Letters
Women's health
Volume 189 - Issue 9

"I want the one for older women" — extending the human papillomavirus vaccine population base

Author:  Lilon G Bandler

Med J Aust 2008; 189 (9): 526-528. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2008.tb02156.x
Published online: 3 November 2008
Download PDF (654 KB)
Share: Share on Blue Sky Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share by email

To the Editor: It’s all very difficult isn’t it? Teasing out the issues around impartiality, weighing evidence and competing interests? Wain wrote a recent editorial for the Journal, and included a list of his “competing interests”:

He helpfully advises that Gardasil (Merck) “is available at no cost to Australian girls and women between the ages of 12 and 26 as part of the National Immunisation Program. The bivalent vaccine, Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline), has to date not been included in the program, having initially been rejected by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) on the basis of uncertain cost-effectiveness, but subsequently recommended for inclusion.”1

This is disingenuous at best. Initially, the PBAC also “rejected the application for [Gardasil] . . . based on unacceptable and uncertain cost-effectiveness at the price requested.”2 At the request of the then Health Minister, the PBAC reviewed its decision after the company made some small changes to its submission, including a change in pricing.

At about the time Wain’s editorial was published, a hard copy of the previous Medical Journal of Australia article on human papillomavirus (HPV) arrived on my desk,3 courtesy of GlaxoSmithKline. That article on HPV vaccination listed the “competing interests” at the end. Clearly, all the authors have received some sort of funding through GlaxoSmithKline, CSL and/or Merck.

I am not impressed by authors who receive funding from pharmaceutical companies that market the drugs they are discussing. It seems to me that the problem lies with interests not competing, or at least not competing with the author’s intent. Perhaps a little healthy competition would bring out some more thoughtful, articulate articles, unaffected by any commercial pressures.

“A plague o’ both your houses.” Let’s consider where we could best spend our money without the help of the competing interests of various pharmaceutical marketing mechanisms. “HPV vaccination will not prevent all cases of cervical cancer, therefore vaccinated women should continue to have two yearly Pap smears.”4 Given that HPV vaccination (in this country) will not change the rate of cervical screening required in the near future, perhaps the money would be better spent on ensuring that all Australian women are screened in a timely manner. That is, ensuring that poor women, Indigenous women, rural women, and immigrant women are part of “Cervical screening in Australia . . . one of the great public health success stories, as witnessed by a continuing dramatic fall in the incidence of carcinoma of the cervix and mortality from this disease since the introduction of the National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP).”5

Author

  • Lilon G Bandler1
  • 1. Sydney, NSW.

Correspondence: lbandler@med.usyd.edu.au

References

View this article on Wiley Online Library

More like this

Women's health Perspective 1 September 2026 Open Access

Forty Years in the Making: Reporting on the Co-Creation of a National Roadmap for Birthing on Country Services for the Best Start to Life

Res McCalman, Anneka J. Bowman, Roianne West, Kristie Watego, Jyai Allen, Claire Clack, Sue Kildea, Sue Kruske, Melanie Briggs, Cleone Wellington, Rebecca Coddington, Yu Gao, Isabella Garti, Sascha Kowalenko, Sarah Ireland, Catherine Austin, John D. Boffa, Marah Prior, Kelsie Kahl, Bettina Chaseling, Sarah Khaw, Emily Armstrong, Donna Hartz, Yvette Roe

View more