BMJ 2009;339:b4127

Editorials - Should HPV vaccine be given to men?

Interesting read and the editorial concluded it was not cost effective. Wonder what folks here think of the ethics of vaccinating and placing at risk without benefit a group so that another group may be at diminished risk.

Interesting question. In the politcally correct era in which we find ourselves, I'm sure many would think it very appropriate to risk men and boys for the sake of women's health, tho' there is some very small benefit to the males as immunization may prevent some rare manifestations of HPV in that sex.
I understand Merck's lobbying efforts with the states led some to consider both sexes. However, the requirement was primarily if not entirely for just little girls and I'm not sure how many of those bills actually became law.

Interesting editorial, thanks eberthella. While the question of vaccinating men to help protect women is probably answered in the negative, the question of vaccinating at-risk males may be in the affirmative.

It seems to be much simpler (and a better use of resources) to vaccinate people at direct risk of contracting a disease than a group one degree away from the target population.

Having said that, once the initial phase of female vaccination is completed, it might be useful to vaccinate men, as they would become the major reservoir of the virus (but that is dependent on the effectiveness at male vaccinations to remove the virus from men). Assuming the rate of male infection is not close to 100%, perhaps an effective screen for HPV might be a useful first step, to target those men who actually harbour the virus, and therefore constitute a clear infection host (I admit to no knowledge of the rate of HPV infection in males; a screen could show all men are infected and therefore require vaccination).

Vaccination would be prophylactic not therpeutic - so no point in targeting those with the virus. Perhaps if 100% of women were vaccinated - mvaccinatign men would not be necessary (even nif one accepted it nwas ok to put them at risk to no real benefit). Heterosexual males would have no reservoir. Should only gay and bisexual males be vaccinated in that case?

did anyone check out the documentary on ABC last night "catching cancer"?

hpv is probably responsible for a lot of cancers in men, ie prostrate.

V

vetticus3 on Oct 22 2009, 11:13 PM said:

that's "prostate". also genital warts. that's why the fda recommends that males also get the vaccine, not just to prevent transmission to females but also to protect the males.

you and your correct splling.

V

mdfenko on Oct 24 2009, 02:04 AM said:

I don't know, mdfenko. I've seen plenty of men fall prostrate for no adequate reason!!

swanny on Oct 25 2009, 09:33 PM said:

coulda knocked me over...

Surely the usual aim of a vaccine is to erradicate a pathogen so what is the point of not vaccinating men?? There is not going to be 100% coverage of the vaccine in women for a very long time and so men will be passing the virus to unvaccinated women. The current estimates are that at least 1/3 of the worlds population is currently infected with HPVs (approximately 70% of those being the types covered by the vaccines) so the reservoir of HPV is men is significant.

Also, HPV is a major problem in Africa because of the lack of screening programs, more than 80% of the deaths due to HPV occur there, so if anywhere should be vaccinating men its Africa.

Sorry for sounding petulant but it irritates me that some people treat HPV as a women's only problem when men are infected too!