NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Release

Thorough summary of trial comparing drugs for diabetic macular edema

Joslin Researchers Conduct First Trial Directly Comparing Drugs for Diabetic Macular Edema and Find All are Effective

Our Review Summary

Eye doctor using opthalmoscopeThis release was uncommonly thorough in explaining the results of the study and its implications. Benefits are accurately described in terms that are meaningful to readers. Costs for the different drugs are provided, and the study methodology is clearly communicated. Discussion of harms and the major alternative to these drugs (laser treatment) would have completed the picture for readers.

 

Why This Matters

Vision problems are significant in both type I and type II diabetics and about 750,000 Americans with diabetic retinopathy have diabetic macular edema, which causes blurred vision. The finding that that three drugs work equally well for people with mild vision impairment has significant implications, because why would anyone pay $17,000 more for a drug that doesn’t work any better?

Criteria

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

Satisfactory

The costs of the three anti-VEGF drugs evaluated in the study were listed as about $1960 for aflibercept (Eylea), $1200 for ranibizumab (Lucentis) and $70 for bevacizumab (Avastin), per injection. This is satisfactory, although since a treatment course involves multiple injections, we’d like to have seen the total cost of treatment compared without having to do the math ourselves.

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

Satisfactory

These drugs are already used for treatment of macular edema and the purpose of the study was to compare the three. In general, all three show good results, with aflibercept producing slightly better results for those initially exhibiting poorer vision. The release quantifies this clearly in terms of improved ability to read an eye chart.

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

Not Satisfactory

Nothing is reported about adverse effects either locally in the eye or systemically. While these drugs are standard treatments, a line about potential for infection or other potential harms should have been included. Information about completion rates and reasons for dropouts would also have been welcome.

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

Satisfactory

The release tells us that the results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. And while the story does not include the statistical comparisons of the three drugs, it does show, by vision improvement, the outcomes. Also included are the numbers of patients and the general study methodology. It’s clear from the release that this was a well-conducted study that has important implications for practice.

Does the news release commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

Vision problems associated with diabetes are well known. There is no disease mongering in this story.

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

Satisfactory

The funding sources and the donation of drugs from the pharmaceutical companies are clearly stated. The Joslin researchers quoted in the article don’t appear to have any direct conflicts of interest with companies involved in the research.

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

Not Satisfactory

The release discusses three competing drug therapies, but there should have been some mention of the alternative to drugs — laser treatment. How do these results compare with laser outcomes?

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

Satisfactory

Two of these drugs are available specifically for macular edema and the third, although used off label, is also available in proper form and dosage. The story makes this clear. Since availability also relates to cost and who will pay for it — especially this era of high deductible health plans — some comment about the increased availability of the lower-cost option would not have been inappropriate.

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

Satisfactory

Novelty is established in the first line of the release, which states that this is “the first clinical trial directly comparing three drugs most commonly used to treat diabetic macular edema.”

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

Satisfactory

No claims that do not appear in the original paper are made in the release.

Total Score: 8 of 10 Satisfactory

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.