Researchers at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania compared about 38,000 records from women treated for acne with two different drugs. They found those who used the diuretic drug spironolactone switched to a different drug within one year at almost the same rate as those who began with antibiotics. Authors of the study viewed the prescription change as a proxy for ineffectiveness, and suggest that switching is often the result of treatment failure due to lack of efficacy or other factors.The release sends a mixed message. It calls twice for a change in prescribing practices but then states that “the findings of this study should be confirmed by a randomized controlled trial that directly compares the two treatment options.”
Another problem with the release is that it doesn’t discuss any of the harms associated with spironolactone.
The overuse of antibiotics is a public health problem and has been identified by the World Health Organization as a major threat. This study explored an antibiotic alternative for dermatologists, who write more antibiotic prescriptions per provider than any other specialty. The news release gives only a slight nod to the study’s main limitation — it was not a randomized controlled trial comparing different therapies — while making a strong push for dermatologists to prescribe a drug for acne that is not FDA approved for acne treatment. The evidence gathered so far is not strong enough to warrant a change in practice.
The news release doesn’t provide the cost for either antibiotics or spirinolactone. It only suggests that using spirinolactone could be “less expensive” than the antibiotic course.
The release provided the absolute numbers of women who stopped taking a drug and switched to an alternative drug but it did not measure how effectively spironolactone treated acne. The measurement of switching drug therapies was only a proxy for effectiveness. We’ll rate this Not Applicable since the study did not set out to quantify benefits of a specific drug or drugs. It can not tell us how well the drug worked or what role the placebo effect might have played in the decision to switch therapies.
The release does not discuss harms of the drug other than to say it “may have a better safety profile” than oral antibiotics. Then again, it may not. Safety was not part of the study. There should be some language about spironolactone’s known side effects, which include an allergic reaction and vomiting, among others listed by the National Library of Medicine.
In addition, there can be long-term consequences of lower androgens, such as decreased bone mass following continued use.
The study does not provide any data on the drug’s effectiveness, and isn’t that what patients most want to know? We need much more detail about the analysis of the prescription rates, duration, and reasons for discontinuation, as well as the improvement of acne. It’s interesting but perhaps not really useful to compare how many people switched from one drug to an alternative.
There was no disease mongering. The release provides some useful context on the US prevalence of acne. But the release erroneously refers to acne as “one of the most common diseases in the world.” It’s not a disease. It’s a common skin condition and an annoyance for most people that have it, and can often be treated with careful cleansing and over-the-counter products.
The release does not provide the name of the study funders.
The release is comparing two alternatives. It would have been helpful to mention that there are other ways of dealing with acne besides just these two methods. There are a number of prudent approaches to treating acne before turning to prescription medications.
The release explains that both methods are currently available and in use. It states that while some dermatologists already prescribe spironolactone for acne, the FDA has not approved it for that use. Without FDA approval, most insurers will not cover the cost of treatment.
The release doesn’t make a claim of novelty, nor should it. It is not about a new drug, but a call for a new application for an old drug.
There was no sensational language employed in the release.
Researchers at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania compared about 38,000 records from women treated for acne with two different drugs. They found those who used the diuretic drug spironolactone switched to a different drug within one year at almost the same rate as those who began with antibiotics. Authors of the study viewed the prescription change as a proxy for ineffectiveness, and suggest that switching is often the result of treatment failure due to lack of efficacy or other factors.
The release sends a mixed message. It calls twice for a change in prescribing practices but then states that “the findings of this study should be confirmed by a randomized controlled trial that directly compares the two treatment options.”
Another problem with the release is that it doesn’t discuss any of the harms associated with spironolactone.
The overuse of antibiotics is a public health problem and has been identified by the World Health Organization as a major threat. This study explored an antibiotic alternative for dermatologists, who write more antibiotic prescriptions per provider than any other specialty. The news release gives only a slight nod to the study’s main limitation — it was not a randomized controlled trial comparing different therapies — while making a strong push for dermatologists to prescribe a drug for acne that is not FDA approved for acne treatment. The evidence gathered so far is not strong enough to warrant a change in practice.
The news release doesn’t provide the cost for either antibiotics or spirinolactone. It only suggests that using spirinolactone could be “less expensive” than the antibiotic course.
This criterion rates a Not Satisfactory because the study did not set out to quantify benefits of a specific drug or drugs and yet the release makes numerous claims about one drug’s benefits while calling for a change in practice. The study that was undertaken can not tell us how well the drug worked or which factors contributed to discontinuance of any of the drugs. The release provided the absolute numbers of women who stopped taking a drug and switched to an alternative drug but the measurement of switching drug therapies was only a proxy for effectiveness.
The release does not discuss harms of the drug other than to say it “may have a better safety profile” than oral antibiotics. Then again, it may not. Safety was not part of the study. There should be some language about spironolactone’s known side effects, which include an allergic reaction and vomiting, among others listed by the National Library of Medicine.
In addition, there can be long-term consequences of lower androgens, such as decreased bone mass following continued use.
The study does not provide any data on the drug’s effectiveness, and isn’t that what patients most want to know? We need much more detail about the analysis of the prescription rates, duration, and reasons for discontinuation, as well as the improvement of acne. It’s interesting but perhaps not really useful to compare how many people switched from one drug to an alternative.
The release erroneously refers to acne as “one of the most common diseases in the world.” It’s not a disease. It’s a common skin condition and an annoyance for most people that have it, and can often be treated with careful cleansing and over-the-counter products.
The release does not provide the name of the study funders.
The release is comparing two alternatives. It would have been helpful to mention that there are other ways of dealing with acne besides just these two methods. There are a number of prudent approaches to treating acne before turning to prescription medications.
The release explains that both methods are currently available and in use. It states that while some dermatologists already prescribe spironolactone for acne, the FDA has not approved it for that use. Without FDA approval, most insurers will not cover the cost of treatment.
The release doesn’t make a claim of novelty, nor should it. It is not about a new drug, but a call for a new application for an old drug.
There was no sensational language employed in the release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
As always, encouraging news outlets covering medicine to practice journalism, not stenography. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1267796903141539846
Thanks @garyschwitzer & @HealthNewsRevu
So helpful & rational as always:
"Often it is what journalists allow interviewees to say – unchallenged – that is most concerning" https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1267796903141539846
CBS @60Minutes promoted one hospital’s “promise of plasma” for #COVID19. Here are some things that you need to know about that story. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/06/60-minutes-promotes-one-hospitals-promise-of-plasma/
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.
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