health

Single HPV shot enough for young women: WHO experts

31 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2022 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

31 Comments
Login to comment

Excellent news that hopefully will benefit the efforts of vaccination world-wide. Cancer takes way too many young women lives and a vaccine that prevents one of the most common forms is a huge development. These findings will make it easier to vaccinate more people.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

A single vaccine shot against Human Papillomavirus (HPV), which causes cervical cancer, delivers comparable protection for girls and women under 21 as two doses, the WHO's immunisation experts said.

Why is The Who trying to limit this for girls and women but not boys and men?

The vaccine has been around since 2006. In the US it is recommended that girls and boys 9-14 years old receive 2 doses, whereas those who get their first dose between ages 15 and 26 are to get three doses over six months.

Sure, one dose has efficacy, but is that more efficient than two or three doses?

SAGE said the vaccine supply situation was improving in the short and medium term.

Maybe because there is not enough global supply of the vaccine, SAGE wants to promote getting more vaccinated with the initial dose? This would seemingly put at risk those who receive only one dose after age 15.

And remeber, what about the other gender, boys?

The vaccination of boys and men -- with a one- or two-dose regimen -- should be managed carefully until there is an unconstrained vaccine supply, said SAGE.

Ah--again, SAGE's strategy to administer one dose (because of short supply) primarily to the female gender. I wonder if this affected their "conclusion" to administer only one dose to girls and women?

Which of course puts at risk boys and men who do not get the vaccine because of short supply, while the females do.

This strategy also contrasts with what has been implemented in the US for over a decade; which has programs to vaccine young boys, and men.

Moral of the story? Follow the US guidelines if you want more people adequately vaccinated.

That is the real sage advice.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

This rhetoric sounds familiar

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Moral of the story? Follow the US guidelines if you want more people adequately vaccinated.

So in other words, you're advocating for people in wealthy nations to take more than is necessary, at the expense of young women in poorer nations? If the data says one dose is enough, why knowingly deprive others of the opportunity to protect themselves.

Why is The Who trying to limit this for girls and women but not boys and men?

It's the girls who are at risk of developing cervical cancers, not the boys. Boys have very little risk of cancer caused by HPV compared to the risk girls face with cervical cancer. The point of vaccinating boys is more to protect the girls. If supply is short, it makes perfect sense to prioritise the girls.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Why is The Who trying to limit this for girls and women but not boys and men?

Nobody is trying to limit anything, it is simply the population that is protected the most by the vaccine. Even when used by males.

Sure, one dose has efficacy, but is that more efficient than two or three doses?

If you read the article it is clear that the efficacy is equivalent except for immunocompromised patients, for whom the repeated dosage is still recommended.

Ah--again, SAGE's strategy to administer one dose (because of short supply) primarily to the female gender. I wonder if this affected their "conclusion" to administer only one dose to girls and women?

Saving more lives is a perfectly valid reason to prioritize the dosage. As long as the results that show the protection is equivalent there is no problem about it. It is the same reason why people do not get all kinds of vaccines available as a routine. Reducing a tiny risk for one population do not justify not being able to reduce a much greater risk for another population.

This rhetoric sounds familiar

That things that have proved to be safe and effective in saving lives are great? yes, normally people find this something positive.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

virusrexToday  09:01 am JST

Nobody is trying to limit anything, it is simply the population that is protected the most by the vaccine. Even when used by males.

The Who is.

The article emphasizes vaccinating girls and women but as for boys and men they should be managed carefully until there is an unconstrained vaccine supply, said SAGE.

If you read the article it is clear that the efficacy is equivalent except for immunocompromised patients, for whom the repeated dosage is still recommended.

If you read my comment you would know In the US it is recommended that girls and boys 9-14 years old receive 2 doses, 

Saving more lives is a perfectly valid reason to prioritize the dosage. As long as the results that show the protection is equivalent there is no problem about it. It is the same reason why people do not get all kinds of vaccines available as a routine. Reducing a tiny risk for one population do not justify not being able to reduce a much greater risk for another population.

There is nothing in the article that refers to risk. The article slants towards preventing cervical cancer deaths. But ignores the risks for males, who, in the US, are at a higher risk of death from oral cancers than females.

I am for equality.

So again, follow the US guidelines if you want more people adequately vaccinated.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Michael Douglas suffered from throat cancer caused by HPV. So it's not correct to say that HPV vaccination is required only for girls.

Gardasil 9 vaccine which can protect against 9 strains of HPV came out in 2016 but the issues related to vaccination coverage (especially in third world countries) are more about the cost of this expensive vaccine and less about supply constraints.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I am for equality.

But apparently only among people of wealth nations. Can't you see the hypocrisy of what you are saying?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The article emphasizes vaccinating girls and women but as for boys and men they should be managed carefully until there is an unconstrained vaccine supply, said SAGE.

Yes, that proves nobody is limiting the vaccine, what is being done is prioritizing the patients that benefit the most. This obviously includes doubling the number of vaccinated people from the same available vaccine without dropping the proteciton.

