HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Schering-Plough reports data on hepatitis C drug
November 02, 2009
Rather than accepting "scientist-speak," why didn't the story explain what difference a change in “sustained virologic response” meant in people's lives? And what does “cure” mean to readers?
Our Review Summary
This story reports on preliminary results suggesting that the protease inhibitor, boceprevir, reduced viral loads in hepatitis C patients who were previously unresponsive to other drug therapies. However, this piece does not tell the reader much about the study methods, specifically, that boceprevir was administered along with standard drugs, nor do we know much about the study population. The story should have also highlighted that the results were modest and have not yet been published in a medical journal. So we're hearing company results that haven't undergone rigorous peer review.
Also, rather than accepting "scientist-speak," why didn't the story explain what difference a change in “sustained virologic response” meant in peoples' lives? Furthermore, the principal investigator is not challenged when he says the drug results in a "cure of up to 55%." Cure? What does that mean to him and what does it mean to readers?
If the story had included any independent perspective, perhaps some of these questions could have been answered. Instead, it read like a Schering-Plough/Merck news release. It may have been intended as a business story, but that's irrelevant the way people encounter stories on the web, as we did in this case. And who says that shareholders don't need the above questions answered as badly as patients/consumers?
Click on Criteria for definitions.
This story makes it clear that boceprevir is an experimental drug currently in development.
Since this drug is not yet available, we can understand that cost information was not included. But since the story points out that Merck is acquiring boceprevir for $41.1 billion, couldn't it at least have mentioned the high cost of current hepatitis C treatment, as well as the high cost of its complications?
The story provides no background on hepatitis C, so this criterion is not applicable.
While the story indicates that these data were presented at the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases conference, it does not explicitly state that the results are preliminary and have not been published in a medical journal. Unlike published articles, this study has not gone through a rigorous review process. It would have been helpful for the story to mention the details of the main study and also to acknowledge that this is a report of a subgroup analysis. The story should have also emphasized that such a retrospective study with such a small population (n=50) should be interpreted with caution.
The study points out the potential adverse effects associated with this drug.
The story makes it clear that this is an experimental drug and not the only one of its kind in development.
The story stated that after 28 weeks of treatment, 25 percent had a "sustained virologic response" (SVR) and after 48 weeks 55 percent did.
But why not use absolute numbers - how many out of how many? It tends to gloss over the fact that was mentioned but not emphasized - that this was only in 50 patients.
There was also no attempt made to explain what a change in virologic response actually meant in peoples' lives.
Finally, the story doesn't challenge the researcher's use of the term "cure." What does that mean to him? And what does it mean to readers?
We can't be sure of the extent to which the story was influenced by a news release. We do know that no independent source was quoted.
This story only includes a quote from the principle investigator, Paul Kwo (not Quo, as written erroneously in the story).
This story compared boceprevir with another investigational drug called telaprevir. A discussion of other treatments for hepatitis C is not warranted given that this subset of patients did not respond to the standard drug therapies. However, the story failed to make it clear that boceprevir is used in conjuction with two standard drugs.
Total Score: 4 of 7 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.