected in about 2 weeks.

Mr. Bancel said that if a new vaccine is needed, it could take several months to produce at scale. He estimated that Moderna could make billions of vaccine doses in 2022.

“[Moderna] and Pfizer cannot get a billion doses next week. The math doesn’t work,” he said. “But could we get the billion doses out by the summer? Sure.”

The news caused some panic on Nov. 30, prompting financial markets to fall sharply, according to Reuters. But the markets recovered after European officials gave a more reassuring outlook.

“Even if the new variant becomes more widespread, the vaccines we have will continue to provide protection,” Emer Cooke, executive director of the European Medicines Agency, told the European Parliament.

Mr. Cooke said the agency could approve new vaccines that target the Omicron variant within 3 to 4 months, if needed. Moderna and Pfizer have announced they are beginning to tailor a shot to address the Omicron variant in case the data shows they are necessary.

Also on Nov. 30, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control announced that 42 Omicron cases had been identified in 10 European Union countries, according to Reuters.

The cases were mild or had no symptoms, although they were found in younger people who may have mild or no symptoms anyway.

“For the assessment of whether [Omicron] escapes immunity, we still have to wait until investigations in the laboratories with [blood samples] from people who have recovered have been carried out,” Andrea Ammon, MD, chair of the agency, said during an online conference.

The University of Oxford, which developed a COVID-19 vaccine with AstraZeneca, said Nov. 30 that there’s no evidence that vaccines won’t prevent severe disease from the Omicron variant, according to Reuters.

“Despite the appearance of new variants over the past year, vaccines have continued to provide very high levels of protection against severe disease and there is no evidence so far that Omicron is any different,” the university said in a statement. “However, we have the necessary tools and processes in place for rapid development of an updated COVID-19 vaccine if it should be necessary.”

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

The Moderna CEO says existing COVID-19 vaccines will likely be less effective against the new Omicron variant.

“There is no world, I think, where [the effectiveness] is the same level … we had with Delta,” Stephane Bancel told the Financial Times .

“I think it’s going to be a material drop,” he said. “I just don’t know how much, because we need to wait for the data. But all the scientists I’ve talked to … are like, ‘This is not going to be good.’”

Vaccine companies are now studying whether the new Omicron variant could evade the current shots. Some data is expected in about 2 weeks.

Mr. Bancel said that if a new vaccine is needed, it could take several months to produce at scale. He estimated that Moderna could make billions of vaccine doses in 2022.

“[Moderna] and Pfizer cannot get a billion doses next week. The math doesn’t work,” he said. “But could we get the billion doses out by the summer? Sure.”

The news caused some panic on Nov. 30, prompting financial markets to fall sharply, according to Reuters. But the markets recovered after European officials gave a more reassuring outlook.

“Even if the new variant becomes more widespread, the vaccines we have will continue to provide protection,” Emer Cooke, executive director of the European Medicines Agency, told the European Parliament.

Mr. Cooke said the agency could approve new vaccines that target the Omicron variant within 3 to 4 months, if needed. Moderna and Pfizer have announced they are beginning to tailor a shot to address the Omicron variant in case the data shows they are necessary.

Also on Nov. 30, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control announced that 42 Omicron cases had been identified in 10 European Union countries, according to Reuters.

The cases were mild or had no symptoms, although they were found in younger people who may have mild or no symptoms anyway.

“For the assessment of whether [Omicron] escapes immunity, we still have to wait until investigations in the laboratories with [blood samples] from people who have recovered have been carried out,” Andrea Ammon, MD, chair of the agency, said during an online conference.

The University of Oxford, which developed a COVID-19 vaccine with AstraZeneca, said Nov. 30 that there’s no evidence that vaccines won’t prevent severe disease from the Omicron variant, according to Reuters.

“Despite the appearance of new variants over the past year, vaccines have continued to provide very high levels of protection against severe disease and there is no evidence so far that Omicron is any different,” the university said in a statement. “However, we have the necessary tools and processes in place for rapid development of an updated COVID-19 vaccine if it should be necessary.”

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

The Moderna CEO says existing COVID-19 vaccines will likely be less effective against the new Omicron variant.

“There is no world, I think, where [the effectiveness] is the same level … we had with Delta,” Stephane Bancel told the Financial Times .

“I think it’s going to be a material drop,” he said. “I just don’t know how much, because we need to wait for the data. But all the scientists I’ve talked to … are like, ‘This is not going to be good.’”

Vaccine companies are now studying whether the new Omicron variant could evade the current shots. Some data is expected in about 2 weeks.

Mr. Bancel said that if a new vaccine is needed, it could take several months to produce at scale. He estimated that Moderna could make billions of vaccine doses in 2022.

“[Moderna] and Pfizer cannot get a billion doses next week. The math doesn’t work,” he said. “But could we get the billion doses out by the summer? Sure.”

The news caused some panic on Nov. 30, prompting financial markets to fall sharply, according to Reuters. But the markets recovered after European officials gave a more reassuring outlook.

