PublicHealthVille
I've written about this before, but as a tail end boomer I consider myself to be one of the lucky ones.
And I'm not just talking about all of the socioeconomic benefits bestowed upon me just because I was born at the tail end of the 1950's.
Instead, I'm talking about polio.
Because, unlike a good friend of mine who was born just a few years earlier, it is not something I ever had to worry about.
Or live with.
Fast forward to the 2000's when our two girls were coming of age and a different vaccine was being rolled out in public schools all over the world.
This one against human papilloma virus.
At the time, Bigger E. asked me if I thought this was a good idea.
I told her that it was clear that a couple of the virus strains were a major contributing cause of cervical cancer so preventing HPV infection was definitely a good idea. However, being the science geek that I am I couldn't stop there. So I also told her that the development of the disease itself takes a long time which, at the time that she was going to get her jabs, the actual effect on cervical cancer rates wasn't yet known with certainty. Probably broke a number of Dad codes with that last bit - Sorry E.
Anyway...
The cervical cancer rate reduction data are now rolling in.
And the upshot is very good, indeed.
From Scottish Public Health:
An exciting new study from Public Health Scotland (PHS), in collaboration with the Universities of Strathclyde and Edinburgh, shows that no cervical cancer cases have been detected in fully vaccinated women following the human papillomavirus (HPV) immunisation at age 12-13 since the programme started in Scotland in 2008.
The study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute today, concludes that the HPV vaccine is highly effective in preventing the development of cervical cancer...
The actual paper is here (see Abstract at bottom of post).
This is the way things are supposed to work.
Initial fundamental/basic research, followed by clinical validation and pharma doing things right, from drug development through trials, all ending in a sweeping public health measure that improves everyone's lives (the vaccine is not just for young women and cervical cancer prevention anymore - it is efficacious against multiple types of HPV- driven cancers).
______
Abstract
Background
High-risk human papillomavirus causes cervical cancer. Vaccines have been developed that significantly reduce the incidence of preinvasive and invasive disease. This population-based observational study used linked screening, immunization, and cancer registry data from Scotland to assess the influence of age, number of doses, and deprivation on the incidence of invasive disease following administration of the bivalent vaccine.
And I'm not just talking about all of the socioeconomic benefits bestowed upon me just because I was born at the tail end of the 1950's.
Instead, I'm talking about polio.
Because, unlike a good friend of mine who was born just a few years earlier, it is not something I ever had to worry about.
Or live with.
Fast forward to the 2000's when our two girls were coming of age and a different vaccine was being rolled out in public schools all over the world.
This one against human papilloma virus.
At the time, Bigger E. asked me if I thought this was a good idea.
I told her that it was clear that a couple of the virus strains were a major contributing cause of cervical cancer so preventing HPV infection was definitely a good idea. However, being the science geek that I am I couldn't stop there. So I also told her that the development of the disease itself takes a long time which, at the time that she was going to get her jabs, the actual effect on cervical cancer rates wasn't yet known with certainty. Probably broke a number of Dad codes with that last bit - Sorry E.
Anyway...
The cervical cancer rate reduction data are now rolling in.
And the upshot is very good, indeed.
From Scottish Public Health:
An exciting new study from Public Health Scotland (PHS), in collaboration with the Universities of Strathclyde and Edinburgh, shows that no cervical cancer cases have been detected in fully vaccinated women following the human papillomavirus (HPV) immunisation at age 12-13 since the programme started in Scotland in 2008.
The study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute today, concludes that the HPV vaccine is highly effective in preventing the development of cervical cancer...
The actual paper is here (see Abstract at bottom of post).
****
This is the way things are supposed to work.
Initial fundamental/basic research, followed by clinical validation and pharma doing things right, from drug development through trials, all ending in a sweeping public health measure that improves everyone's lives (the vaccine is not just for young women and cervical cancer prevention anymore - it is efficacious against multiple types of HPV- driven cancers).
OK?
Abstract
Background
High-risk human papillomavirus causes cervical cancer. Vaccines have been developed that significantly reduce the incidence of preinvasive and invasive disease. This population-based observational study used linked screening, immunization, and cancer registry data from Scotland to assess the influence of age, number of doses, and deprivation on the incidence of invasive disease following administration of the bivalent vaccine.
