Drug a New Treatment Option for Diabetic Eye Disease
Reviewed By
Rating
Drug a New Treatment Option for Diabetic Eye Disease
Our Review Summary
Just doesn’t stack up to the other two stories (by WebMD and the New York Times) we reviewed on this same study. But it’s tough to stack up when all you’ve done is rewritten a news release.
Why This Matters
When you report from a news release, you’re not going to get into the meat of the real story as the New York Times did on the questions about corporate sponsorship of a clinical trial.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
Cost isn’t mentioned and in that oversight is perhaps the biggest flaw of the story – that it did not explain – as the New York Times story did – that there are questions about Lucentis vs. a cheaper alternative. From the NYT:
- Although it is a cancer drug, Avastin is often used off-label for eye diseases because it is far cheaper than Lucentis, costing only $20 to $100 a dose, compared with $2,000 for Lucentis. Avastin is undercutting sales of Lucentis, which totaled $1.1 billion in the United States last year. Organizers of the trial conceded that a major reason Lucentis was chosen was that Genentech, which is now owned by Roche, agreed to provide the drug free of charge and to contribute $9 million in additional financing — but only if Lucentis were used. “Obviously you can’t underplay $9 million,” said Dr. Ferris of the eye institute, which is part of the part of the National Institutes of Health. But he said there were other factors as well, like a belief that Lucentis might have been the better drug.Dr. Philip J. Rosenfeld, a professor of ophthalmology at the University of Miami, said the decision was “clearly a case of pay to play” since Genentech’s money dictated the choice of drugs.
Not Satisfactory
Never defines what "substantial improvement in vision" means.
Not Satisfactory
None discussed. The NYT reported: "About 1 percent of those getting Lucentis injections suffered an inflammation of the eye from an infection."
Not Satisfactory
No discussion of the quality of the evidence. And the headline and subhead mention only the drug. This is still being looked at as a drug-and-laser combination.
Satisfactory
No disease mongering.
Not Satisfactory
Quotes come directly from an American Academy of Opthalmology news release. No discussion of whether either of the quoted experts has financial ties to the company making the drug – but one of them reported in the study that he had ties to the manufacturer.
Not Satisfactory
No comparison with the cheaper alternative – part of the important controversy raised in the NYT story.
Not Satisfactory
The story never clarifies whether Lucentis is now approved and available.
Not Satisfactory
The story calls it "a new drug." It’s not. It’s already approved for another eye disease, age-related macular degeneration.
Not Satisfactory
Relies totally on a news release. No sign of independent reporting.
Total Score: 1 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