The Fast Track

Couldn't women get a test to see if they had already been infected with HPV types 6, 11, 16 and 18, which Merck's vaccine protects against?
The clinical test that's used right now for screening does not tell you which particular types you have. It wouldn't really be applicable.

Is the test expensive?
I think it's about $48 just for the test. It tells you if you have high-risk HPV, but there are 15 types [that increase the risks of cervical cancer]. It can't tell you [exactly] what type you have. There are lab tests, pretty sophisticated lab essays--but we don't use that in clinical practice.

The vaccine has FDA approval for girls as young as 9. Is that too young? 
We have no idea about the duration of protection. It could be that maybe 9 is too young. We can't know for sure. The pharmaceutical companies are going to continue to monitor that to see how long we can expect the protection to last.

Should they be reconsidering the age recommendations based on the findings of your study?
I don't think people are planning on revisiting the current recommendations. But ... Merck is seeking approval for vaccinating up to age 45. Our study has implications for that policy.

Wouldn't vaccinating older women make very little sense, unless the woman was a 45-year-old who'd never been sexually active?
The implication from our study, that could be extrapolated, is that the cost-effectiveness really diminishes with age. That's not to say that there aren't 40-year-old women who wouldn't benefit, but from a population standpoint, we think the older the population is, the less cost-effective it is.

You get no payment from the drug companies, correct?
No.