April 28, 2010 Read Original Story

Drug Reverses Diabetes-Related Vision Loss

Reviewed By

Rating

Drug Reverses Diabetes-Related Vision Loss

Our Review Summary

The key difference between this and the NYT story was that WebMD didn’t reflect on the question of why Genentech didn’t test its cheaper Avastin against the much more expensive Lucentis. The important issue of corporate sponsorship of a clinical trial was overlooked.

Why This Matters

You want to talk about comparative effectiveness research? This would have been a good place for it.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Satisfactory

The story covers cost in the very last two lines.

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

Satisfactory

Adequate quantification of benefits seen in the study.

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

Not Satisfactory

Story says "few eye-related complications" were reported in the Lucentis group, but didn’t say what few means or what they were. We don’t think that’s quite adequate.

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

Satisfactory

Adequate job explaining how the study was done and what it means.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

No disease mongering in the story.

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

Not Satisfactory

One quote from the head of the National Eye Institute. But he didn’t really evaluate evidence – only talked about hope.

Meantime, no mention that Genentech funded the trial (a strength of the NYT story was its discussion of the "pay for play" aspect of the research) – and no mention that Dr. Bressler disclosed financial ties to Genentech. From the Times:

Some doctors criticized the organizers of the trial for testing Lucentis rather than another Genentech drug, Avastin, which works in the same way as Lucentis.

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.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

At least the story mentioned the uncertainty about whether Lucentis is any better than the cheaper Avastin, and mentioned an upcoming trial comparing the two in age-related macular degeneration.

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

Satisfactory

The story explains that Lucentis was approved 4 years ago for another cause.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

Story explains the drug is already approved for another use, and it also – at the very end – mentions that an older and much cheaper drug is also effective.

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

Satisfactory

It’s clear the story did not rely on a news release.

Total Score: 8 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.

COMMENTS button We welcome comments, which users can leave at the end of any of our systematic story reviews or at the end of any of our blog posts.

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:

“Shed light, not just heat. Facts, challenges, disagreements, corrections — those are all fine. Attacking the person, instead of the idea or the interpretation, is neither acceptable nor helpful.”

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.

Story Reviews

Systematic, Criteria-Driven

@HealthNewsRevu

Retweet on Twitter HealthNewsReview.org Retweeted

Alan Cassels @AKECassels·

Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597

Reply on Twitter 1361431489326407680 Retweet on Twitter 13614314893264076806 Like on Twitter 13614314893264076807 Twitter 1361431489326407680

Retweet on Twitter HealthNewsReview.org Retweeted

RxISK @RxISK·

A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.

It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123

Reply on Twitter 1361420459284131843 Retweet on Twitter 13614204592841318439 Like on Twitter 136142045928413184317 Twitter 1361420459284131843

HealthNewsReview.org @HealthNewsRevu·

.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/

Reply on Twitter 1360214949704982532 Retweet on Twitter 13602149497049825323 Like on Twitter 13602149497049825328 Twitter 1360214949704982532