A Genentech Eye Treatment Is Found to Help Prevent Vision Loss in Diabetics
Reviewed By
Rating
A Genentech Eye Treatment Is Found to Help Prevent Vision Loss in Diabetics
Our Review Summary
This story reports on the results of a newly published phase III trial demonstrating the benefits of the drug Lucentis for vision in those with diabetic macular edema. While including pertinent information about the possible benefits, harms, and costs, the story also included some information about another very similar medication available at lower cost. It raises important questions about the possible impact of corporate sponsorship of clinical trials. That’s something the other two stories didn’t do. In the study reported on, not only did the company supply its more expensive drug for use in the study, they contributed $9 million dollars to run the study with the caveat that the less expensive form of the molecular not be included in the study. While it is exciting to have a new treatment for diabetic macular edema, it seems unfortunate not to study both medications to determine whether the more expensive one really adds value.
Why This Matters
With promising results attributable to the more expensive medication it becomes almost impossible for government and commercial payors to not cover it. It is precisely these sorts of studies that have driven health care costs in our country beyond a sustainable level.
Criteria
Satisfactory
Kudos! This story reported on the costs of the drug Lucentis as well as the less expensive Avastin.
Satisfactory
The story provided quantitative information about the possible impact on vision. But we wish there information about any measurement of the patients’ perspective on whether they are functioning better after receiving this treatment versus standard treatment
Satisfactory
While the story did include the common side effect of the drug in the study, there were other potentially important complications that were not mentioned.
Satisfactory
The story mentioned that the results reported on were from a phase III clinical trial; it included information about the number of affected eyes included in the study, and the impact on vision.
Satisfactory
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
Satisfactory
Several experts in the field were quoted in this story.
Satisfactory
In presenting the outcome of the study, the story mentioned in passing treatments currently used for treating diabetic macular edema. The story also mentioned the existence of another drug, Avastin, which was reported as working the same way as the study medication. (A more accurate description comparing Avastin and Lucentis is that they contain the nearly identical active ingredient but the production methods are a little different.)
It would have been nice to mention that there is an on-going trial comparing the effectiveness of these two medications for the treatment of macular degeneration (not the condition which was the disease in the study reported on.)
Satisfactory
The story was crystal clear that the drug reported on, Lucentis, is available as it is FDA approved for another condition; the story also mentioned that it is not yet FDA approved for treatment of diabetic macular edema.
Satisfactory
The story was very clear that this was a new use for a medication that is already on the market. The story provided some insight that the company underwriting the costs of this study had a very similar but less expensive drug which was FDA approved for other use. It would have been useful to include a little more information comparing the two medications. It might also have been nice to include some information about how the drug studied works as compared to laser treatment, the current standard.
Satisfactory
Does not appear to rely on a press release.
Total Score: 10 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