An uphill fight for Gardasil? Unlikely.
There's a story at TheStreet.com from yesterday about Merck's new vaccine, Gardasil. It suggests that unless the vaccine gets endorsement from ACIP, it's not going to be the blockbuster that everyone thinks it will be.
On June 29, Gardasil goes before the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice which consists primarily of experts in public health, infectious diseases and pediatric care. Although states have the ultimate say in what vaccines are required of school-aged children, the ACIP's opinion carries considerable influence in the public health arena for vaccinating children and adults.
Failure to win ACIP support would likely doom Gardasil. Lukewarm or narrowly defined support could deflate sales of a vaccine that many analysts believe will be an annual $1-billion-plus seller. Some peak sales estimates are upward of $3 billion.
My prediction? ACIP will endorse it, and the only reason they wouldn't would be due to opposition from the religious right. How could they not endorse the vaccine, given that it's just about 100% effective?
[tags]Medicine, pharmacy, gardasil, merck, hpv, vaccines, cancer, oncology, genital warts, cancer vaccine[/tags]
5 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
| TrackBack URI
You can also bookmark
this on del.icio.us or check the cosmos
I agree — how could they not endorse a vaccine to anything? That's borderline criminal to me. HPV infection is widespread, and such a vaccine has both a positive health and social benefit. It makes me a bit upset to hear that there is any opposition at all to combating HPV since it's seen as an STD.
The public health benefits to this vaccine include reducing cancer, reducing/eliminating wart treatment costs (and pain, ouch liquid nitrogen), and the social issues in dealing with an infection. I wonder how much of an impact this will have on dermatologist practices — although those fellows do have plenty of other services to render.
Anyway, my question for you is: I never considered that there would be any opposition to vaccines, no matter what the disease. But now I'm curious — are there any other vaccines that have been shot down over the years?
Comment by DrFaulken — June 24, 2006 @ 12:34 pm
There are vaccines that haven't been endorsed by ACIP — for instance vaccines for diseases you'd only find in 3rd world countries — but I don't think there have been any that haven't been endorsed for political reasons.
Comment by RJS — June 24, 2006 @ 2:58 pm
[...] Anyway, looks like I was right about Gardasil not having an uphill fight: A government advisory committee is recommending that all 11- and 12-year-old girls get a new vaccine to prevent the sexually transmitted virus that leads to most cases of cervical cancer. Moreover, the vaccine will get federal funding under the Vaccines for Children program. [...]
Pingback by ACIP recommends Gardasil :: OnThePharm — June 30, 2006 @ 10:38 am
[...] I've covered the approval of Merck's HPV vaccine extensively in the last month or so. It's great news for women everywhere, both here in the United States, and especially in the third world. The question now is "should it be mandatory?" Of course ACIP recommended the vaccine, as I predicted they would, so it's certainly something to consider. [...]
Pingback by Should the HPV vaccine be mandatory? :: OnThePharm — July 24, 2006 @ 8:38 pm
Just want to comment that Gardasil is not be "100% effective". Abstinence is. Condoms are. How many strains of HPV are there? Gardasil covers 4. If it is being marketed as a "prevent-all" and is allowed a mandatory status, it is sending a very wrong signal to the youngsters. Safe sex is ALWAYS the better option.
Comment by wutzdamatter — June 7, 2007 @ 1:59 am