“Even if the new variant becomes more widespread, the vaccines we have will continue to provide protection,” Emer Cooke, executive director of the European Medicines Agency, told the European Parliament.

Mr. Cooke said the agency could approve new vaccines that target the Omicron variant within 3 to 4 months, if needed. Moderna and Pfizer have announced they are beginning to tailor a shot to address the Omicron variant in case the data shows they are necessary.

Also on Nov. 30, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control announced that 42 Omicron cases had been identified in 10 European Union countries, according to Reuters.

The cases were mild or had no symptoms, although they were found in younger people who may have mild or no symptoms anyway.

“For the assessment of whether [Omicron] escapes immunity, we still have to wait until investigations in the laboratories with [blood samples] from people who have recovered have been carried out,” Andrea Ammon, MD, chair of the agency, said during an online conference.

The University of Oxford, which developed a COVID-19 vaccine with AstraZeneca, said Nov. 30 that there’s no evidence that vaccines won’t prevent severe disease from the Omicron variant, according to Reuters.

“Despite the appearance of new variants over the past year, vaccines have continued to provide very high levels of protection against severe disease and there is no evidence so far that Omicron is any different,” the university said in a statement. “However, we have the necessary tools and processes in place for rapid development of an updated COVID-19 vaccine if it should be necessary.”

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

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination helps prevent cervical cancer and saves lives, new nationwide data suggest.

The analysis adds to a growing body of evidence demonstrating vaccine-associated changes in cervical cancer incidence and mortality.

Previous data from the United Kingdom, published earlier in November, showed that cervical cancer rates were 87% lower among girls who received the HPV vaccine compared to previously unvaccinated generations. Based on the analysis, the authors concluded that the UK’s HPV immunization program “almost eliminated cervical cancer” in women born since September 1995.

The latest study, published Nov. 29 in JAMA Pediatrics , reports a 38% drop in cervical cancer incidence and a 43% decline in mortality among young women and girls after HPV vaccination was introduced in the United States.

“These results are encouraging,” Peter Sasieni, MD, of King’s College London, and senior author on the U.K. study, told this news organization in an email.

The difference in incidence rates between the U.K. and U.S. studies, Dr. Sasieni explained, is likely due to HPV vaccine coverage not expanding as significantly in the United States as it has in the United Kingdom, and “thus one would anticipate a lower impact on the population in the U.S.”

In the U.S. analysis, Justin Barnes, MD, a radiation oncology resident at Washington University, St. Louis, and colleagues examined cervical cancer incidence between January 2001 and December 2017 using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and National Program of Cancer Registries data as well as mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Dr. Barnes and colleagues then compared changes in cervical cancer incidence and mortality between prevaccination years (January 2001 to December 2005) and postvaccination years (January 2010 to December 2017) among three age cohorts – 15-24 years, 25-29 years, and 30-39 years.

“The older 2 groups were included as comparison, given their low vaccination rates,” Dr. Barnes and colleagues explained.

Results show that between the prevaccination and postvaccination periods, the incidence of cervical cancer dropped by 38% in the youngest cohort and by only 16% in the middle-aged group and 8% in the oldest cohort.

Women and girls in the youngest group saw a striking drop in mortality: a 43% decline, which translated to a mortality rate of 0.6 per 100,000.

On the other hand, the authors report a 4.7% decline in mortality in the oldest group and a 4.3% increase in mortality in the middle-aged group – translating to a mortality rate of 1.89 per 100,000 and 0.57 per 100,000, respectively.

Overall, “these nationwide data showed decreased cervical cancer incidence and mortality among women and girls aged 15-24 years after HPV vaccine introduction,” Dr. Barnes and colleagues wrote. The changes in cervical cancer incidence and mortality observed in the youngest age group “were greater than changes in those aged 25 to 29 years and 30 to 39 years, suggesting possible associations with HPV vaccination.”

This analysis lines up with previous evidence from U.S. epidemiologic data, which “have shown decreased cervical cancer incidence after vaccine implementation in women and girls aged 15 to 24 years but not older women.”

Although “the number of deaths and hence the number of potentially averted deaths in young women and girls was small,” the study adds to the current literature by “providing suggestive evidence for vaccine-associated decreases in cervical cancer mortality,” investigators concluded.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination helps prevent cervical cancer and saves lives, new nationwide data suggest.

The analysis adds to a growing body of evidence demonstrating vaccine-associated changes in cervical cancer incidence and mortality.

Previous data from the United Kingdom, published earlier in November, showed that cervical cancer rates were 87% lower among girls who received the HPV vaccine compared to previously unvaccinated generations. Based on the analysis, the authors concluded that the UK’s HPV immunization program “almost eliminated cervical cancer” in women born since September 1995.

The latest study, published Nov. 29 in JAMA Pediatrics , reports a 38% drop in cervical cancer incidence and a 43% decline in mortality among young women and girls after HPV vaccination was introduced in the United States.

“These results are encouraging,” Peter Sasieni, MD, of King’s College London, and senior author on the U.K. study, told this news organization in an email.

