5 ms·

Does it make sense to get a vaccine for older ppl, like 30y, does this still apply for men?

Moldoteck 3y ago
thanks for replies, will get one with my gf, even if we have a strain, looks like vaccine could be beneficial anyway
ceejayoz 3y ago
The CDC doesn't recommend it. By that age, you've probably been exposed already. https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/vaccine-for-hpv.html https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/vaccine-for-hpv.html > HPV vaccination is not recommended for everyone older than age 26 years. Some adults ages 27 through 45 years who were not already vaccinated might choose to get HPV vaccine after speaking with their doctor about their risk for new HPV infections and possible benefits of vaccination for them. HPV vaccination of adults provides less benefit, because more people in this age range have been exposed to HPV already.
- kolinko 3y ago
  doesn’t recommend ≠ recommends against
- chimeracoder 3y ago
  > The CDC recommends against it. The CDC does not recommend against getting vaccinated for people in their 30s. They don't issue a general recommendation for vaccinating people in their 30s. That's an extremely important distinction.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    I'll update that to "The CDC doesn't recommend it", in that case.
    - echelon 3y ago
      > I'll update that to "The CDC doesn't recommend it", in that case. As a native speaker, even that language feels as though the CDC discourages vaccination despite the literal meaning not implying that. This is a case where it's probably best to be more verbose and explain in full details. I don't know why the CDC themselves choose to use this language. It's confusing.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        There's a reason I cited the entire paragraph, yes.
      - ksenzee 3y ago
        Agreed. I’d rather see “doesn’t actively recommend” or “is neutral” or something.
- pazimzadeh 3y ago
  I don't understand why they recommend against it. I guess the monetary costs don't outweigh the benefits, but that's only if you care more about saving money than potentially preventing cancer. It's not like the vaccine going to hurt you. But the HPV vaccine is not particularly cheap, so it sounds like the insurance companies have lobbied against it or something. In my opinion men should also be vaccinated for it since they are often carriers and can be affected too.
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    Since nearly everyone is infected with HPV, if you've had sex with a few people you're almost certainly already infected and therefore the vaccine will be of no benefit. I guess if you were 50 and still a virgin, and planning to change that, it might be worth it.
    - ksenzee 3y ago
      Or you’ve been monogamous but are now getting divorced, or whatever. Not that uncommon.
      - prepend 3y ago
        It’s actually kind of frustrating how expensive that vaccine is (>$1000) as there’s no incentive to reduce cost. And if you’re 45, then insurance won’t cover. Even if you test negative for hpv.
        ksenzee 3y ago
        Ugh, I didn’t realize that. I got in just under the wire at 44—guess I’m glad my ex left when he did?
    - pazimzadeh 3y ago
      How can you be sure there would be no benefit? When my mom was diagnosed with stage four HPV-positive cancer, they still gave her the vaccine on the off chance that it would induce an immune response.
- thedailymail 3y ago
  It's a bit confusing, but often when a government agency issues a statement about something being "not recommended" it is intended to mean the government is not strongly encouraging people to do [whatever]. This is very different from the government recommending against people doing [whatever]. So here the CDC is basically saying we don't say people over 26 should definitely get an HPV vaccination, but we don't say they shouldn't either.
98codes 3y ago
Talk to your doctor, be honest about your sexual history and current situation. It made sense for me to get the vaccine, but may not make sense for all, or at least not make sense enough to be approved by your insurance.
- smeej 3y ago
  A note about current sexual situation too: This first came out when I was in college. My (female) roommate wanted to get it immediately, even though she was very open about only having been with the man she was seeing at the time. When I asked her about it, since it seemed like her risk of contracting HPV would be very low, she mentioned she was doing it to mitigate the risks she faced as a woman who was barely 5 feet tall and didn't weigh 100 pounds soaking wet. She said she already has to keep her head on a swivel against the possibility of assault, and she'd really rather not have to worry about a virus that could cause cancer in addition to that risk. I had the privilege of not ever having had to pay much attention to the risk that my current sexual situation might change without my consent, but it was sobering to be reminded that was something that she had a reason to have on her radar.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    She could also get HPV if the man she was "seeing" at the time was seeing more people than just her (or had seen, ever).
    - smeej 3y ago
      Very true, but at least at that point, she trusted him a lot more than she trusted random other people.
jseliger 3y ago
Yes: https://cbuck.substack.com/p/the-freedom-to-choose-medicine-is https://cbuck.substack.com/p/the-freedom-to-choose-medicine-... Also, HPV causes head and neck cancers in men and women. These are very unpleasant and not recommended: https://jakeseliger.com/2023/09/09/life-swallowing-tasting-and-speaking-after-a-total-glossectomy-meaning-i-have-no-tongue/ https://jakeseliger.com/2023/09/09/life-swallowing-tasting-a...
- f38zf5vdt 3y ago
  Yes, please, even if you've had HPV before, get this vaccine. The medical literature says there are benefits in almost every person, even if your insurer does not. > In a retrospective analysis of data from two qHPV vaccine efficacy studies in young women who underwent cervical surgery or were diagnosed with genital warts or vulvar/vaginal disease related to infection present before vaccination (Figure 1), prior qHPV vaccination was associated with a significant reduction (46.2−64.9% for those who underwent cervical surgery; 35.2% for those diagnosed with infection-related disease) in any subsequent HPV-related disease, including high-grade disease.6 Other studies demonstrated that HPV vaccination before and after surgical treatment for cervical lesions reduced the risk of subsequent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or higher, related to HPV16/18 (88.2% efficacy 60 days or more post-surgery),8 and the risk of recurrent CIN 2–3 post-surgery was higher in qHPV vaccine non-recipients compared with recipients (hazard ratio [HR] 2.840). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10038021/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10038021/
Gibbon1 3y ago
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5580486/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5580486/ Seems to say that for a subset of people HPV infection is latent. But current vaccines aren't useful against latent infections. Quick skimming says therapeutic vaccines are an area of research. "Numerous DNA-based vaccines have been developed to target persistent HPV infection and are currently in various stages of clinical study" My thought is watch this space.
fgimenez 3y ago
Yes absolutely. Even if you have already been exposed, the vaccine has been shown to prevent manifestations and/or recurrence of HPV-induced pathologies. It's not necessarily in standard of care, but the literature is pretty overwhelming here.

