Questioning a $30,000-a-Month Cancer Drug
Reviewed By
Rating
Questioning a $30,000-a-Month Cancer Drug
Our Review Summary
This story focuses on issue of the cost of a new cancer drug, but it also provides valuable and balanced information for the reader on the drug, Fotolyn, in terms of its potential benefits, availability, novelty, and evidence to support its use. Notably, the story quotes multiple stakeholders, including experts from the drug manufacturer, a large insurance company, and lymphoma researchers. These quotes provide diversity of perspectives on this controversial issue.
Why This Matters
Recent debates on health care reform in the United States have highlighted the complex problem of cost of drugs and treatments. Healthcare costs are rising at alarming rates, causing a significant drag on our economy. How much is too much to spend on a new drug? The recent news of the FDA approval of Folotyn, a chemotherapy drug for peripheral T-cell lymphoma, a rare and serious cancer, has raised this question in dramatic fashion. Folotyn is projected to cost $30,000 per month, quite a bit higher than other high priced cancer drugs. Folotyn is projected to be a money-maker for the manufacturer, Allos Therapeutics.
Criteria
Satisfactory
The story goes into some detail about the cost of Folotyn, which is extraordinarily high. The story also does a great job of comparing the cost of the drug to other expensive cancer drugs. Costs were the main focus of the story.
Satisfactory
The story adequately quantitifes the benefits of Folotyn, which are not that impressive. The story provides the percentage of patients with reductions in tumor size and the median time that the benefits lasted.
Not Satisfactory
The story does not mention any potential harms of Folotyn. Although the primary focus of the story realtes to the drug’s cost, it would have desriable to provide a brief comment on the toxicity of the drug as well. The addition of the information would help the reader place the value of the drug into a better perspective. According to the package insert, 44% of patients treated in the clinical trial suffered from a serious side effect of the drug
Satisfactory
The story describes the evidence to support Folotyn, which is rather thin. The story mentions one clinical trial that showed a reduction in tumor size in some participants, but that to date, the drug has not been shown to prolong longevity. The quote from a member of the FDA advisory board that recommended approval provides an excellent overview and counterpoint to the comments of the company spokesperson.
Satisfactory
The story accurately represents the seriousness and prevalence of peripheral T-cell Lymphoma, which is quite rare and serious.
Satisfactory
The story quotes multiple stakeholders, including experts from the drug manufacturer, a large insurance company, and lymphoma researchers. The provide valuable diversity of perspectives on this controversial issue.
Satisfactory
The story clearly states that there are no alternatives to Folotyn for this particular indications, but compares the price of the drug to several other expensive cancer drugs. The story should have emphasized that Folotyn was studied in patients who have relapsed and a comparison with currently used regimens is not available.
Satisfactory
The story clearly states that Folotyn is not currently available but that the manufacturer plans to market the drug in January.
Satisfactory
The story clearly states that Folotyn is new. It could have stated that a host of older and less expensive treatment options are currently available.
Satisfactory
Because the story quotes mutliple experts, the reader can assume the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
Total Score: 9 of 10 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