Health News Review

Overall a well done and informative story – although it did not always use the absolute risk/benefit statistics that we prefer.

Our Review Summary

The story detailed what is known about the impact of this drug on various types of bone fractures associated with osteoporosis, how its mode of action is someone different than other osteoporosis treatments, its administration and how the costs compare with other treatments.  The one shortcoming of the story was that it had elements of disease-mongering, as explained below.


Why This Matters

 The gestalt about osteoporosis is that women should live in fear of bone breaks. While the story provided very good information about this new treatment, it did not provide much context about the problem. And its inconsistent use of relative vs. absolute risk/benefit data didn’t help.


Criteria

Satisfactory

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Satisfactory

 This story not only mentions the cost for this drug but also for other treatments for osteoporosis as well.

Satisfactory

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

 The story did a great job of distinguishing among various fracture types and reporting both relative and absolute risk reduction for vertebra fracture. But then it was disappointing that the risk reduction for hip fractures and that of wrist, leg, or shoulder were reported as only relative risk reduction.  Since the story characterized hip fractures as ‘devastating’, it should have provided the reader with some sense of how frequently they occur rather than simply indicating how often they result in a person entering a nursing home or dying within 5 years of having one. Nonethless, because of the elements that were well done, we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.

Satisfactory

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Satisfactory

The story gave a rather complete listing of the potential harms associated with the use of this drug, including specific mention of those problems that are unique to this drug as compared with other medications used to manage bone loss.  Although the list was complete, the story did not indicate the frequency with which these harms occurred. Nonethless, we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.

Satisfactory

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Satisfactory

The story provided information about the clinical trial it described, including the number of people studied, the length of time they were studied and the impact on various types of fractures.

Not Satisfactory

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Not Satisfactory

The story only indicated lifetime risks of fracture (i.e. 1 out of every 2 women over the age of 50) and that 25% of people die within 5 years of breaking a hip without providing some context for these concerns.  The 5 year risk of fracture for a woman aged 55 is not the same as that for a woman aged 75; similarly, there are other factors compounding the statistic about death following hip fracture.  

Since the drug is marketed as being for women who are postmenopausal, rather than simply parroting these seemingly alarming pieces of information, the story should have provided more context for these statistics.

This was one weak point in an overall strong story – but an important nuance that should not be overlooked.

Satisfactory

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

 Comments about this drug and its potential utility from two clinicians noted as not having industry ties to this or other osteoporosis drugs were included in this story.

Satisfactory

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

 This story compared the benefits, harms and costs for the new drug, with those treatments already on the market.

Satisfactory

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

 The story opens with a statement about this drug’s approval by the FDA.

Satisfactory

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

 The story provided a useful explanation of how this medication differed from the other treatments available for osteoporosis.

Not Applicable

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Not Applicable

 Does not appear to rely exclusively on a news release.

Total Score: 8 of 9 Satisfactory


Comments

Carol Brinton posted on June 27, 2013 at 11:32 am

When I clicked on READ THIS STORY, nothing came up. How can I access this?

Is this covered by Medicare?
Does the STORY give the benefits and drawbacks to Prolia?

Looking forward to your answer.

Thanks for your help,

Carol Brinton

Reply

    Gary Schwitzer posted on June 28, 2013 at 8:51 am

    Carol,

    Thanks for your note. We can’t control when the original news source’s link expires. I did a quick search and found the story picked up elsewhere at: http://www.courant.com/health/women/sns-health-prolia-pros-cons,0,3506115.story.

    But you also asked about whether the story gives the benefits and drawback about the drug. Those elements are included in our review – above.

    Reply

Patricia Morrow posted on August 17, 2014 at 2:23 pm

I was given Prolia, I got a serious ear infection, my foot has been swollen, I have had radiation for Breast Cancer, I do not think I should have been given the shot, mainly because now I am anemic again.

Reply

Carole Crowe posted on August 28, 2014 at 9:34 am

I had my first Prolia infusion in June of 2014 and am experiencing ALL of the side effects. I’m in constant pain all over body and wonder if Prolia has any interaction with my 10 year ago diagnosis of Polymyalgia Neurotica which appears as my worst diagnosis as reported to me by my Primary Doc. . Please respond..Thanx

Reply

    Gary Schwitzer posted on August 28, 2014 at 1:20 pm

    Carole,

    As explained in our comments policy, we do not give medical advice on this website. We’re not qualified to do so, so we won’t.

    Reply

lois posted on September 22, 2014 at 8:50 pm

The newspaper story you reviewed on Prolia was written in 2010. Can you advise where I might find more current, objective articles on this drug? Thank you.

Reply

    Gary Schwitzer posted on September 23, 2014 at 8:18 am

    Lois,

    Indeed, we started reviewing stories back in 2006, so you’ll find many old story reviews on our site.

    MedPage Today has several articles on the drug: http://www.medpagetoday.com/search/?q=prolia.

    Reply

We Welcome Comments

But please note: We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who doesn't list what appears to be an actual email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don't give medical advice so we won't respond to questions asking for it. Please see more on our comments policy.