Foodconsumer.org

 
USCards.com Bookmark Us
All Food, Diet and Health News 
 
 Misc. News
 Must-Read News
 Letter to Editor
 Featured Products
 Recalls & Alerts
 Consumer Affair
 Non-food Things
 Health Tips
 Interesting Sites
 
 Diet & Health
 Heart & Blood
 Cancer
 Body Weight
 Children & Women
 General Health
 Nutrition
 
 Food & Health
 Food Chemicals
 Biological Agents
 Cooking & Packing
 Technologies
 Agri. & Environ.
 Laws & Politics
 
 General Health
 Drug News
 Diseases
 Mental Health
 Infectious Disease
 Environment
 Lifestyle
 Government
 Other News
 
 Food Consumer
 FC News & Others
Search





Search Consumer Health


Add to Google
Add to My Yahoo
Newsfeed

foodconsumer.org news feed
Su bmit news[release]

Viagra

Isotonix

More than 100 credit cards available at uscards.com from uscards.com, you can pick more than 100 credit cards


General Health : Drug News Last Updated: Oct 29, 2008 - 11:04:25 AM


Studies: HPV vaccines may not be so effective
By Ben Wasserman
Aug 25, 2008 - 6:37:29 AM

E.mail t.his a.rticle
 P.rinter f.riendly p.age
Get n.ewsletter
 
   
SUNDAY August 24, 2008 (foodconsumer.org) -- The only two cervical cancer vaccines available in the market may not be worth their high cost and both may not be so effective at preventing the disease in the first place, two studies published in this week's New England Journal Medicine suggest.  

The vaccines of concern Gardasil made by Merck and Cervarix made by GlaxoSmithKline are designed to prevent cervical lesions induced by two strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV) from becoming cervical cancer. Gardasil was approved for marketing in the U.S. two years ago and Cervarix was approved in Europe years back.

Human papillomavirus, a sexually transmitted disease, is believed to be the major cause for cervical cancer, which is rare in the United States although the virus is commonly found in men and women. In 2008, an estimated 11,070 women are expected to be diagnosed with cervical cancer and 3,870 will die from the disease, according to cancer.gov. Most people can clear the virus naturally in two years without resorting to any medication though.

"Despite great expectations and promising results of clinical trials, we still lack sufficient evidence of an effective vaccine against cervical cancer," Dr. Charlotte J. Haug, editor of The Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, was quoted by The New York Times as writing wrote in an editorial accompanying the study reports.    "With so many essential questions still unanswered, there is good reason to be cautious," Dr. Haug added.

Clinical trials often lasting no more than six and half a year yielded no evidence that the vaccines render long-term immunity to the targeted strains and that they would not decrease the body's natural immunity against other strains that can also induce cervical cancer.

Another study led by Jane J. Kim and Dr. Sue Goldie of Harvard University showed that girls inoculated with the vaccines at age 12 would cost $43,600 for every life saved by the vaccines during a life time, which is acceptable to health officials, the New York Times reported.

But if all girls and women up to age 21 are to be given the vaccines, the cost will be $120,400.   If a booster is required, the cost will rise to $120,400. In these cases, Pap smear screening will be more cost-effective.

The vaccines do not cover all strains that induce cervical cancer.   Girls and women who have received the shots, which can cost anywhere between $400 and $1000 per person according to the Times , still need to follow the routine pap smear screening, meaning that the vaccines do not save any money.





© 2004-2008 by foodconsumer.org unless otherwise specified

Top of Page




Google
 
Web foodconsumer.org

Search Consumer-friendly Health Sites












Do you know vitamin C lowers blood pressure?

disclaimer | advertising | jobs | privacy | about us | newsletter | Submit news/articles
link partners: | shopseek.com | infoplus.com | foodregister.com | uscards.com | Buy Viagra | MarketAmerica.com |
Buy a home | Auto Insurance | Mortgage refinancing | DaytonaCPA.com |
© Copyright 2004 - 2008 foodconsumer.org All rights reserved

Disclaimer: What's published on this website should be considered opinions of respective writers only and foodconsumer.org which has no political agenda nor commercial ambition may or may not endorse any opinion of any writer. No accuracy is guaranteed although writers are doing their best to provide accurate information only. The information on this website should not be construed as medical advice and should not be used to replace professional services provided by qualified or licensed health care workers. The site serves only as a platform for writers and readers to share knowledge, experience, and information from the scientific community, organizations, government agencies and individuals. Foodconsumer.org encourages readers who have had medical conditions to consult with licensed health care providers - conventional and or alternative medical practitioners.