This story reports on the decision of an FDA panel to recommend approval of a vaccine against HPV, the leading cause of cervical cancer. The story treats the FDA approval as fait accompli. Although the FDA usually goes along with the panel recommendations, approval is not automatic or occur when it is predicted. The story does not mention costs, which are likely to be substantial given the scope of a potential vaccination program. Furthermore, because women will likely still have to get pap smears, an HPV vaccination program is unlikely to save money. The cost of the three injections are estimated to be around $500. The cost of a nationwide screening program would be in the billions of dollars.
Although the story mentions trials of 17,000 young women, the story does not adequately describe the nature of the available evidence and no harms are mentioned. Only the president of the American Cancer Society is quoted – no additional perspectives are provided.
The story does explain that the vaccine is effective against 70% of HPV infections, potentially saving 3,500 deaths from cervical cancer per year. However, the story should have provided more context. In order to realize the purported benefits, every eligibile individual would need to be vaccinated and the vaccine would have to be 100% effective. Women in lower socioeconomic groups have a higher incidence of HPV and lack access to healthcare. The story does not appear to engage in disease mongering, accurately represents the novelty of the vaccine and mentions the pap smear as the alternative.
The story does not mention costs, which are likely to be substantial given the scope of a potential vaccination program. Furthermore, because women will likely still have to get pap smears, an HPV vaccination program is unlikely to save money. The cost of the three injections are estimated to be around $500. The cost of a nationwide screening program would be in the billions of dollars.
The story does explain that the vaccine is effective against 70% of HPV infections, potentially saving 3,500 deaths from cervical cancer per year. The story should have provided more context. In order to realize the purported benefits, every eligibile individual would need to be vaccinated and the vaccine would have to be 100% effective. These are both unrealistic because women in lower socioeconomic groups have a higher incidence of HPV and lack access to healthcare.
The story does not mention harms, and this is a very important omission. To do this right, you would need to immunize 70 million people. Varicella vaccine has a serious event rate of about 4%. If this vaccine is in the same ballpark, there would be 2.8 million people with serious reactions. Some discussion of possible harms is necessary.
Although the story mentions trials of 17,000 young women, the story does not adequately describe the nature of the available evidence.
The story does not appear to engage in disease mongering.
Only the president of the American Cancer Society is quoted. Single-source health care stories are insufficient. See explanation at: https://www.healthnewsreview.org/rThemes.php#sss
The story does mention that the alternative is a pap smear and this vaccine is not a replacement for the pap smear.
The story treats the FDA approval as fait accompli. Although the FDA usually goes along with what the panel recommends, approval may not be automatic or occur when reported.
The story states that this is a new vaccine.
There is no way to know if the story relied solely on a press release. Only one source is interviewed – a spokesperson for the American Cancer Society.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like