Andrew Pollack’s story, “Hope Against Hepatitis C,” has many elements of solid health journalism – and from the business perspective as well.
Sure, it leads with “hope.”
“The new drugs, which could start reaching the market as early as next year, could help subdue a virus that infects roughly four million Americans, most of them baby boomers, and 170 million people worldwide.
“I almost think this will be revolutionary, to be honest,” said Dr. Fred Poordad, chief of hepatology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. “We are chomping at the bit to try to treat as many patients as we can.” “
But there is also frank discussion of reality – with some skepticism.
“But even if the drugs do work, some experts and doctors warn that this virus may be particularly tough to vanquish. Three-quarters of the people who are infected do not know it because they are not tested for the virus and because the infection can be asymptomatic for years while it stealthily attacks the liver.
And because this disease is transmitted by blood, those infected largely are former or current IV-drug users — a population that characteristically has little or no health insurance — who may not be the most able to stick to a lengthy treatment regimen that can cause brutal side effects.
Pharmaceutical companies “completely ignore the real face of hepatitis C,” said Dr. Diana L. Sylvestre, who runs a clinic in Oakland, Calif., that treats drug addicts and former addicts with hepatitis C. “A minority of patients who have hepatitis C will benefit from these drugs.”
When she gave a recent talk at Vertex, Dr. Sylvestre’s first slide showed a man in a suit, meant to be a Vertex executive, with his head in the sand.”
There was an inside look at pharma’s promotional efforts.
“Nevertheless, pharmaceutical companies realize that difficulties getting patients screened and treated could limit the use of their drugs. So they are contributing to a groundswell of activism to raise awareness of what has long been known as a silent epidemic.
…
Drug makers contribute to the National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable, which helped pay for the Institute of Medicine report, and several companies have banded together into the Corporate Hepatitis Alliance to lobby for more government funding. In January, several companies started the Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition, to help finance research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Vertex has commissioned studies projecting a rising toll from hepatitis C. One such study, done by Milliman, a health insurance consulting firm, projected that the number of people with advanced liver disease from hepatitis C would quadruple in 20 years if treatment did not improve.
…
“I think the companies have done a superb job of marketing this disease,” said Dr. Ronald L. Koretz, emeritus professor of clinical medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. Dr. Koretz said there was no good evidence that treatment made a difference since many patients cured by the drugs might never have developed serious problems anyway.”
Enough excerpts and highlights. Read the entire story at the link above – or the old fashioned way – with newsprint in hand! My point is: more health business news should be as complete, balanced, indepth and analytical as this was.
Kudos to Pollack and the Times.
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Jeremy Engdahl-Johnson
July 23, 2010 at 9:38 amTough road ahead in treatment of Hepatitis C, a lurking epidemic that already infects millions.
http://www.healthcaretownhall.com/?p=2891
Don
August 6, 2010 at 1:30 pmGood piece, even-handed as you said. Many Hep C positives live relatively unaffected by the disease. Also important to note that treating the disease in its acute phase (first six months) leads to a far better cure rate.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning 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.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like