The difference in incidence rates between the U.K. and U.S. studies, Dr. Sasieni explained, is likely due to HPV vaccine coverage not expanding as significantly in the United States as it has in the United Kingdom, and “thus one would anticipate a lower impact on the population in the U.S.”

In the U.S. analysis, Justin Barnes, MD, a radiation oncology resident at Washington University, St. Louis, and colleagues examined cervical cancer incidence between January 2001 and December 2017 using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and National Program of Cancer Registries data as well as mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Dr. Barnes and colleagues then compared changes in cervical cancer incidence and mortality between prevaccination years (January 2001 to December 2005) and postvaccination years (January 2010 to December 2017) among three age cohorts – 15-24 years, 25-29 years, and 30-39 years.

“The older 2 groups were included as comparison, given their low vaccination rates,” Dr. Barnes and colleagues explained.

Results show that between the prevaccination and postvaccination periods, the incidence of cervical cancer dropped by 38% in the youngest cohort and by only 16% in the middle-aged group and 8% in the oldest cohort.

Women and girls in the youngest group saw a striking drop in mortality: a 43% decline, which translated to a mortality rate of 0.6 per 100,000.

On the other hand, the authors report a 4.7% decline in mortality in the oldest group and a 4.3% increase in mortality in the middle-aged group – translating to a mortality rate of 1.89 per 100,000 and 0.57 per 100,000, respectively.

Overall, “these nationwide data showed decreased cervical cancer incidence and mortality among women and girls aged 15-24 years after HPV vaccine introduction,” Dr. Barnes and colleagues wrote. The changes in cervical cancer incidence and mortality observed in the youngest age group “were greater than changes in those aged 25 to 29 years and 30 to 39 years, suggesting possible associations with HPV vaccination.”

This analysis lines up with previous evidence from U.S. epidemiologic data, which “have shown decreased cervical cancer incidence after vaccine implementation in women and girls aged 15 to 24 years but not older women.”

Although “the number of deaths and hence the number of potentially averted deaths in young women and girls was small,” the study adds to the current literature by “providing suggestive evidence for vaccine-associated decreases in cervical cancer mortality,” investigators concluded.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination helps prevent cervical cancer and saves lives, new nationwide data suggest.

The analysis adds to a growing body of evidence demonstrating vaccine-associated changes in cervical cancer incidence and mortality.

Previous data from the United Kingdom, published earlier in November, showed that cervical cancer rates were 87% lower among girls who received the HPV vaccine compared to previously unvaccinated generations. Based on the analysis, the authors concluded that the UK’s HPV immunization program “almost eliminated cervical cancer” in women born since September 1995.

The latest study, published Nov. 29 in JAMA Pediatrics , reports a 38% drop in cervical cancer incidence and a 43% decline in mortality among young women and girls after HPV vaccination was introduced in the United States.

“These results are encouraging,” Peter Sasieni, MD, of King’s College London, and senior author on the U.K. study, told this news organization in an email.

The difference in incidence rates between the U.K. and U.S. studies, Dr. Sasieni explained, is likely due to HPV vaccine coverage not expanding as significantly in the United States as it has in the United Kingdom, and “thus one would anticipate a lower impact on the population in the U.S.”

In the U.S. analysis, Justin Barnes, MD, a radiation oncology resident at Washington University, St. Louis, and colleagues examined cervical cancer incidence between January 2001 and December 2017 using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and National Program of Cancer Registries data as well as mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Dr. Barnes and colleagues then compared changes in cervical cancer incidence and mortality between prevaccination years (January 2001 to December 2005) and postvaccination years (January 2010 to December 2017) among three age cohorts – 15-24 years, 25-29 years, and 30-39 years.

“The older 2 groups were included as comparison, given their low vaccination rates,” Dr. Barnes and colleagues explained.

Results show that between the prevaccination and postvaccination periods, the incidence of cervical cancer dropped by 38% in the youngest cohort and by only 16% in the middle-aged group and 8% in the oldest cohort.

Women and girls in the youngest group saw a striking drop in mortality: a 43% decline, which translated to a mortality rate of 0.6 per 100,000.

On the other hand, the authors report a 4.7% decline in mortality in the oldest group and a 4.3% increase in mortality in the middle-aged group – translating to a mortality rate of 1.89 per 100,000 and 0.57 per 100,000, respectively.

Overall, “these nationwide data showed decreased cervical cancer incidence and mortality among women and girls aged 15-24 years after HPV vaccine introduction,” Dr. Barnes and colleagues wrote. The changes in cervical cancer incidence and mortality observed in the youngest age group “were greater than changes in those aged 25 to 29 years and 30 to 39 years, suggesting possible associations with HPV vaccination.”

This analysis lines up with previous evidence from U.S. epidemiologic data, which “have shown decreased cervical cancer incidence after vaccine implementation in women and girls aged 15 to 24 years but not older women.”

Although “the number of deaths and hence the number of potentially averted deaths in young women and girls was small,” the study adds to the current literature by “providing suggestive evidence for vaccine-associated decreases in cervical cancer mortality,” investigators concluded.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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