HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Macular degeneration fought with new drug
September 24, 2006
The chances of getting macular degeneration increase with age, and about 30 percent of people over 75 have some form of the disease. But now, a new drug is offering some patients hope.
Our Review Summary
The story describes one woman's experience with a research study testing a new drug for a form of age-related macular degeneration. However, there is virtually no information about the new drug, including what class of drug, what type of study or studies have been conducted (the strength of the evidence), what the benefits are, or what the harms are. Readers have no context to determine whether this drug actually offers anything new in the treatment of macular degeneration and certainly have no idea how much better one might expect to get compared to conventional treatments. The story is anecdotal, which can be biasing, and also only obtains input from one doctor who happens to be involved with the research. This physician's comment that this drug has a "wow" factor sounds like a marketing tactic and is allowed to stand without any evidence provided that this drug even works.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The story mentions a new drug which might help improve vision problems related to "wet" macular degeneration, but the new drug is mentioned as part of an anecdotal story of one woman who investigated research studies and asked her doctor which one might be best for her. It's not clear what the availability of this drug is currently or when it might be expected to gain FDA approval (it is currently FDA approved for the "wet" form). The story also fails to mention that another drug is commercially avaialable for the same disorder.
The story does not mention costs of treatment (either the new drug or the existing laser treatment). Lucentis is the same as Avastin, which is used to treat end stage colon cancer.
The story briefly discusses age-related macular degeneration, including "dry" and "wet" versions. The reality is that while many people over age 75 have signs of macular degeneration, only about 200,000 actually have a vision defect. While this condition is an important one, the story seems to overestimate the issue.
The story does not provide any evidence whatsoever. It's not clear if the new drug was studied through randomized trials or some other type of trial design. Readers have no context for the type or strength of the evidence.
The story doesn't mention any harms of treatment. Importantly, this medication is injected directly into the eye and is not pleasant.
The story doesn't provide any information about the class of drug, although it implies this drug and its results are new in the treatment arena of macular degeneration. The story does mention laser treatment as a conventional form of treatment, implying this drug treatment is new in comparison to other treatment options. The story also doesn't mention other, existing drugs used to treat the same condition. There is virtually no information about what this new drug is, how it works, or even what it does.
The story provides no quantification of benefits whatsoever.
We can't be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release.
The story describes the anecdotal experience of one woman and quotes her doctor, who is involved in the research. The doctor also describes the results in a very subjective manner, even describing a "wow" factor to the new drug without also providing any evidence that it works. The story does not obtain independent information from any other experts.
The story does describe the conventional treatment for macular degeneration, which is laser treatment. The surrounding context around this treatment is minimal, however. Readers don't know how much better their vision might get with the new drug treatment compared to laser treatment.
Total Score: 0 of 9 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.