NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

Schering-Plough reports data on hepatitis C drug

Rating

3 Star

Schering-Plough reports data on hepatitis C drug

Our Review Summary

This story reports on preliminary results suggesting that the protease inhibitor, boceprevir, reduced viral loads in hepatitis C patients who were previously unresponsive to other drug therapies. However, this piece does not tell the reader much about the study methods, specifically, that boceprevir was administered along with standard drugs, nor do we know much about the study population. The story should have also highlighted that the results were modest and have not yet been published in a medical journal. So we’re hearing company results that haven’t undergone rigorous peer review.

Also, rather than accepting "scientist-speak," why didn’t the story explain what difference a change in “sustained virologic response” meant in peoples’ lives?  Furthermore, the principal investigator is not challenged when he says the drug results in a "cure of up to 55%."  Cure?  What does that mean to him and what does it mean to readers? 

If the story had included any independent perspective, perhaps some of these questions could have been answered.  Instead, it read like a Schering-Plough/Merck news release. It may have been intended as a business story, but that’s irrelevant the way people encounter stories on the web, as we did in this case.  And who says that shareholders don’t need the above questions answered as badly as patients/consumers?

 

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Applicable

Since this drug is not yet available, we can understand that cost information was not included. But since the story points out that Merck is acquiring boceprevir for $41.1 billion, couldn’t it at least have mentioned the  high cost of current hepatitis C treatment, as well as the high cost of its complications?

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

Not Satisfactory

The story stated that after 28 weeks of treatment, 25 percent had a "sustained virologic response" (SVR) and after 48 weeks 55 percent did. 

But why not use absolute numbers – how many out of how many?  It tends to gloss over the fact that was mentioned but not emphasized – that this was only in 50 patients. 

There was also no attempt made to explain what a change in virologic response actually meant in peoples’ lives.

Finally, the story doesn’t challenge the researcher’s use of the term "cure."  What does that mean to him? And what does it mean to readers? 

 

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

Satisfactory

The study points out the potential adverse effects associated with this drug. 

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

Not Satisfactory

While the story indicates that these data were presented at the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases conference, it does not explicitly state that the results are preliminary and have not been published in a medical journal. Unlike published articles, this study has not gone through a rigorous review process. It would have been helpful for the story to mention the details of the main study and also to acknowledge that this is a report of a subgroup analysis. The story should have also emphasized that such a retrospective study with such a small population (n=50) should be interpreted with caution.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Not Applicable

The story provides no background on hepatitis C, so this criterion is not applicable.  

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

Not Satisfactory

This story only includes a quote from the principle investigator, Paul Kwo (not Quo, as written erroneously in the story). 

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

This story compared boceprevir with another investigational drug called telaprevir. A discussion of other treatments for hepatitis C is not warranted given that this subset of patients did not respond to the standard drug therapies. However, the story failed to make it clear that boceprevir is used in conjuction with two standard drugs.

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

Satisfactory

This story makes it clear that boceprevir is an experimental drug currently in development.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The story makes it clear that this is an experimental drug and not the only one of its kind in development.

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

Not Applicable

We can’t be sure of the extent to which the story was influenced by a news release.  We do know that no independent source was quoted.

Total Score: 4 of 7 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.