Pharmaceutical company Merck has had a human papillomavirus vaccine for males in the works for some time and is currently seeking FDA approval for the vaccine. In women, HPV causes genital warts and can lead to cervical cancer, which about 10,000 women are diagnosed with each year. For men, the vaccine also prevents HPV, which can cause penile and anal cancer, and cancer of the mouth and throat. About 7,500 men are diagnosed with these cancers per year and vaccinating boys also helps prevent the spread of the virus to men's sexual partners.

Though there have been concerns raised about the safety of the vaccine for girls, the debate has centered mostly on whether being vaccinated against the STD would make girls more likely to have sex. Now that there is a male vaccine people are focusing on whether it's safe and cost effective to have boys vaccinated, especially when they can't get cervical cancer, reports The Washington Post. The prospect of boys sleeping around hasn't entered into the debate. "We are still more worried about the promiscuity of girls than the promiscuity of boys," said Susan M. Reverby, a professor of women's studies and medical history at Wellesley College. "There's still that double standard."

Since the male vaccine was proposed, people have wondered if parents would be willing to vaccinate their sons. "For girls, you can go right to protection against cervical cancer. That's a powerful argument," said Gregory D. Zimet, a professor of pediatrics and psychology at Indiana University. "For boys, you have to make several arguments. Part of it is an altruistic argument. I think it's persuasive, but it's more complex." Debbie Stein of Maryland says she would have her 11-year-old son vaccinated. "My feeling is it's a serious virus that causes cancer, and there's no reason not to vaccinate him," she said. "I think it will protect him and protect his wife in the future. I don't want to see him when he's 35 or 40 have a wife die of cancer."

Merck says they won't launch another big (and ultimately unsuccessful) push to have schools require boys be vaccinated like they did after the FDA approved Gardasil for girls in 2006. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is currently examining the results of a study presented last month on the safety of the vaccine for boys. If the panel endorses it, that will influence whether schools require the shot, and if insurance companies will cover the costs.

In June the committee will consider several cost-benefit analysis, since the vaccine costs about $500 for three shots. Though vaccinating boys will reduce the amount of virus that is transmitted back to girls, some are questioning if it's worth it since boys are less affected by cancers associated with HPV. Professor Zimet says questions of cost shouldn't be what's driving public health policy. "This is a vaccine that principally benefits women's health. I wonder if it was the reverse, and there was a vaccine for women that helped prevent prostate cancer in men, this would be as much of an issue," he said.

A Vaccine Debate Once Focused on Sex Shifts as Boys Join the Target Market [The Washington Post]

Earlier: Drugmaker Seeks FDA Approval For Gardasil For Males
Gardasil For Guys: Will Boys Get It?

Yesterday, an article in the New York Times pointed out that there is a finite amount of funds available in countries that provide universal healthcare, and that shelling out vast sums of cash for a drug whose efficacy is still in question is potentially bad policy. "Some of our provinces are running out of money to provide primary care," Dr. Abby Lippman, a professor at McGill University told the Times. "I'm not against vaccines, but in Canada and the U.S., women are not dying in the streets of cervical cancer."

However, the Times also notes that, "giving the vaccine to 12-year-olds would cost $43,600 for every 'quality adjusted year of life' it saved by preventing a cancer death; that price would often be considered acceptable by health officials in wealthy countries, experts say."

In the end, it appears that researchers need more time to analyze the cost and effects of HPV vaccines before making any sort of definitive statement about them. If you've already received the shots, there's no real evidence that they're destructive, so don't freak out, Chicken Littles. If you haven't had the shot, keep following the research as it emerges, and always ask your doctor as many questions as you need or want to.

Researchers Question Wide Use of HPV Vaccines [NYT]
Drug Makers’ Push Leads To Cancer Vaccines’ Rise [NYT]
Adult Cancer Shot May Not Be Worth High Price [AP via MSNBC]

Earlier: Sore Subjects

Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you're viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled web browser.

Manhattan real estate broker Lisa Lippman says she will certainly vaccinate her sons because it is her social responsibility. "If there was a vaccine I could take that would get rid of prostate cancer, why wouldn't I?" Lippman told the Times. "If there was a vaccine that sons could get that would get rid of breast cancer, most parents wouldn't hesitate. But cervical cancer is the 'sex cancer.' " Other mothers are not as enlightened as Ms. Lippman. Massachusetts interior designer Madeline Cattell says she would be hesitant to inoculate her boys because "You don't want to say it's just the girls' problem... But my sons won't contract cervical cancer. And genital warts are treatable. I'm very skeptical. What risks will I expose them to?"

Even though the parents of young boys might not be eager to vaccinate their children, Gardasil might be an easier sell amongst college-age males. According to the Times, Baruch Fischhoff, a professor of decision sciences (???) at Carnegie Mellon, "Being able to say to a girl, casually, that you had the shots, boys might think, 'If I can slip that into the conversation, it makes me less of a risk and seem like more of a humanitarian.' " And it might allow them to slip their penis in a young woman's vagina, if you know what I mean.

Vaccinating Boys For Girls' Sake? [New York Times]

Earlier: Cervical Cancer Vaccine "Burns," But Genital Warts Burn More
Gardasil For Men? New Study Of The Drug Focuses On Gay Men, Ass Cancer

These girls better get used to the sting anyway, since reports from last fall show that Gardasil might not be permanently effective, and some researchers are suggesting a vaccine booster after the ten year mark. As my mom would say: if you think Gardasil stings, try childbirth. There's never really any good comeback to that one.

Ouch! Cervical Cancer Shots Painful [Associated Press]

Earlier: Gardasil For Men? New Study Of The Drug Focuses On Gay Men, Ass Cancer
On Women: What To Do About HPV?
Female Trouble

Gardasil, the first ever vaccine against the cervical cancer-causing human papillomavirus (HPV) - that's genital warts to you and me - has been approved by the FDA.

The article is well worth a read, if only for the following fascinating facts:

• HPV is still the second-most-common malignancy and a leading cancer killer of women worldwide.

• A quarter of people ages 15 to 24 are infected with HPV.

• The lifetime risk of becoming infected at least once with a cancer-causing HPV type is more than 80%.

In the Q&A there's an interesting discussion about whether boys should be vaccinated too.

"In men, HPV causes genital warts and has been linked to penile and anal cancer. Plus, of course, men can transmit HPV to women. Merck has tested Gardasil's safety and immune response in 9- to 15-year-old boys and found that they have a slightly better immune response than girls and women, Barr says. "What we don't know yet is whether the vaccine will protect against infection and disease caused by HPV in young men," he says. To answer that question, Merck is conducting a clinical trial in men as old as 26 and expects to complete it in 2008, Barr says."

Color me naive, but I never knew HPV could give men cancer too. Anal cancer.

I'm clenching my buttocks at the mere thought of it.