HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Studies: New type of osteoporosis drug cuts fracture risk in women, men in cancer treatment
August 11, 2009
Excellent report that tempered the promising results by projecting potential annual cost estimates of the drug at $10,000, discussing harms, and pointing out the drugmaker's role in the study.
Our Review Summary
This was an excellent report on two recent randomized trials which found that a new osteoporosis drug, denosumab, reduced the rate of fractures and increased bone density in at-risk men and women. While the results appear promising, the story tempered excitement by providing potential annual cost estimates of the drug at $10,000 and pointing out that Amgen, the manufacturer of denosumab, funded both of the studies, handled data collection and analysis and took part in writing the journal articles. Additionally, many of the researchers involved were in receiving fees from Amgen. The story also discusses the drug’s potential harms and compares it to existing osteoporosis treatments. Providing outcome data in terms of absolute risk in addition to relative risk would have further strengthened this story.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The story makes it clear that the study drug, denosumab, is not yet approved by the FDA, but indicates that it could be available this fall.
Pricing for this drug is not yet available; however, the story suggests that it could be expensive, with similarly engineered drugs costing more than $10,000 a year. In addition, the costs of currently prescribed osteoporosis medications are provided.
This story did not exaggerate the prevalence or seriousness of osteoporosis.
This story adequately describes the methodology of each trial, as well as the patient population. The story also does a service by alerting the reader that the drug manufacturer, Amgen, funded both of the studies and nearly all of the researchers were receiving fees from said manufacturer. Additionally, it was pointed out that Amgen designed the trials, handled data collection and analysis, and assisted in writing the journal articles.
Citing the FDA’s review of denosumab, as well as the adverse risks reported in the trials, the story mentions that this drug is associated with an increased risk of skin infections and some tumors. The story also points out that its long-term effects on cancer risk and the immune system are unknown.
Up front the story states that this is a “first-of-its-kind” drug treatment for osteoporosis.
The relative risk reduction for each of the trials is provided, but the story fails to provide the absolute risk reduction (62% of what?). The writer also mentions that spine bone density loss in the men receiving denosumab was “far smaller” compared to the placebo group; however, the reader is not given any quantitative data to determine the clinical significance of this.
In addition to comparing the absolute risk reduction observed in the denosumab group to the placebo group, it would have been helpful to the reader to know what the risk reduction was for approved and potentially more affordable medications.
This piece included several independent sources and therefore, does not rely on the news release.
Several independent sources were interviewed for this story. The writer also points out that both trials were paid for by Amgen, the manufacturer of denosumab, and nearly all the researchers were employed by the company or received consulting or advisory fees from them.
This story discusses several alternative drug options for treating osteoporosis, including vitamins, pills, patches, nasal sprays, and intravenously and subcutaneously injected drugs. Comparisons in efficacy between denosumab and some of these alternatives are provided. More information comparing the absolute risk reduction for spine fractures would have been a nice addition, as well.
Total Score: 9 of 10 Satisfactory
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is considered the gold standard of preventive health recommendations - including on screening tests. It's a good source for journalists and consumers.
About 70% of the stories reviewed from 2006-9 failed to adequately discuss costs, or to explain how big (or small) are the potential benefits and harms of treatments, tests, products and procedures.
We have documented a disturbing trend of news stories taking an advocacy stance, promoting certain screening tests outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.
Stories on new technologies like Cyberknife, DaVinci robotic surgery systems, and proton beam cancer therapy often fail to scrutinize the evidence and/or to discuss the costs involved.
Rather than suggesting that everyone should be screened for everything, news stories could explain: "All screening tests cause harm; some may do good."
The first 38 network TV network morning health news stories reviewed in 2009 earned an average score of 1.2 stars. 13 of the 38 stories got ZERO stars.
Both TIME magazine and BusinessWeek have published terrific stories explaining the importance of the Number Needed to Treat - or NNT.
Knowing relative risk reduction is like knowing you have a 50% off coupon but not knowing whether it's for a Lexus or a lollipop. Absolute risk reduction tells you what the "coupon" is worth. Read more.
The website NoFreeLunch.org posts "a database of health care professionals who have pledged to accept no gifts from industry and to rely on non-promotional sources of information."
To help journalists cover stories responsibly, we post a list of independent experts who state that they do not have financial ties to drug or medical device manufacturers.
We apply the same ten standardized criteria to the review of every story.
We have about 30 story reviewers. Each story is reviewed by 3 different people.
Gary Schwitzer's seven words you shouldn't use in medical news: cure, miracle, breakthrough, promising, dramatic, hope, victim. Read why.
Our reviewers include two former CNN medical reporters and a former editor of the Washington Post health section.