While still needing some improvement, this WebMD story does a better job than a competing HealthDay piece of covering an experimental new treatment for hepatitis-C. The major difference is that this story stayed focused on the study at hand, while the HealthDay piece got sidetracked into making unsupported claims about other experimental drugs mentioned by an expert source.
SInce the test drug is in the very early stages of development, this criterion is technically not applicable. However, the present treatment regimen of an interferon and ribavirin costs thousands of dollars monthly for 6-12 months and it is likely that any newer antivirals will be additive and not replacements. A comment on the potential for significant additional costs would have been desirable.
The story got a little carried away here. It said participants treated with the experimental drug had a "dramatic" reduction in viral load. While this may be true, it would have been helpful to point out, as the HealthDay story did, that the study lasted only a few days. We don’t know whether this benefit can be maintained over a longer period of time, especially considering that the hepatitis C virus has proven to be quite capable of developing resistance to antivirals over time.
The story says study participants who took the drug exhibited "few side effects." But what were those side effects and how serious were they? The story doesn’t say. While the implication here is that the drug seems to be safe — a conclusion that we can’t really draw based on a small, early phase test — the story does include a cautionary quote from an expert about the need for additional testing to demonstrate safety. It also noted that patients taking this drug might still need to be treated with interferon, which many individuals can’t tolerate because of side effects. A close one, but we’ll call it satisfactory.
This story includes appropriate caveats about the early nature of this research and includes a restraining quote from an expert who warns that the drug might not make it out of phase II tests. Unlike the competing HealthDay piece, this story resisted getting too worked up about the other experimental drugs for hepatitis-C that are closer to potential FDA approval.
This story does not exaggerate the prevalence or severity of hepatitis C.
According to disclosure statements from a 2008 CME program, Dr. Bruce Bacon, an expert source for this story, received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, which is developing the experimental drug being discussed. He also is a consultant to drug companies developing competing drugs for hepatitis C. To avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest it is desirable to identify relationships such as these clearly. This story fails to do so.
The story compares the new drug with intravenously administered peg-interferon and ribavirin — the current standard of care for hepatitis C.
The story called the research on BMS-790052 "preliminary" and made it clear that the drug was not close to approval. It also was more cautious than the competing HealthDay piece in its description of two other antiviral drugs that are nearing FDA approval.
The story notes that there are many other drugs being developed to treat hepatitis C. It explained that a potentially novel advantage of the new compound is that it seems to be effective against all genotypes.
We can’t be sure whether this story relied on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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