If you read my comment you would know In the US it is recommended that girls and boys 9-14 years old receive 2 doses, 

And that does absolutely nothing to disprove the findings that show one single dose is as protective. Science advances, progresses, trying to use old information to justify not following recommendations based on better evidence is exactly the contrary to what science does. The US recommendations may change at any time thanks to this information.

There is nothing in the article that refers to risk. 

And that has no importance, you are saying that prioritizing girls is invalid, but precisely because they are at a higher risk is why your argument can be disproved.

Is the vaccine enough to vaccinate without problems everybody that should? no. That means some kind of prioritizing has to be done. Once those at higher risks are reduced it is fine with vaccinating people with less and less risk until everybody is vaccinated. The opposite would only mean more deaths.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

So again, follow the US guidelines if you want more people adequately vaccinated.

Something definitely wrong with your reasoning.

"These recommendations will enable more girls and women to be vaccinated

0 ( +3 / -3 )

ianToday  11:50 am JST

So again, follow the US guidelines if you want more people adequately vaccinated.

Something definitely wrong with your reasoning. 

"These recommendations will enable more girls and women to be vaccinated

No, something wrong with yours, because US recommendations enable boys and men to also be vaccinated. Get it?

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Following the new guidelines would enable more people to be vaccinated

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Giving one dose to people instead of two would mean more people can be vaccinated, simple

2 ( +5 / -3 )

ianToday  12:28 pm JST

Following the new guidelines would enable more people to be vaccinated

Those only focus on girls and women. And they would only get 1 vaccine.

The US guidelines promote this vaccine for girls and women, and boys and men, and they get 2 doses.

So basically half the population, versus the whole population.

Reading can be a chore.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

If the US follow new guidelines they would have more doses available for males as well, still don't get it?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

ianToday  12:34 pm JST

If the US follow new guidelines they would have more doses available for males as well, still don't get it?

There are already doses available for males in the US. And some categories, males, or females, are on a 3 dose program, so no reason to decrease that to only one dose. Get it?

If they follow the new guidelines, the doses will be given to the females first, and the males will have to wait.

Get it?

No need to change a program that has been in place for more than a decade and has already vaccinated millions of females and male.

Still don't get it? But keep trying!

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

=)

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Hahahaha

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

There are already doses available for males in the US. And some categories, males, or females, are on a 3 dose program, so no reason to decrease that to only one dose. Get it?

Without being immunocompromise the equivalent protection after a single dose is precisely a good reason to decrease it to 1, more doses are available and more people get vaccinated. If you complain is that the WHO guidelines focus first on vaccinate girls, but you also say there are enough doses for everybody in the US that means your complain is irrelevant. If you focus on girls but can vaccinate everybody that means there is nobody left unvaccinated for prioritizing girls. Reducing the dose for most of the people instead releases more doses than can be used for other people, so in the end more people get fully protected (because those extra people would get no dose thanks to the redundant doses being used now).

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

@painkiller

It is the WHO.

World Health Organization. Not the USHO.

Get it now?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

FuzzyToday  11:07 am JST

@painkiller

It is the WHO. 

World Health Organization. Not the USHO.

Get it now?

No. I got it from the beginning.

If you read my comments you would know that US guidelines are different from that of the WHO. And the US guidelines do not discriminate between the genders. Get it now?.

virusrexApr. 16  01:12 pm JST

Without being immunocompromise the equivalent protection after a single dose is precisely a good reason to decrease it to 1, more doses are available and more people get vaccinated. If you complain is that the WHO guidelines focus first on vaccinate girls, but you also say there are enough doses for everybody in the US that means your complain is irrelevant. If you focus on girls but can vaccinate everybody that means there is nobody left unvaccinated for prioritizing girls. Reducing the dose for most of the people instead releases more doses than can be used for other people, so in the end more people get fully protected (because those extra people would get no dose thanks to the redundant doses being used now).

If you think it is proper medical protocol to discriminate between girls and boys, well, that's your opinion.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

If you read my comments you would know that US guidelines are different from that of the WHO. And the US guidelines do not discriminate between the genders. Get it now?.

The disease do, so when doses are limited giving priority to the patients at higher risk is necessary to save the most lives possible.

If you think it is proper medical protocol to discriminate between girls and boys, well, that's your opinion.

No, it is not, as the article clearly and explicitly says this is the official recommendation of the WHO, you are not arguing against the personal opinion of someone on the internet but against the official, professional recommendations of the World Health Organization, and they come with properly validated data that justify them. Just saying they are wrong because one single country that do not have the problem of insufficient doses and uses less relevant scientific data is not rational.

And yes, it ca be proper medical protocol to discriminate between patients according to their demographics, when the risk is not the same between the patients and the medical intervention is limited it means priorities have to be decided.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

A single vaccine shot against Human Papillomavirus (HPV), which causes cervical cancer, delivers comparable protection for girls and women under 21 as two doses, the WHO's immunisation experts said.

