In 2005 the human papillomavirus vaccine
was accepted as a routine vaccine in 11-12 year old girls in the United States.
More recently, additional research has shown that HPV is also responsible for
several unisex cancers including oropharyngeal cancer. Since this discovery,
boys are now also being encouraged to receive the HPV vaccine. This action has
been debated on many levels. The first question is if the majority of
associated cancers with HPV are female only cancers, is it cost effective to
vaccinate boys? Keep in mind that this is a series of three shots, they may not
be currently covered by all insurance plans and not every child is covered by
health insurance. Another question is what portion of our population needs to
be vaccinated to give adequate protection to our whole population. With normal vaccinations,
the rule is 95% of the population needs to be vaccinated to protect the whole
population. Because the HPV vaccination
protects against a sexually transmitted virus and the most dramatically
affected population is women, many suggest that female-only vaccination is sufficient.
“As female-only vaccination is
resulting in sufficient herd immunity in the UK, it is argued that vaccination
of boys would contribute little to the reduction in numbers of cervical cancers
in women.”
Given these two ideas, what would be
the most cost effective, socially responsible and health conscious way of
giving Americans protection from HPV.
1. “Male vaccination against human
papillomavirus” British Dental Journal 2012;213:359.
2. CDC “Human
papillomavirus-associated cancers- United States 2004-2008” MMWR Morb Mortal
Wkly Rep. 2012;61:258-261.
I understand that some people think that it wouldn't be very cost effective to vaccinate boys along with the girls but i see it as just another precaution that we can take to protect the female population. The HPV 16 and 18 and the main HPV strains that cause cervical cancer and obviously a male can't get cervical cancer but if they were vaccinated they would help lessen the amount of HPV 6 and 11 that would be spread. Those two particular strains are the ones that cause genital warts in both males and females. Vaccinating both may not eradicate the problem 100% and since its a "voluntary" vaccine not everyone will get it because like you mentioned not everyone can afford it. Another issue that i've seen brought up in the reproductive classes i've taken is the fact that some parents see this vaccine as a way to promote sex, especially if it's given to both males and females.
ReplyDeleteAccording the the CDC over 9,000 cases of HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer will be diagnosed in males each year. So despite the fact that the vaccines are protecting the women, men are still susceptible to the hpv induced cancer. And if 95% is the going rate for eradication, and gay men exist, I would say that vaccination of HPV in men as well as women to protect our whole population. However, there is the caveat that the strains most likely to be cancerous here in the states, the ones the current vaccines are for, are not the same common cancerous strains seen in Africa. So there is always that.
ReplyDeleteConsidering all other terms and conditions, I was just wondering if the HPV vaccination given to the men is same as the one given to women and if yes, is there any long term effects it can have? or any side effects??
ReplyDeleteBritney,
ReplyDeleteYou have created an interesting post. As a male, my first reaction was to support immunization among young men due to the associations of HPV with anal, penile, and oropharyngeal cancers. Nevertheless, if data support that these are prevented if just females are immunized, then that would be a more cost effective approach (However, we know that not all can be prevented if females are just vaccinated). Additionally, in the U.S. (not sure about the UK), these vaccines have been met with a large amount of apprehension. Therefore, if there is a lower proportion of young women who are receiving the vaccines, then herd immunity will not be met. I just posted a blog regarding immunotherapy targeting HPV16/18. Within that post, I have provided links that address some comments here related to safety and promiscuity.
As a male I would say I would want any vaccine that will prevent me from getting any form of cancer no matter the chances. To get 95% of the population seems like something that may never happen as we see vaccination rates falling because of fear of side-effects. Instead of thinking on such a large scale think on a individual scale. If you vaccinate one or even one thousand girls and this prevents them from contracting cervical cancer isn't that worth it? As Stephanie mentioned in her reply I think vaccinations against STD's will always be controversial but for bad reasons. To say that all this will do is encourage teens to have sex seems ludicrous. These are people who if they were going to have sex they were going to do regardless of what vaccine they were given when they were 11. If it was unprotected sex then a possible spread of disease has been prevented and potentially saved a young woman from having to battle cancer.
ReplyDelete