New data on HPV prevalence; conflicting thoughts on relevance to vaccine debate

Last week's JAMA paper by Dunne, et al., -- "Prevalence of HPV Infection Among Females in the United States" -- garnered a significant bit of media attention. An accompanying editorial, "Estimating the Population Prevalence of HPV," by Weller and Stanberry, makes a point of examining the implications of this data to HPV vaccination policy, specifically cost-effectiveness calculations. (Free abstracts; subscription required for full text).

Here's some of the coverage of the paper by the popular press: Associated Press, Dallas Morning News, Washington Times, and Washington Post.

The data has provided ammunition for both sides of the vaccine mandate debate. Proponents of vaccination (and mandates, specifically) are pointing to the surprisingly high prevalence of HPV, of all types, in women: 24.8%

Those on the other side note the study's findings that the specific HPV types included in Gardasil are present in only 3.4% of females. To critics of mandates, this suggests that it is unnecessary to vaccinate all young girls when only a small percentage of females have the specific strains included in the vaccine. However, these numbers do not change the overall facts regarding cervical cancer incidence and mortality.

If anything, the ways in which the Dunne, et al., paper's findings have been used and will continue to be used in the Gardasil debate offer a valuable lesson of the potential dangers of using statistics in isolation to advance a policy argument.