Number of HPV vaccines given to girls stagnant
By USA Today
Published: Thursday, July 25, 2013, 5:18 p.m.
A vaccine that protects women against cervical cancer has proved a tougher sell than health workers had hoped, with vaccination rates stalling from 2011 to 2012.
Since 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that all girls 11 and older get three doses of the human papillomavirus vaccine, which protects against 70 percent of cervical cancers that can appear 20 to 40 years later. The vaccine also protects against 90 percent of genital warts.
Vaccination rates increased substantially in the first five years the vaccine was available. By 2011, 53 percent of girls had gotten at least one dose of the vaccine. In 2012, however, the increase stopped, staying at just 53.8 percent, according to a paper in this week's edition of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report published by the CDC in Atlanta.
The vaccination “coverage for girls getting this anti-cancer vaccine has not increased at all from one year to the next. Zero,” CDC Director Tom Frieden said on Thursday. “We're dropping the ball. We're missing opportunities to give the HPV vaccine. That needs to change to protect girls from cervical cancer.”
The fact it hasn't increased “is a huge disappointment, but I'm confident that we will turn it around,” Frieden said.
The vaccine is highly effective. A study released in June found that the vaccine had decreased the incidence of the cancer-causing virus among teenage girls by 56 percent, despite being available only since 2006.
The vaccine is given in a series of three shots over six months or longer. CDC recommends that both girls and boys receive all three doses before they become sexually active. Because the recommendation for boys was only added in 2011, data were only collected for girls.
The reasons behind the standstill are varied. A 2012 survey of families with teen girls who said they didn't plan on having their daughters vaccinated found that 19 percent said their daughter didn't need the vaccine, 14 percent hadn't had the vaccine recommended to them by their doctor, 13 percent had safety concerns about the vaccine, 12 percent didn't have knowledge of the vaccine or the disease, and 10 percent said their daughter wasn't sexually active.
“When we asked parents why they haven't gotten their daughter vaccinated, one of the top reasons was their doctor didn't recommend it,” Frieden said.
“It's up to doctors to have open, honest and frank discussions with parents about the importance of this vaccine and to ensure their patients get vaccinated,” said Thomas McInerny, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, also during the briefing.
“This vaccine is preventive,” said Shannon Stokley, one of the paper's authors. She is with the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. “If you do have an infection later in life, you can't get the vaccine to make it go away. We're so lucky that we have a vaccine to prevent these cancers — there aren't many diseases where we can do that.”
If every girl 11 and older who saw a health care worker since 2007 had been encouraged to get the vaccine, coverage could have reached 92 percent, the paper stated.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Senator: CIA improperly searched computer network
- Obama hams it up for health care on Funny or Die
- Senate OKs bill scrapping ‘good soldier defense’
- Deaths from heroin, pain pills called ‘urgent,’ growing’ crisis
- Snowden captivates tech crowd
- D.C. mayor denies he knew of illegal ‘shadow campaign’
- Lanza’s father says he wishes son was never born
- General’s court-martial is thrown into jeopardy
- Fannie, Freddie profits surprise
- Changes to Medicare drug coverage scrapped
- NRA seeks to block gun magazine ban