Note to our followers: Due to a lack of sufficient funding, will cease daily publication of new content at the end of 2018. Publisher Gary Schwitzer and other contributors may post new articles periodically. If you wish to donate, your gift might help keep the site available to the public for a few more years, by defraying costs of web hosting and maintenance. All of our 6,000+ published articles contain lessons to help people improve their critical thinking about health care. Read more about our change in status. And here's how to make a donation.
Read Original Release

Recap promises ‘results’ of dry eye drug study but doesn’t deliver


3 Star

Sylentis announces the results of tivanisiran for dry eye syndrome

Our Review Summary

This news release focuses on a study of a new drug, tivanisiran, to treat dry eyes that was presented at a recent medical conference. It mentions the completion of both phase I and phase 2 trials and the start of a phase 3 trial, but it neglects to provide any of the details of the research. There is nothing offered about costs, the benefits or the harms of using the drug. It refers to the terms of “dry eye disease” or “dry eyes syndrome” repeatedly even though these are not recognized medical conditions.


Why This Matters

When it comes to health and medical news, journalists and other members of the public deserve useful information that can be used to evaluate a new treatment. The research summarized here is in far too early a stage to warrant distributing a news release.


Does the news release adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

There is no discussion of the potential cost of this new medication, tivanisiran. We do know, however, that current other treatments for dry eyes can be expensive. Cyclosporine A drops, for example, may run as high as $400 a month. There is no indication that tivanisiran might be more affordable to patients, or if insurers might cover the cost of this news drug.

Does the news release adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

There is no effort made in this release to provide any numbers that would put the benefits of using tivanisiran in context. It does quote a scientist working on the treatment endorsing the drug:

According to Ana Isabel Jiménez, Director of R&D at Sylentis, “we trust in our technology, innovative in this field, and we hope that tivanisiran will soon become a real alternative for the treatment of millions of people that suffer dry eye disease around the world.”

Does the news release adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

Likewise, there is no mention of potential harms that use of tivanisiran might cause to patients. Since one of the earlier studies was a safety trial it would have been appropriate to include those results in the release.  

Does the news release seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

There is no evidence included in the release, despite the headline that says the drugmaker “announces the results of tivanisiran for dry eye syndrome.” The release only notes that the drug completed both phase I and phase 2 trials, (for safety and optimum dosage) and that a phase 3 trial is starting.

The release doesn’t point readers to any of the earlier trials. It should be noted that these results were reported at a medical conference and have not been peer-reviewed or published in a medical journal.

Does the news release commit disease-mongering?

Not Satisfactory

This release crosses the line into disease mongering with its repeat references to “dry eye disease” and “dry eye syndrome” which are not recognized medical conditions. Dry eyes can be caused by numerous things, ranging from side effects of medications to normal aging.

Does the news release identify funding sources & disclose conflicts of interest?


PharmaMar, the parent company of he drugmaker, is listed as the study funder on the EurkekAlert! website which hosts the news release. We encourage news releases to include sponsors and conflict of interest information in the body of the news release so that information follows when the release is picked up verbatim by news aggregators.

Does the news release compare the new approach with existing alternatives?


The release mentions alternatives to tivanisiran:

“Dry eye can be treated with cyclosporin drops or autologous serum, but there is as yet no specific product for chronic treatment of the ocular pain related to dry eye syndrome; oral analgesics or anaesthetics are used in general. However, the main treatment consists of artificial tears, in the form of drops, gel or creams. Preservative-free eye drops have generally been found to offer the best long-term response.”

The American Optometric Association publishes a patient pamphlet that provides additional management options.

Does the news release establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?


A scientist working for the drugmaker says she hopes “that tivanisiran will soon become a real alternative.” Savvy readers will note that the drug is still in development and that the drug is not yet ready for patient use outside of a research setting.

Does the news release establish the true novelty of the approach?


This treatment, at least for dry eye, is novel since it is using a different approach to dealing with dry eyes than currently available medications use. But it’s important to keep in mind that the treatment is still preliminary and must be studied in larger trials before being submitted for FDA approval.

Does the news release include unjustifiable, sensational language, including in the quotes of researchers?


The unjustifiable use of the terms “dry eye disease” and “dry eye syndrome” have already been addressed under the Disease Mongering criteria.

Total Score: 5 of 10 Satisfactory


We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.