Reuters reports: U.S. FDA approves Pfizer’s high profile breast cancer drug.
Language used:
- potential new standard of care
- one of the most promising medicines in Pfizer’s development pipeline
- could generate annual sales of $3 billion by 2020
Discussion of the drug’s cost:
- None
MedPage Today reports: Palbociclib doubled progression-free survival in a pivotal study
Language used:
- It’s the first CDK-4/6 inhibitor to be OK’d in the U.S.
- Palbociclib is marketed by Pfizer.
Discussion of the drug’s cost:
- None
HealthDay & WebMD report: FDA approves new breast cancer drug
Discussion of the drug’s cost:
- None
US News & World Report – with another version of a HealthDay story – reports, using the drug’s brand name:
Ibrance Approved to Treat Advanced Breast Cancer
Discussion of the drug’s cost:
- None in this version either
Fortune reported: “In speed mode, FDA approves Pfizer’s big new drug early“
Language used:
- represents a big opportunity for the pharmaceutical firm
- the drug could be Pfizer’s next major moneymaker
Discussion of the drug’s cost:
- None
The Wall Street Journal stood out for reporting:
Ibrance, which can be ordered through select specialty pharmacies, sells for $9,850 for a month’s supply before discounts.
The Associated Press had no trouble coming up with price estimates. They just asked the company:
Pfizer said it would price Ibrance at $9,850 a month, or $118,200 per year. The New York-based company said in a statement that price “is not the cost that most patients or payors pay.”
The company noted that most prescriptions are dispensed through health plans, which negotiate discounts for medicines or get government-mandated price concessions.
You can make this a story about speedy FDA approval. You can make it a story about Pfizer’s fortune. But, at its core, it’s difficult to defend not talking about cost/price if you have web-surfing readers in mind, which is how we found all of these stories.
In 9 years, after analyzing nearly 2,000 news stories about new stuff in health care, about 70% of such stories were judged by our team of reviewers to be unsatisfactory in discussing cost.
That doesn’t add up…or, rather, it does.
————————–
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
Comments (1)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Len Lichtenfeld MD MACP
February 9, 2015 at 4:21 pmAs a source who was quoted in the Fortune magazine article noted above, I want to share that I am “guilty as charged” for not having mentioned the drug’s price in the interview. As frequently happens, these events unfold rapidly. The question at hand was whether the drug represented a new treatment with benefit for women with breast cancer, and the answer to that question is “yes.” It was not until I read the WSJ article later in the day that I became aware of the drug’s cost and realized I hadn’t asked about or mentioned that information during my interview. So, the criticism is valid, and I accept responsility for that oversight in my comments to the reporter. Thanks for pointing out that the cost should have been part of the report.
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