The story describes a new method of administering an existing drug to a subset of patients in the early stages of a debilitating form of Multiple Sclerosis (MS). The story discusses why this method of delivery may be an improvement over existing immunosuppressant drug regimens for difficult-to-treat MS cases. And it explains why more information about risk and efficacy of the high-dose treatment is needed before it can be accepted for clinical use.
The story adequately describes the small, open-label, pilot-stage study of 9 MS patients. The story appropriately notes inclusion criteria for the study (i.e. patients in the early stages of aggressive MS) and cautions that the preliminary findings may not apply to other people with different subtypes of MS.
The suggestion by a study researcher that results of this study could lead to a cure for MS seems premature, especially given the small number of people involved and outcomes at 2 years; however, the story does note the limited information available for HiCy therapy and the need for future randomized controlled trials with a larger group of patients. The story mentions the harms of treatment typically seen in patients taking the pulsed dose of cyclophosphamide, as well as side effects seen in the small group of patients in the HiCy trial.
The cost of currently available low-dose, pulsed immune suppressing drugs could have been mentioned. It would be good to know if there would be a potential cost-saving for the patient with HiCy therapy. But the story does note the economics driving drug research and implications for the development of new treatments for people with difficult-to-treat chronic conditions.
Overall, though, this was a solid report.
The cost of currently available low-dose, pulsed immune suppressing drugs could have been mentioned. It would be good to know if there would be a potential cost-saving for the patient with HiCy therapy. The story does note the economics driving drug research and implications for the development of new treatments for people with difficult-to-treat chronic conditions.
The suggestion that results of this study could lead to a cure for MS seems premature, especially given the small number of people involved and outcomes at 2 years; however, the story does note the limited information available for HiCy and the need for future randomized controlled trials with a larger group of patients.
The story mentions the harms of treatment typically seen in patients taking the pulsed dose of cyclophosphamide, as well as side effects seen in the small group of patients in the HiCy trial. These included: nausea and hair loss and increased risk of infection. The story also mentioned that some patients’ symptoms became worse before they improved. Researchers do not currently know the long-term effects of this high-dose, concentrated drug regimen.
The story adequately describes the small, open-label, pilot-stage study of 9 MS patients and presents findings for the lay reader. The story appropriately notes inclusion criteria for the study (i.e. early stages of aggressive MS) and cautions that the preliminary findings may not apply to other people with different subtypes of MS. The story provides some data on study endpoints, i.e. brain lesions in 7 of 9 people improved and there was a statistically significant reduction in disability in most participants.
The story does not engage in disease mongering. The story includes U.S. prevalence data and describes different forms of MS, qualifying discussion of the novel treatment with a reminder that HiCy was only tested in very debilitated patients. As mentioned in the press release accompanying this story, the study included the "worst of the worst" MS patients.
The story includes interview with study authors and participants, as well as Dr. Richert, VP of research and clinical programs for MS Society, who puts the results of this study in perspective.
The story mentions other FDA-approved treatments for MS and compares the current use of longer-term pulsed intervals of cyclophosphamide with the higher-concentrated regimen–which lasted only 4 days and was less toxic. The story notes that this experimental delivery system was tested in people in the early stages of a particularly aggressive form of MS, and the treatment is not a long-term cure.
The story mentions that high-dose cyclophosphamide (generic name for Cytoxan, Neosar, Revimmune) (HiCy) is currently being studied via clinical trials, and at this time the concentrated form of the immunosuppressant drug is limited to people in the early stages of an aggressive form of MS. The story mentions that cyclophosphamide is already used in a different dosing regimen for treatment of MS. The high-dose regimen is under study and more information about risk and efficacy is needed before it can be accepted for clinical use.
The story describes the pros and cons of this new method of administering an existing drug to a subset of patients in the early stages of a particularly debilitating form of MS. The story discusses why this method of delivery may be an improvement over existing immunosuppressant drugs regimens for difficult-to-treat cases.
There is similar language in the press release and news story; however, there is also some independent reporting and the story includes a perspective (MS researcher Dr. Richert) other than those of the researchers and participants from the HiCy trials.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
A great read on this weekend’s NYT claims of a cure for Type 1.
Cure for Type 1 diabetes? We’ve been down this road before with NY Times https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
"But it is the framing and the emphasis of the #journalism by a leading science journalist at a leading newspaper that demands scrutiny. It has an impact on readers and on sick people that may cause harm by promoting false hope about extremely preliminary research"
👍👏💪 truth https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1465399358137024518
Why we should still miss healthnewsreview. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1465399358137024518
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