A decision not to vaccinate boys against a cancer-causing sexually transmitted infection has been condemned by health bodies and campaigners.
The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), which has been reviewing the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination programme, concluded that it was “highly unlikely to be cost-effective” to extend the scheme to include adolescent boys as well as girls.
Since 2008, all girls aged 12 to 13 are offered the HPV vaccination as part of the NHS childhood vaccination programme, and the JCVI has been considering whether to include boys on the scheme since 2014.
Up to eight out of 10 people will be infected with the virus at some point in their lives and it has been linked to one in 20 cases of cancer in the UK, according to health professionals. Campaigners have been calling for a gender-neutral approach to the vaccination, which would ensure that 400,000 school-age boys are not left at risk.
The committee, which has yet to publish its final recommendation, said in an interim statement that studies “consistently show” boys are afforded “considerable herd protection” when there is high uptake of the vaccine in girls.
Critics called the decision “indefensible”. The Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare (FSRH), a membership body for healthcare professionals who work in sexual and reproductive health, said the decision should be reversed when the JCVI meets again in October.
Asha Kasliwal, the FSRH president, said the interim decision to deny boys the HPV vaccination was a huge missed opportunity for improving long-term sexual and reproductive health outcomes and tackling gender inequality.
Kasliwal said: “FSRH aims to improve women’s sexual and reproductive health, especially access to contraception. However, HPV affects not only women, but also men, and FSRH firmly believes that men and boys are vital in contributing to secure women’s reproductive health and rights.
“We support boys’ and men’s right to access high-quality [sexual and reproductive healthcare] services and live a life free of sexually transmitted infections such as HPV.”
Peter Baker, director of the campaign group HPV Action, said the decision was about saving money and not improving health: “It is astonishing that the government’s vaccination advisory committee has ignored advice from patient organisations, doctors treating men with HPV-related cancers, public health experts and those whose lives have been devastated by HPV.”
Baker said HPV Action would urge ministers to make the right decision and said there might also be grounds for a legal challenge on the grounds that a decision to leave boys and men at risk breaches equality law.
A recent poll conducted by HPV Action showed that 94% of GPs backed the expansion of the programme, with the same proportion saying if they had a son, they would want them to receive the vaccination. Both positions were also supported by 97% of dentists.
Mick Armstrong, the chair of the British Dental Association, said: “HPV has emerged as the leading cause of oropharyngeal cancers, so JCVI’s unwillingness to expand the vaccination programme to boys is frankly indefensible. The state has a responsibility to offer all our children the best possible defence.
“Dentists are on the frontline in the battle against oral cancer, a condition with heart-breaking and life-changing results. Ministers can choose to sit this one out, or show they really believe in prevention.”
The JCVI said: “The JCVI is consulting on its interim findings to ensure that the most appropriate and up-to-date evidence has been used, and that reasonable assumptions have been made where evidence is limited or unavailable. Once the consultation is completed, the JCVI will develop and publish its final advice.”
