Glaxo: HPV Vaccine Data Bests Merck
7 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // April 17th, 2007 // 2:33 pm
Nothing like a game of one-upsmanship. With questions still bubbling over the effectiveness of Merck’s Gardasil in preventing precancerous lesions, Glaxo this afternoon boasts that new data shows its forthcoming Cervarix vaccine is 100 percent effective.
This refers only to HPV types 16 and 18, which are responsible for most cervical cancer cases. At the American Association for Cancer Research meeting today, Glaxo says its vaccine prevented all precancerous lesions associated with those strains for up to 5-1/2 years.
By way of comparison, in Gardasil clinical trials, 361 of 8,817 women who received at least one shot went on to develop precancerous lesions within three years of vaccination, just 14% fewer than in a placebo control group. However, the drugmaker has argued that included women already infected. A smaller subset of uninfected women revealed 46 percent effectiveness against precancerous lesions.
The Glaxo vaccine also showed 68 percent effectiveness against precancerous lesions and 38 percent vaccine efficacy against abnormal Pap smears, regardless of the type of cancer-causing virus detected. More specifically, the study confirmed that Cervarix provides further preliminary evidence of cross-protection against infection with cancer-causing virus types 45 and 31 that also extended up to 5.5 years after vaccination.
In an investor note this afternoon, Prudential Equity’s Tim Anderson reminds us that Merck has previously mentioned Gardasil offer cross protection, “partly to counter claims” by Glaxo. Merck “is not saying what exactly is in the new supplemental application, however, for what
it claims are competitive reasons.”
If you thought Merck’s marketing was aggressive before, wait until Cervarvix gets approved.
Glaxo statement.[tags]Cervarix, Gardasil, Glaxo, HPV, Merck[/tags]
Insider
Now I understand why Merck were so “focussed” on getting as big a head start as they could.
As there are no comparitive trials what will the drug reps be able to say/promote??
Anonymous
Dear God! Please do at least some research before you publish such ridiculous statements. I suggest reading some published studies rather than getting you information from a PR firm. It is people like you that scare my patients and prevent rational clinicla discourse
ed
Dear Anonymous,
I appreciate the type of concern you express for patients. But if there is truly some inaccurate here, please be more specific.
Moreover, it’s not clear how this information, or which information, might scare patients.
In general, I don’t mind anonymous remarks. But if you’re really a doctor, have some courage and please identify yourself. And if you have some medical advice or a speciifc piece of info about one or both of these vaccines that would benefit others, you could also share that - if only to support your vague accusation.
Thanks for stopping by,
ed
James
Which information? The part on the efficacy of Gardasil, you ignorant fool. Like Anonymous said, go do some research and read some published studies (hint: The New England Journal of Medicine) before posting such ridiculous entries.
Ed Silverman
Dear James,
Unfortunately, the post you read was an earlier version that didn’t correct the figure attributed to the effectiveness. The initial statement was incorrect, as the first reader tried to point out (his remarks, at first, appeared to be vague, which prompted the response you read). And I appreciate your own interest in ensuring the data is disseminated correctly. I don’t appreciate the name calling. Mistakes happen and I try to correct them as soon as they’re brought to my attention, and to do so professionally. I’m sure you can conduct yourself in a similar fashion.
Regards
ed at Pharmalot
Reality
Hi Ed,
I only saw this post because of the “Recent Comments” sidebar. You are very good at correcting mistakes in posts, but this is not the first time someone has commented on something related to an edited post.
I think it would be helpful to make it visibly clear that a post was changed, indicating what was changed and when (e.g., using strikethroughs and posting an addendum to the entry that begins with “Updated”).
Ed Silverman
Hi Reality,
You’re correct. And more recently, I’ve taken to adding the word UPDATE to posts to reflect additional material or corrections, when that isn’t spelled out specifically (an exception will occur when I’ve forgotten to add something or must make a correction within a few minutes of posting the original item). Again, this was back in April, when I was still learning the ropes. I’m trying harder to ensure the posts better reflect the writing and editing process.
Thanks for writing in,
ed at Pharmalot