Published 28 July 2008, doi:10.1136/bmj.a1046
Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a1046

Letters

Human papillomavirus vaccination

Glimpse into the black box of human papillomavirus vaccination

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

We welcome an opportunity to get a glimpse into the black box underlying the recent decisions about human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination.1 We would like to reflect on the assumptions made. GlaxoSmithKline claims that Cervarix will provide protection longer, which would favour Cervarix. The paper by Jit et al does not reflect this (which is probably appropriate, since these claims are disputed).

The paper’s assumption that those receiving fewer than three doses received no protection is conservative: two doses do provide some protection. Evaluation of the programme will allow us to assess this further.

Vaccination may allow an increased screening interval (with or without HPV testing). The paper does not seem to model the savings that might result.2

The paper’s estimate of the cost of treating genital warts (£216 ({euro}275; $430) per successful treatment) is lower than estimates elsewhere.3 Given this, the high and increasing incidence of genital warts,3 4 the . . . [Full text of this article]

Peter M English, consultant in public health medicine1, Keith Neal, professor, epidemiology of infectious diseases, epidemiology and public health 2

1 Surrey KT19 9XF, 2 University of Nottingham, NG7 2RH

petermbenglish@gmail.com


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Economic evaluation of human papillomavirus vaccination in the United Kingdom
Mark Jit, Yoon Hong Choi, and W John Edmunds
BMJ 2008 337: a769. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