What is their definition of a woman in this sentence?

That is medically important.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

What is their definition of a woman in this sentence?

It is clearly described that the risk of cervical cancer, so for simplicity it would refer to people with an uterus. This of course do not leads to the conclusion that anybody with a cervix have to be considered a woman, nor that anybody that do not have one automatically stops being a woman.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

virusrexToday  12:28 pm JST

The disease do, so when doses are limited giving priority to the patients at higher risk is necessary to save the most lives possible. 

No, the article only talks about risks to females, not the risks to males.

No, it is not, as the article clearly and explicitly says this is the official recommendation of the WHO, you are not arguing against the personal opinion of someone on the internet but against the official, professional recommendations of the World Health Organization, and they come with properly validated data that justify them. Just saying they are wrong because one single country that do not have the problem of insufficient doses and uses less relevant scientific data is not rational. 

Yes, if you agree with the WHO recommendations you agree it is proper to discriminate as to who receives the vaccinations.One single country? No, Australia, like the USA, does not discriminate, and also recommend 2-3 doses for "people".:

https://immunisationhandbook.health.gov.au/vaccine-preventable-diseases/human-papillomavirus-hpv

And yes, it ca be proper medical protocol to discriminate between patients according to their demographics, when the risk is not the same between the patients and the medical intervention is limited it means priorities have to be decided.

Wait, first the WHO is not discriminating. Now, suddenly it is OK to discriminate? Beautiful logic!

virusrexToday  08:17 pm JST

It is clearly described that the risk of cervical cancer, so for simplicity it would refer to people with an uterus. This of course do not leads to the conclusion that anybody with a cervix have to be considered a woman, nor that anybody that do not have one automatically stops being a woman.

Well, nowhere is the word "uterus" used in the article. But at least you agree the article does not mention risks to boys and men; which you tried to do in your above comment.

Can't have it both ways!

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

It is also important to clarify that recommending several doses is based on not having the data that is being mentioned in the article. If you can get the same protection with a single dose that means the recommendations will change to reflect this, just that expecting this change to be instantaneous is not realistic. At this moment the WHO is the organization with the best recommendations since they take into account the newest scientific information.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

What is this nonsense about discrimination in the comments? HPV kills more women than men, so if you don't have enough vaccines for everybody girls come first. The vaccine has already proved to reduce deaths on women, if one dose does this effectively there is no point in wasting more doses to get the same result.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

What is this nonsense about discrimination in the comments? 

The problem is not understanding the completely different situation of having enough vaccines for the entire target population and having only a very limited amount, so you have to prioritize the people that are at a higher risk. Theoretically speaking even much older people could benefit from the vaccine (it could protect them from strains they have not yet been exposed to), but they are being "discriminated" and not vaccinated because the benefits are lower and the vaccine is being prioritized for younger people, for whom the reduction of risk is more important.

In the US for example girls were also prioritized at the beginning until enough vaccine became available to vaccinate everybody, this situation has not been reached in the world yet.

Fortunately finding out that one single dose can protect the same as two means the vaccine now can be used for the same efficacy for double the people, so this problem can be importantly reduced, and eventually there will be no need to prioritize girls.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

A single vaccine shot against Human Papillomavirus (HPV), which causes cervical cancer, delivers comparable protection for girls and women under 21 as two doses, the WHO's immunisation experts said.

If I were the parent of a young boy, I would still follow the medical guidelines of the USA, the UK, ands Australia, to name a few countries with advanced medical practices.

In addition to promoting use of the vaccine in boys and men, without targeting girls 9-14, those countries also use a multi-dose approach, unlike the WHO's single dose strategy.

Seems a WHO agenda to try and spread equality throughout the world with the use of this vaccine.

Sorry, I would want my boy in Australia to get vaccinated with the multi-dose approach rather than wait so girls in a far away country can be administered those doses instead.

Any parent in a democratic society would want to take the suggested precautions for their children.

And would anyone be surprised if months or a year later the WHO came back with, Oh, we analyzed new data and guess what, one shot is not enough.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

 I were the parent of a young boy, I would still follow the medical guidelines of the USA, the UK, ands Australia, to name a few countries with advanced medical practices.

Which is completely irrelevant for the numerous parents that simply do not have access to the vaccines, which is the problem the WHO is addressing. How are you going to "follow" a guideline without any vaccine to do it. Specially because wasting doses to reach the same results obviously means less doses that will be consumed by the population at higher risk.

If you are in Australia there is no need to prioritize because there are enough doses for everybody, but if you are in the developing world whatever your intentions are they would be spoiled by lack of access, made it worse in part by wasting doses unnecessarily.

Without any scientific evidence of a problem with the study that proves single doses are as effective the argument of it being wrong makes no sense, after all this could be said the same for the opposite side, specially because they did not even analyze the difference in the first place.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites