Our Review Summary
This AP story about Sancuso, a transdermal patch that delivers anti-nausea medication to cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, is seriously flawed.
- The story cites no independent sources. It quotes a consultant for the company, a spokesman for the company, and a participant in the clinical trials who is satisfied with his treatment.
- It does not cite the evidence upon which the product was approved, nor does it attempt to quantify the benefits or risks.
- It predicts imminent availability yet does not report price.
A more diligent reporter might have done a Web search on the company and product name, and discovered that the Scottish maker of the drug, ProStrakan, took the unusual action beginning to manufacture the patch in August, weeks before approval had been granted. It’s hard to tell what this might mean. But it would be worth asking a few questions about this, both of company officials and independent sources.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
The story says the company has not projected costs for the patch. It’s good that the reporter asked.
But the news release issued by the drug’s maker predicts sales of $100 million each in the U.S. and Europe, so clearly someone at the company has an idea how much each patch will cost.
A more diligent reporter would have pushed for a price based on the information in the release, and compared it to costs of the oral medication against which the patch was tested.
Not Satisfactory
The story does not quantify the benefits of treatment.
Satisfactory
The report cites the one significant side effect mentioned in the FDA material, constipation. It also mentions that this can lead to a dangerous bowel obstruction.
Not Satisfactory
The report does not cite the evidence of efficacy and safety upon which FDA approval is based.
Satisfactory
The anecdote with the patient (the same patient profiled in the company’s news release) who reported signficant relief from his nausea with the patch is a bit too neat and an easy appeal to emotion.
But the nausea that often accompanies chemo is very serious in that it can compromise nutrition, and therefore resilience and recovery. In the end, we rule that the use of this single anecdote does not constitute disease-mongering.
Not Satisfactory
The only sources used are a nurse practitioner who is consultant to the drug’s maker, a company spokeswoman and a patient who participated in the clinical trials. No independent sources are used.
Satisfactory
The story says the patch is another way to administer a common anti-nausea medication usually given by mouth. That treatment is the most common alternative.
Most other anti-nausea treatments, including ginger and guided imagery, are considered less effective and need not be mentioned here.
Not Satisfactory
The report makes plain that Sancuso, an anti-nausea patch for chemotherapy patients, has just been approved by the FDA and is not yet available.
But the story states that the patch is expected to be available by the end of the year. No source is cited.
This prediction should have been attributed–at least to the news release associated with the FDA approval, whose subhead states, "US Launch Planned Before End of 2008".
Finally, the lede of the story says "cancer patients will soon be able" to use the patch. More conditional phrasing would have been more accurate.
Satisfactory
The story makes plain that the patch is a novel way to administer a widely used medication normally taken in oral form.
Not Applicable
We have no evidence of text or quotes being lifted directly from a news release. But the same nurse practitioner and same patient are used in the story as are used in the company’s news release. So we are at least suspicious of how much enterprise reporting went into this story. Nonethless, since we have no evidence of direct influence, we rule this an uncertain N/A.
Total Score: 4 of 9 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.
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