<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The zoster vaccine</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.journalclub.org/2005/06/03/n61/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.journalclub.org/2005/06/03/n61</link>
	<description>Comments on the medical literature</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:30:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: paul kerr</title>
		<link>http://www.journalclub.org/2005/06/03/n61/comment-page-1#comment-2933</link>
		<dc:creator>paul kerr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:30:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.journalclub.org/?p=61#comment-2933</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the review - I&#039;ve drawn on it for my journal club next week!  What do you think of Gilden&#039;s comment that a drug cost of $500 would give a cost of $2000 per quality life year saved?  Is my maths wrong - doesn&#039;t that mean that for every four patient vaccinated one will gain a full QALY?  My own calculation shows the number needed to treat to prevent one case of Zoster is about 60 (642 - 315 = 327 less cases for 19,000 vaccinations - 19000/315 = 60) but to prevent one case of post herpetic neuralgia is about 360 vaccinations(80 - 27 = 53 less cases from 19000 vaccinations) - so preventing one case of post herpetic neuralgia would cost about $180000 - but this includes pain scores above 3, ie includes very mild cases, most of which were over within one to two months.  Also the majority of the benefit was seen in the older age group.  IE to prevent one case of moderate to severe post herpetic neuralgia in a patient in their sixties may take up to a 1000 vaccinations and may cost half a million dollars, and may cause one death from toxicity.

Best wishes,

Paul</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the review &#8211; I&#8217;ve drawn on it for my journal club next week!  What do you think of Gilden&#8217;s comment that a drug cost of $500 would give a cost of $2000 per quality life year saved?  Is my maths wrong &#8211; doesn&#8217;t that mean that for every four patient vaccinated one will gain a full QALY?  My own calculation shows the number needed to treat to prevent one case of Zoster is about 60 (642 &#8211; 315 = 327 less cases for 19,000 vaccinations &#8211; 19000/315 = 60) but to prevent one case of post herpetic neuralgia is about 360 vaccinations(80 &#8211; 27 = 53 less cases from 19000 vaccinations) &#8211; so preventing one case of post herpetic neuralgia would cost about $180000 &#8211; but this includes pain scores above 3, ie includes very mild cases, most of which were over within one to two months.  Also the majority of the benefit was seen in the older age group.  IE to prevent one case of moderate to severe post herpetic neuralgia in a patient in their sixties may take up to a 1000 vaccinations and may cost half a million dollars, and may cause one death from toxicity.</p>
<p>Best wishes,</p>
<p>Paul</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Niels Olson</title>
		<link>http://www.journalclub.org/2005/06/03/n61/comment-page-1#comment-2743</link>
		<dc:creator>Niels Olson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jul 2005 03:13:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.journalclub.org/?p=61#comment-2743</guid>
		<description>&quot;It would have been nice&quot;?! From Merck&#039;s perspective justifying the NDA application is the whole point of the study. They can&#039;t submit that study to the FDA and have the words &quot;the current vaccine is also effective&quot; in there. I mean, they can, but it certainly doesn&#039;t improve their odds of approval. Supporting the old, off-patent vaccine doesn&#039;t add to Merck&#039;s bottom line. Supporting a new, on-patent vaccine does add to Merck&#039;s bottom line, and, from Merck&#039;s perspective, getting a new vaccine past the FDA is a statistical issue so it pays to suppress any information that doesn&#039;t actively support the new preparation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;It would have been nice&#8221;?! From Merck&#8217;s perspective justifying the NDA application is the whole point of the study. They can&#8217;t submit that study to the FDA and have the words &#8220;the current vaccine is also effective&#8221; in there. I mean, they can, but it certainly doesn&#8217;t improve their odds of approval. Supporting the old, off-patent vaccine doesn&#8217;t add to Merck&#8217;s bottom line. Supporting a new, on-patent vaccine does add to Merck&#8217;s bottom line, and, from Merck&#8217;s perspective, getting a new vaccine past the FDA is a statistical issue so it pays to suppress any information that doesn&#8217;t actively support the new preparation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: charles</title>
		<link>http://www.journalclub.org/2005/06/03/n61/comment-page-1#comment-2594</link>
		<dc:creator>charles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:52:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.journalclub.org/?p=61#comment-2594</guid>
		<description>a very good review, thanks!  i&#039;ve seen two cases just this week of zoster, so timely as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>a very good review, thanks!  i&#8217;ve seen two cases just this week of zoster, so timely as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
