This relatively thorough news release summarizes the results of a 24-week randomized trial of the biologic drug ixekizumab (marketed as Taltz) in patients with psoriatic arthritis. While the release hits most of the key points that any journalist might ask when writing about this study, it offers too little discussion of harms and no mention of the drug’s cost.
People with psoriatic arthritis often have painful, red, scaly patches on their skin and they may not be effectively treated with TNF inhibitors (drugs commonly used to treat inflammatory conditions). If only half of psoriatic arthritis patients get better with TNF inhibitors then another option would be most welcome for those that have found no relief.
The drug under study, ixekuzumab, appears to be effective in reducing symptoms of joint tenderness and swelling, and if it can do so at a reasonable level of safety, this could be a great advance. At the same time, if the goal of treatment is to prevent long-term complications of psoriatic arthritis (severe joint and bone damage and functional disability), we are still left wondering if this potential new treatment represents a benefit beyond 6 months for psoriatic arthritis sufferers.
No cost information was provided, even though the drug is already on the market for another condition. According to GoodRx, one 80 mg auto-injector of the drug costs around $4,700.
We are told that “19.5 percent of patients who received only the placebo injections were judged to have met the trial’s specified clinical endpoint — at least a 20 percent reduction in the number of tender and swollen joints — the response rate among those getting the real drug every four weeks was 53.3 percent. Those getting the drug every two weeks didn’t do any better and were slightly more prone to side effects, such as a mild reaction at the injection site.”
This is an adequate discussion of the drug’s benefits.
We learn that “few serious adverse events were reported for patients receiving the drug, or the placebo” but a close reading of the actual abstract shows that 7 percent of patients taking the drug every two weeks (versus 3 percent on placebo) had serious adverse events. If the absolute effects on benefits are reported why are not the absolute effects of the harms? We think it is important to at least list the major adverse events that occurred during the trial.
We learn that this is a randomized, blinded, three-armed, multi-site study that lasted 24 weeks, which is a sufficient description of the quality of evidence.
There is no disease mongering. The release provides strong context on the condition as well as how the drug is believed to work.
The release states that the manufacturer paid for the trial and the key spokesperson, the principle investigator served as a consultant to Lilly.
There was a good explanation about the alternatives — drugs like the TNF inhibitors already on the market such as adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab — but that “only about half of psoriatic arthritis patients who are given TNF inhibitors get better.” We also learn that “another approved monoclonal-antibody that targets IL-17, secukinumab, was approved in 2016 for psoriatic arthritis.”
The release notes that the drug has been FDA approved and is available for patients with psoriasis and that Lily has applied for FDA approval for use in patients with psoriatic arthritis as well.
The release does an acceptable job of describing the drug’s place in the treatment landscape. It does not make an outward claim of novelty, but it appears to be the first such randomized trial for this type of arthritis.
There are no examples of unjustified language.
This relatively thorough news release summarizes the results of a 24-week randomized trial of the biologic drug ixekizumab (marketed as Taltz) in patients with psoriatic arthritis. While the release hits most of the key points that any journalist might ask when writing about this study, it offers too little discussion of harms and no mention of the drug’s cost.
People with psoriatic arthritis often have painful, red, scaly patches on their skin and they may not be effectively treated with TNF inhibitors (drugs commonly used to treat inflammatory conditions). If only half of psoriatic arthritis patients get better with TNF inhibitors then another option would be most welcome for those that have found no relief.
The drug under study, ixekuzumab, appears to be effective in reducing symptoms of joint tenderness and swelling, and if it can provide these benefits at a reasonable level of safety, this could be a great advance. At the same time, if the goal of treatment is to prevent long-term complications of psoriatic arthritis (severe joint and bone damage and functional disability), we are still left wondering if this potential new treatment represents a benefit beyond 6 months for psoriatic arthritis sufferers.
No cost information was provided, even though the drug is already on the market for another condition. According to GoodRx, one 80 mg auto-injector of the drug costs around $4,700.
We are told that “19.5 percent of patients who received only the placebo injections were judged to have met the trial’s specified clinical endpoint — at least a 20 percent reduction in the number of tender and swollen joints — the response rate among those getting the real drug every four weeks was 53.3 percent. Those getting the drug every two weeks didn’t do any better and were slightly more prone to side effects, such as a mild reaction at the injection site.”
This is an adequate discussion of the drug’s benefits.
We learn that “few serious adverse events were reported for patients receiving the drug, or the placebo” but a close reading of the actual abstract shows that 7 percent of patients taking the drug every two weeks (versus 3 percent on placebo) had serious adverse events. If the absolute effects on benefits are reported why are not the absolute effects of the harms? We think it is important to at least list the major adverse events that occurred during the trial.
We learn that this is a randomized, blinded, three-armed, multi-site study that lasted 24 weeks, which is a sufficient description of the quality of evidence. We wish the release had mentioned that it remains uncertain how patients on the drug would fare long-term, beyond the 6 months of the trial.
There is no disease mongering. The release provides strong context on the condition as well as how the drug is believed to work.
The release states that the manufacturer paid for the trial and the key spokesperson, the principle investigator served as a consultant to Eli Lilly.
There was a good explanation about the alternatives — drugs like the TNF inhibitors already on the market such as adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab — but that “only about half of psoriatic arthritis patients who are given TNF inhibitors get better.” We also learn that “another approved monoclonal-antibody that targets IL-17, secukinumab, was approved in 2016 for psoriatic arthritis.”
The release notes that the drug has been FDA approved and is available for patients with psoriasis and that Lily has applied for FDA approval for use in patients with psoriatic arthritis as well.
The release does an acceptable job of describing the drug’s place in the treatment landscape. It does not make an outward claim of novelty, but it appears to be the first such randomized trial for this type of arthritis.
There are no examples of unjustified language.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Don’t believe everything you hear, kids.
“What in the world justifies rushing a 348-word story to publication on a Sunday without doing extra research and reporting? Just because a scientist said it? COVID-19 journalism that devolves to that level of dreck is dangerous.”
🔥👇 https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1268175065478320131
.@Reuters: why rush to publish a 348-word story claiming #COVID19 is losing potency without doing extra research and reporting? Just because a scientist said it? #COVID19 journalism that devolves to that level of dreck is dangerous. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/06/reuters-report-is-another-classic-case-study-in-how-not-to-cover-covid-19-news/
For some time our website has been subjected to malicious hacker attacks from several countries. So many that we were forced to block entry. We revisit the severity of attack regularly. When it eases, we will lift the blockade. Thanks for your understanding.
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