A drug company applies to expand its approval for a drug (Tykerb) for advanced breast cancer in the US and Europe.
And the only source quoted in the story is an employee of the drugmaker. That is not sound journalism.
The story failed to:
Instead, the story read like a drug company news release. Women with advanced breast cancer deserve better information than this.
Finally, the story failed to give the highly significant context that just last month the UK’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommended that the drug "should not be used, except in the context of clinical trials, as it is not a cost effective use of resources."
There was no mention of cost – and Tykerb is a VERY expensive drug – thousands of dollars each month.
There was no quantification of benefit in the story – strange when the entire story is about the drugmaker seeking new approval for the drug. Upon what evidence is that request based?
The story says that Tykerb can damage the liver and harm a fetus. But that’s an incomplete listing. Tykerb can cause rare but very serious problems with heart failure and pulmonary toxicity. The drug can also cause diarrhea, skin rash, swelling, redness, pain and or peeling of the skin on the hands and feet, anemia, nausea and vomiting – along with a host of less common side effects. The story was way off in this regard.
The story cites one GlaxoSmithKline study presented last December. But is that the entire body of evidence upon which the new approval application is based? Because it’s the only evidence cited in the story.
The study didn’t exaggerate the condition of advanced breast cancer.
The only source interviewed in the story is an employee of the drugmaker. Where was any perspective from an independent clinician?
While the story gave a brief description of hormone therapy combined with chemotherapy, it wrote these off as causing "nasty side effects" without giving any substantive data-driven comparison of this approach vs. Tykerb, whose side effects can be pretty "nasty" as well.
The angle of the story is the drug company applying for approval in the US and Europe for its drug Tykerb as a first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer that is hormone sensitive..
The past use of Tykerb was clearly explained in the story.
We can’t be sure the extent to which the story may have relied on a news release. We do know that the only source quoted in the story was from the drugmaker.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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