This news report does a solid job describing the findings of a Phase II study into the use of Rituxan for relapsing-remitting MS. It includes the necessary caveats about the study being preliminary and the need for bigger, longer-term studies to validate the findings.
The evidence is reported adequately, and the sourcing is sufficient.
The study itself is most important, however, because it appears to verify the important role of B-cells in the development of MS. Since most current MS drugs target T-cells, the implications of these findings for development of new treatments are significant.
By focusing on the clinical results of a small trial rather than the important discovery about the role of B cells, the article may invite people with relapsing-remitting MS to wonder whether they could, or should, try to use this drug, which is on the market and approved for other uses, off-label.
Other reporters asked sources whether this would be a good idea. Their stories included the useful caution that the drug should not be used off-label at this time. This story would have been better if it had too.
The article is silent on the price of Rituxan. Since the company is investing a significant sum to research an additional use, the price is worth mentioning.
The article does a good job of sketching the benefits shown in this research. Focusing on the clinical endpoint of relapse, and using percentages of relapse with the drug and the placebo, makes it easy for readers to understand.
The article explores the issue of whether Rituxan may suppress the immune response too much, making the patient vulnerable to other diseases. It also explains how this effect has been observed in the drug Tysabri, a different immune suppressant used for MS.
This article is based on published results of a Phase II trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The news article does a decent job emphasizing the preliminary nature of the findings, and that larger trials are needed to ensure safety, efficacy and long-term benefits.
The article does nothing to exaggerate the severity or consequences of MS.
The reporter draws on the journal article and the accompanying editorial.
Sources interviewed include the primary author, one medical expert representing the National Multiple Sclerosis Society and one clinician who treated some patients in the study but was not an author.
This is sufficient sourcing.
It is worth pointing out here, however, that Genentech and Biogen Idec, makers of Rituxan, are “Corporate Star” supporters of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society.
The article states that six other drugs, all with shortcomings, are available to treat relapsing-remitting MS.
The article makes clear that the drug is currently on the market and approved for other uses. But it did not state whether Rituxan is, or may become, used off-label for relapsing-remitting MS. And, as noted in our summary comment below, there are issues surrounding off-label use that could have been addressed.
The article makes clear that the drug is on the market and used for related conditions, but its use in relapsing-remitting MS patients is being explored in this research.
There is no evidence the article draws from a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
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