Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Alternative / June 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

BRAVO:  Merck's Gardasil NOT cleared for older women

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Ilena Rose - 25 Jun 2008 19:58 GMT
News from Health Lover, Ilena Rosenthal
Although the Merck Flacks here on Usenet have been making industry
claims for around a year now ... how safe & effective Gardasil is ...
even the FDA disagrees now.

I for one, do not believe it should be called 'safe' nor 'effective'
for young women either!
http://ilenarose.blogspot.com

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSWNAS917720080625

By Lewis Krauskopf

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. regulators have told Merck & Co they cannot
yet approve Merck's application to expand marketing of its cervical
cancer vaccine Gardasil to an older group of women, the drugmaker said
on Wednesday.

Merck had applied for the use of Gardasil in women ages 27 through 45.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said in a letter regarding the
application that it has completed its review and there are "issues"
that preclude approval within the expected review time frame, Merck
said.

"It's hard to get a feel for if this is a dead issue or if this is
delayed," said Linda Bannister, an analyst for Edward Jones. "At the
minimum, it's going to be delayed."

Merck said it also failed to win FDA approval to expand Gardasil to
protect against more strains of the Human Papillomavirus that causes
cervical cancer. The company for now is dropping plans to pursue that
expansion, a spokeswoman said.

Shares of the New Jersey-based drug maker, which also reiterated its
long-term revenue and earnings targets, fell 0.8 percent.

Gardasil, approved in June 2006 for preventing cervical cancer and
genital warts in females ages 9-26, has been one of Merck's most
successful newer products and has helped the company recover after the
2004 withdrawal of its Vioxx arthritis treatment.

The Gardasil setbacks could raise concerns about the degree of growth
that Merck can hope to achieve with the product, which is the world's
first vaccine to prevent cervical cancer.

A Merck spokeswoman said the agency has specific questions regarding
Gardasil's effectiveness in this older age group.

The company said it had already discussed the questions with the FDA
and expects to respond to the agency in July.

"Once we go back to the FDA, we'll have a better sense of what the
review timing looks like," spokeswoman Amy Rose said.

The agency's response on the application for the older group does not
affect Gardasil's current approval for females ages 9 to 26, Merck
said.

Global sales of Gardasil rose 7 percent in the first quarter to $390
million. Cowen and Co has predicted annual sales of the vaccine would
reach $1.9 billion in 2008 and jump to $3 billion by 2012.

Edward Jones' Bannister said she had expected Gardasil sales to reach
$2.6 billion by 2012, with about one-third to come from that older age
group.

Deutsche Bank analyst Barbara Ryan said failure to win approval for
the older age group could reduce her $3.8 billion estimate for 2012
sales by about $300 million.

Ryan said the most important new opportunity for the vaccine will be
for its use in males. The vaccine could help prevent males from
contracting Human Papillomavirus and spreading it to females through
sexual contact. Merck is on track to seek approval for use in males by
the end of the year, Rose said.

Gardasil has benefited from lengthy delays in approval of
GlaxoSmithKline's rival Cervarix vaccine. The FDA in December issued a
complete response letter for Cervarix, meaning it had completed its
review of the product but had further questions about it.

Bannister said the Gardasil delay reflects broader challenges facing
drug makers within the U.S. regulatory environment.

"It's not specific to Merck," Bannister said. "This is an
industry-wide issue."

Merck shares fell 29 cents to $36.74 in afternoon trading on the New
York Stock Exchange. The shares have fallen some 37 percent this year,
hurt by setbacks to its cholesterol franchise.

(Additional reporting by Ransdell Pierson and Deepa Seetharaman,
editing by Maureen Bavdek and Gerald E. McCormick)
Peter Moran - 25 Jun 2008 22:13 GMT
> News from Health Lover, Ilena Rosenthal
> Although the Merck Flacks here on Usenet have been making industry
> claims for around a year now ... how safe & effective Gardasil is ...
> even the FDA disagrees now.

This says nothing at all about "how safe & effective Gardasil is".   It
shows that the FDA considers Gardasil sufficiently safe and effective to  be
advised for "preventing cervical cancer and genital warts in females ages
9-26"  but that it is not yet convinced that it is a needed vaccination for
women older than this.

PM

> I for one, do not believe it should be called 'safe' nor 'effective'
> for young women either!
[quoted text clipped - 84 lines]
> (Additional reporting by Ransdell Pierson and Deepa Seetharaman,
> editing by Maureen Bavdek and Gerald E. McCormick)
trigonometry1972@gmail.com | - 25 Jun 2008 22:16 GMT
Ouch for Merck. For the government bureaucrats the just say
No response can at times be the easier way forward for them.
Hopefully they get it right. Hopefully this isn't just a reactive
pendulum effect due over hasty approvals earlier on.
One would hope there are clear reforms in standards
and procedures for approval such that both development
can move forward with medical products and yet also
protect those who might suffer adverse effects.

And then there is the issue that some interventions may on
balance help more people than they harm or improve quality
of life while presenting risks for certain individuals or genotypes.

I'd suppose having more studies using larger numbers might provide
a clearer road for both patients and drug developers.

Medical interventions are rarely risk free for some subset of
the larger population. It would be nice to be able to sort
such groups out to reduce risks and yet permit treatement.

This is an optimization issue...............Trig
Myrl - 25 Jun 2008 23:15 GMT
The article speaks to the EFFECTIVENESS of the Gardasil vaccine for
women over age 45.  It DOES NOT in anyway say the vaccine IS NOT SAFE!

Information regarding Gardasil in the past has spoke to the issue that
Gardasil prevents forms of HPV which have been found responsible for
approximately 70+% of Cervical Cancer, Genital Warts, and certain Oral
Cancers.

It is thought to be ineffective as a preventitive vaccine, once
infection of the HPV viruses has occurred in girls and women.

That is why the push to protect girls and younger women by
vaccination, before exposure and infection to HPV is so important.

Some accountings have demonstrated that 1 in 4 women has been exposed
or carries the HPV virus.  Wouldn't it be wonderful, if this vaccine
protects future generations of women from collectively experiencing
this disease.

It should also be remembered that between 250,000 - 290,000 women die
each year globally from Cervical Cancer.  70+% of these cases being
caused by the HPV virus.

> News from Health Lover, Ilena Rosenthal
> Although the Merck Flacks here on Usenet have been making industry
[quoted text clipped - 88 lines]
> (Additional reporting by Ransdell Pierson and Deepa Seetharaman,
> editing by Maureen Bavdek and Gerald E. McCormick)
Peter Bowditch - 26 Jun 2008 02:18 GMT
>The article speaks to the EFFECTIVENESS of the Gardasil vaccine for
>women over age 45.  It DOES NOT in anyway say the vaccine IS NOT SAFE!

I think that Ilena is opposed to the HPV vaccine because she feels
left out. Not only is she well over the age for which it is approved,
but the amount of callus tissue she has from overuse of the relevant
area would mean that the virus probably can't get a toehold.

Signature

Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.