Methods
Data for women born between January 1, 1988, and June 5, 1996, were extracted from the Scottish cervical cancer screening system in July 2020 and linked to cancer registry, immunization, and deprivation data. Incidence of invasive cervical cancer per 100 000 person-years and vaccine effectiveness were correlated with vaccination status, age at vaccination, and deprivation; Kaplan Meier curves were calculated.
Data for women born between January 1, 1988, and June 5, 1996, were extracted from the Scottish cervical cancer screening system in July 2020 and linked to cancer registry, immunization, and deprivation data. Incidence of invasive cervical cancer per 100 000 person-years and vaccine effectiveness were correlated with vaccination status, age at vaccination, and deprivation; Kaplan Meier curves were calculated.
Results
No cases of invasive cancer were recorded in women immunized at 12 or 13 years of age irrespective of the number of doses. Women vaccinated at 14 to 22 years of age and given 3 doses of the bivalent vaccine showed a significant reduction in incidence compared with all unvaccinated women (3.2/100 000 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.1 to 4.6] vs 8.4 [95% CI = 7.2 to 9.6]). Unadjusted incidence was significantly higher in women from most deprived (Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 1) than least deprived (Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 5) areas (10.1/100 000 [95% CI = 7.8 to 12.8] vs 3.9 [95% CI = 2.6 to 5.7]). Women from the most deprived areas showed a significant reduction in incidence following 3 doses of vaccine (13.1/100 000 [95% CI = 9.95 to 16.9] vs 2.29 [95% CI = 0.62 to 5.86]).
No cases of invasive cancer were recorded in women immunized at 12 or 13 years of age irrespective of the number of doses. Women vaccinated at 14 to 22 years of age and given 3 doses of the bivalent vaccine showed a significant reduction in incidence compared with all unvaccinated women (3.2/100 000 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.1 to 4.6] vs 8.4 [95% CI = 7.2 to 9.6]). Unadjusted incidence was significantly higher in women from most deprived (Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 1) than least deprived (Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 5) areas (10.1/100 000 [95% CI = 7.8 to 12.8] vs 3.9 [95% CI = 2.6 to 5.7]). Women from the most deprived areas showed a significant reduction in incidence following 3 doses of vaccine (13.1/100 000 [95% CI = 9.95 to 16.9] vs 2.29 [95% CI = 0.62 to 5.86]).
Conclusion
Our findings confirm that the bivalent vaccine prevents the development of invasive cervical cancer and that even 1 or 2 doses 1 month apart confer benefit if given at 12-13 years of age. At older ages, 3 doses are required for statistically significant vaccine effectiveness. Women from more deprived areas benefit more from vaccination than those from less deprived areas.
Our findings confirm that the bivalent vaccine prevents the development of invasive cervical cancer and that even 1 or 2 doses 1 month apart confer benefit if given at 12-13 years of age. At older ages, 3 doses are required for statistically significant vaccine effectiveness. Women from more deprived areas benefit more from vaccination than those from less deprived areas.
______
Another time I broke the Dad codes with E?...It was when I let my science geek tendencies run amok while helping her with her Grade 7 science project...Long story short - her teacher rightly informed me that rigorous statistical significance analyses of the data generated were a pretty good indication that the project just may have become as much mine as E's...Apologies for that one also kid.
.
4 comments:
You might say they have no data at all, and this is a good thing!
Good point GF!
.
Polio, yes polio; we all lined up for the jab (it was a jab in those days) and despite a sore arm, we were free to explore without the fear of polio.
Not so lucky were the kids born just a few years earlier, who had to wear leg braces or be pushed to school in a wheelchair.
And those movies they showed to us l'il tender ones in grades 1 and 2... the wheezing, hissing, clank clank of the iron Lung, which still haunts me to this day.
Vaccines, I am up to date, hell yes!
To imagine a few shots and then no cancer! That is one hell of an accomplishment.
Far fewer women will die of Cervical cancer.
This is just another cost saving benefit of medical research. Oh and lives also.
I'm big on having vaccinations, i.e. polio, COVID, flu, etc. because when I started grade one, one of my school mates, her dad had died of Polio and her Mom was confined to a wheel chair. It made a huge impact on me.
The iron lungs in Vancouver ere at Pearson Hospital. Not a good way to live a life.
Post a Comment