University asks readers to take leap of faith that antibiotic tested only in the lab is a ‘breakthrough’

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

Not Satisfactory

A key point of the release is that the researchers have developed a form of the teixobactin antibiotic that could be commercially viable. This statement implies that they made some rough calculations of the potential cost of manufacturing the drug. Even though it may be too early to guess at a market price (which depends on many factors other than actual manufacturing cost), it would have been nice to see some comparison to the production costs of other antibiotics.

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

Not Satisfactory

The release says the simplified versions of teixobactin “have identical potency” to the natural form. A quote also claims teixobactin “kills bacteria without detectable resistance including superbugs such as MRSA.” But nowhere are readers told that teixobactin has yet to be tested in people. All the claims of benefits are based on laboratory tests. Readers should be told that the benefits for patients have not yet been tested.

As one commentary about new antibiotics published last spring noted, “Resistance development may not have been observed in initial experiments yet, but similar beliefs for e.g. vancomycin, have been proven wrong. As of yet, teixobactin has not yet reached testing in clinical trials.”

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

Not Satisfactory

The release does not address potential harms. This omission is another reason the release should have made clear that although the researchers performed some laboratory tests for potential toxicity, teixobactin has not been tested in people, so its potential adverse effects are not known.

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

Not Satisfactory

By neglecting to tell readers that the claims (which were not backed up by any numbers) are based entirely on laboratory tests, not tests in people with infections, the release may mislead many readers. The current evidence appears to be limited to in vitro studies in which the antibiotics were put into a test tube with the bacteria.

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

Not Satisfactory

The release does not discuss either funding or conflicts of interest. Readers would have to go to the journal article to learn:

• the work was funded by the University of Lincoln, the Royal Society, the Rosetrees Trust and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC).
• Novobiotic Pharmaceuticals, LLC provided natural teixobactin.
• The researchers declared no conflict of interest.

Since other researchers investigating teixobactin have submitted patent applications and commercialization of basic research has become a routine part of academic science, it would have been nice to see this news release directly address the potential financial interest the researchers may have in the development of their work.

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

Not Satisfactory

It appears that the release compares teixobactin to existing antibiotics, but it does not tell readers that the comparison is laboratory studies versus real world experience, which is not a fair comparison.

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

Not Satisfactory

The news release writers call this work a “breakthrough.” That’s what they also said in a release about an earlier research report from the researchers last June. Release writers were a bit more measured in a release issued in January, calling a research report from the team a “significant step.”