Read Original Story

J&J Psoriasis Drug Shows Promise in Study

Rating

2 Star

J&J Psoriasis Drug Shows Promise in Study

Our Review Summary

This 207-word story must have made the Johnson & Johnson drug company happy because it conveyed everything the company probably wanted to convey about a study of its experimental drug ustekinumab for psoriasis.

But it didn’t tell readers anything about the quality of the evidence in that study, the harms found in the study, the precise benefits found (or how they were measured), or the cost of the experimental drug. 

Yet the story did let the company project that it would seek FDA approval within the next two months.  

For people living with psoriasis, the story raised more questions than it answered. The lack of full disclosure on the results of the trial might lead some to a misinterpretation of the importance of the findings and the relative market value of the product if it in fact achieves FDA approval.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The story didn’t project any ballpark of costs for the drug, yet it was able to project the company’s plans to file for approval within the next two months.  You can be sure if they’re ready for that, they have a ballpark idea of how much they will charge for the drug.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story only said that more than two-thirds of those taking the drug had at least a 75% reduction in psoriasis.  That’s not clear. Does that mean 75% a reduction in the number of psoriatic plaques?  Or does it mean a 75% reduction in the severity of existing plaques?  And 75% of what baseline?  Were these people wth extensive psoriasis?  What precisely were the measurements?

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

There was no discussion of harms found in the studyu of ustekinumab.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

There was no explanation of the nature of the study undertaken.  In addition, there was no caveat given about the potential pitfalls in drawing conclusions from presentations at scientific meetings – which is the source of the news in this case.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Not Applicable

There was no disease mongering but it would have been nice for the author to have provided some estimates concerning the size of the problem.  Although psoriasis is a relatively common ailment, moderate to severe forms requiring systemic treatment are much less common.  The article suggest the standard treatment is systemic ignoring the use of topical products for less severe forms of the disease.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

Only non-peer-reviewed company-sponsored research was reported.  No independent sources were cited.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

Although competitors’ drugs were mentioned, the context in which they are used was neglected.  The majority of people with psoriasis use topical products (never mentioned) to manage their skin disorder.  The focus on very expensive biologic treatments without noting the drugs are used in patients with moderate to severe disease is a skewed picture. 

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

It’s clear that the drug ustekinumab is an experimental drug still being studied.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The relative novelty of this class of "self-injectable biologic" drugs was discussed in the story.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Not Applicable

It’s unclear if the story relied solely or largely on a news release, although only non-peer-reviewed company-sponsored research was discussed.

Total Score: 2 of 8 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.