For debate: that Australia should consider changing to the bivalent vaccine
Peter L. Stern
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
CR UK Immunology Group, Paterson Institute for Cancer Research, University of Manchester, Manchester M20 4BX, UK. Email: pstern@picr.man.ac.uk
Sexual Health 7(3) 238-241 https://doi.org/10.1071/SH09131
Submitted: 1 December 2009 Accepted: 28 January 2010 Published: 19 August 2010
References
[1]
[2]
[3] Stanley M, Lowy DR, Frazer I. Chapter 12: prophylactic HPV vaccines: underlying mechanisms. Vaccine 2006; 24(Suppl 3): S106–113.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | [verified February 2010].
[8] Villa LL, Costa RL, Petta CA, Andrade RP, Paavonen J, Iversen OE, et al. High sustained efficacy of a prophylactic quadrivalent human papillomavirus types 6/11/16/18 L1 virus-like particle vaccine through 5 years of follow-up. Br J Cancer 2006; 95 1459–66.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | [accessed 11 February 2010].
[26]
[27] Roughead EE, Gilbert AL, Vitry AI. The Australian funding debate on quadrivalent HPV vaccine: a case study for the national pharmaceutical policy. Health Policy 2008; 88 250–7.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | [verified May 2009].