Study: HPV Vaccine Does Little to Treat Pre-Existing Infections

[Aqua]

(SF)

Original Story Here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293275,00.html)

The HPV vaccine does little to speed up the reduction of HPV infections and should not be used to treat pre-existing conditions, according to a new study.

The study, published in the Aug. 15 issue of JAMA, was conducted in two provinces of Costa Rica and included 2,189 women age 18 to 25 years who were positive for HPV.

Participants randomly received either three doses of HPV 16/18 vaccine — HPV 16 and 18 are two of the most dangerous strains of the virus — or a control hepatitis A vaccine over a six-month period. Together, HPV 16 and 18 are believed to cause about 70 percent of all cervical cancers.

The study of the vaccine, sold in the U.S. under the name Gardasil, also contradicted earlier research that showed the vaccine could help treat the virus in women already infected, according to the JAMA article.

After six months, researchers found the HPV infection had cleared in 33.4 percent of those who had received the HPV vaccine compared to 31.6 percent of the participants who had received the control vaccine. At the 12-month visit, rates of clearance among participants in the control group was 48.8 percent vs. 49.8 percent for HPV group.

"Because the vaccine has no therapeutic efficacy, the greatest effect will be realized if the vaccine is administered before sexual debut, prior to exposure to HPV," said Lauri E. Markowitz, M.D., of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, commenting on the findings of the study.

[Lilith]

I was never under the impression that it was to be used in that fashion anyways. Vaccines are usually to prevent not to cure.

[gekkogecko]

Usually, but there are some that are effective even after the targeted disease is contracted. I think there was some hope that would even be the case here, but alas, it was not to be...

[Wicked Wanda]

I read the study went it was printed about 10 days ago. (an advantage of the night shift, lots of Docs leave JAMA and such around for us to read)
If it deals with STDs and women, I will read it.

This was a very limited study, and I am a little troubled why they pin so much value on such a small group. (less than 2200 women total, and only half received the vaccine, the other half received a Hepatitis A vaccine as a control, and were monitored for only a year)
After a year the clearance was more or less the same in both groups, almost 50%.
But what about women with other complications, such as HIV? What about women who received nothing, say saline, instead of one of the immunization? This is important, because both vaccines stimulate the immune systoms against viruses. Yes, different viruses, but the control was lacking.
All this study proved that in healthy women with HPV infections, the clearance rate was the same no matter if you gave them HAV vaccine or HPV vaccine. In this small group of women. In Costa Rica.

(Lots of these kind of studies are done there because they have an unusually good public health system, and the HPV infections rate is so high.)
So, BASED ON CURRENT KNOWLEDGE, don't count on this to clear an existing infection.

But the end conclusion is still waiting...

(Damn, I knew this would happen if I finished my MSN)


WW

[scotzoidman]

Still, it seems to reinforce the original assertion that the best time for females to get the vaccine is early, rather than later...

[gekkogecko]

Scotzoid, I dont' think that was ever in question, except among certain right-wing whack jobs who think HPV vaccine will lead to people having sex.