thanks for replies, will get one with my gf, even if we have a strain, looks like vaccine could be beneficial anyway

The CDC doesn't recommend it. By that age, you've probably been exposed already. https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/vaccine-for-hpv.html https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/vaccine-for-hpv.html > HPV vaccination is not recommended for everyone older than age 26 years. Some adults ages 27 through 45 years who were not already vaccinated might choose to get HPV vaccine after speaking with their doctor about their risk for new HPV infections and possible benefits of vaccination for them. HPV vaccination of adults provides less benefit, because more people in this age range have been exposed to HPV already.

kolinko 3y ago
doesn’t recommend ≠ recommends against
chimeracoder 3y ago
> The CDC recommends against it. The CDC does not recommend against getting vaccinated for people in their 30s. They don't issue a general recommendation for vaccinating people in their 30s. That's an extremely important distinction.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  I'll update that to "The CDC doesn't recommend it", in that case.
  - echelon 3y ago
    > I'll update that to "The CDC doesn't recommend it", in that case. As a native speaker, even that language feels as though the CDC discourages vaccination despite the literal meaning not implying that. This is a case where it's probably best to be more verbose and explain in full details. I don't know why the CDC themselves choose to use this language. It's confusing.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      There's a reason I cited the entire paragraph, yes.
    - ksenzee 3y ago
      Agreed. I’d rather see “doesn’t actively recommend” or “is neutral” or something.
pazimzadeh 3y ago
I don't understand why they recommend against it. I guess the monetary costs don't outweigh the benefits, but that's only if you care more about saving money than potentially preventing cancer. It's not like the vaccine going to hurt you. But the HPV vaccine is not particularly cheap, so it sounds like the insurance companies have lobbied against it or something. In my opinion men should also be vaccinated for it since they are often carriers and can be affected too.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  Since nearly everyone is infected with HPV, if you've had sex with a few people you're almost certainly already infected and therefore the vaccine will be of no benefit. I guess if you were 50 and still a virgin, and planning to change that, it might be worth it.
  - ksenzee 3y ago
    Or you’ve been monogamous but are now getting divorced, or whatever. Not that uncommon.
    - prepend 3y ago
      It’s actually kind of frustrating how expensive that vaccine is (>$1000) as there’s no incentive to reduce cost. And if you’re 45, then insurance won’t cover. Even if you test negative for hpv.
      - ksenzee 3y ago
        Ugh, I didn’t realize that. I got in just under the wire at 44—guess I’m glad my ex left when he did?
  - pazimzadeh 3y ago
    How can you be sure there would be no benefit? When my mom was diagnosed with stage four HPV-positive cancer, they still gave her the vaccine on the off chance that it would induce an immune response.
thedailymail 3y ago
It's a bit confusing, but often when a government agency issues a statement about something being "not recommended" it is intended to mean the government is not strongly encouraging people to do [whatever]. This is very different from the government recommending against people doing [whatever]. So here the CDC is basically saying we don't say people over 26 should definitely get an HPV vaccination, but we don't say they shouldn't either.

