Whether it would be psoriasis patients looking for new answers or investors looking for new prospects, news readers might have a difficult time making sense of a story about a trial of an experimental drug for psoriasis. It might depend on which story they read.
Reuters reported: Celgene drug shown to be effective, safe in psoriasis trial. The opening sentence:
Celgene Corp’s experimental drug apremilast proved to be more effective than a dummy pill for psoriasis patients in a late-stage study, clearing the way for the company to file for U.S. regulatory approval in the second half of 2013.
The Wall Street Journal reports: Celgene Drug Results Fall Short of Earlier Trial. The story leads with:
Celgene Corp. said its experimental anti-inflammatory treatment for psoriasis significantly helped a smaller proportion of patients than in an earlier study, a result that could damp hopes for the drug’s market potential.
Where should the emphasis be?
Clearing the way to file for approval?
Or dampening hopes for market potential?
The Reuters story quoted only one source, and it was a conflicted source:
“From a physician’s perspective, this can definitely be a first-line therapy because of the excellent risk/benefit profile,” said Dr. Richard Langley, director of dermatology research at Dalhousie University in Halifax, and one of the study’s lead investigators. “I think the patient acceptance of this drug and the physician acceptance is going to be extremely high.”
The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, cited what unnamed sources told them:
“But even before the data were announced Saturday, some analysts had expressed skepticism about Celgene’s ambitious revenue estimates for the drug.”
And it provided comparative context:
“Despite their safety risks, however, existing drugs such as Enbrel and Humira are generally thought to be more effective than Apremilast.”
Using unnamed analyst sources isn’t the best approach, and neither is the vague and unattributed “generally thought to be more effective” in the second quote. But at least the effort was there to include other perspectives besides those of the drug company and the researcher it supported.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
The @nytimeswell effort is shown to be unwell once again.
There's pervasive media bias toward hyping treatment benefits while neglecting negative results & harms.
Big part of this is reliance on experts with financial &/or intellectual conflicts of interest.
Att'n journalists: Use this list 100 independent experts to correct imbalance https://t.co/Twzc1Sp8Vw
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.
Comments are closed.
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