98codes 3y ago

Talk to your doctor, be honest about your sexual history and current situation. It made sense for me to get the vaccine, but may not make sense for all, or at least not make sense enough to be approved by your insurance.

smeej 3y ago
A note about current sexual situation too: This first came out when I was in college. My (female) roommate wanted to get it immediately, even though she was very open about only having been with the man she was seeing at the time. When I asked her about it, since it seemed like her risk of contracting HPV would be very low, she mentioned she was doing it to mitigate the risks she faced as a woman who was barely 5 feet tall and didn't weigh 100 pounds soaking wet. She said she already has to keep her head on a swivel against the possibility of assault, and she'd really rather not have to worry about a virus that could cause cancer in addition to that risk. I had the privilege of not ever having had to pay much attention to the risk that my current sexual situation might change without my consent, but it was sobering to be reminded that was something that she had a reason to have on her radar.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  She could also get HPV if the man she was "seeing" at the time was seeing more people than just her (or had seen, ever).
  - smeej 3y ago
    Very true, but at least at that point, she trusted him a lot more than she trusted random other people.

jseliger 3y ago

Yes: https://cbuck.substack.com/p/the-freedom-to-choose-medicine-is https://cbuck.substack.com/p/the-freedom-to-choose-medicine-... Also, HPV causes head and neck cancers in men and women. These are very unpleasant and not recommended: https://jakeseliger.com/2023/09/09/life-swallowing-tasting-and-speaking-after-a-total-glossectomy-meaning-i-have-no-tongue/ https://jakeseliger.com/2023/09/09/life-swallowing-tasting-a...

f38zf5vdt 3y ago
Yes, please, even if you've had HPV before, get this vaccine. The medical literature says there are benefits in almost every person, even if your insurer does not. > In a retrospective analysis of data from two qHPV vaccine efficacy studies in young women who underwent cervical surgery or were diagnosed with genital warts or vulvar/vaginal disease related to infection present before vaccination (Figure 1), prior qHPV vaccination was associated with a significant reduction (46.2−64.9% for those who underwent cervical surgery; 35.2% for those diagnosed with infection-related disease) in any subsequent HPV-related disease, including high-grade disease.6 Other studies demonstrated that HPV vaccination before and after surgical treatment for cervical lesions reduced the risk of subsequent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or higher, related to HPV16/18 (88.2% efficacy 60 days or more post-surgery),8 and the risk of recurrent CIN 2–3 post-surgery was higher in qHPV vaccine non-recipients compared with recipients (hazard ratio [HR] 2.840). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10038021/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10038021/

Gibbon1 3y ago

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5580486/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5580486/ Seems to say that for a subset of people HPV infection is latent. But current vaccines aren't useful against latent infections. Quick skimming says therapeutic vaccines are an area of research. "Numerous DNA-based vaccines have been developed to target persistent HPV infection and are currently in various stages of clinical study" My thought is watch this space.

fgimenez 3y ago

Yes absolutely. Even if you have already been exposed, the vaccine has been shown to prevent manifestations and/or recurrence of HPV-induced pathologies. It's not necessarily in standard of care, but the literature is pretty overwhelming here.