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.
You want to talk about comparative effectiveness research? This would have been a good place for it.
The story covers cost in the very last two lines.
Adequate quantification of benefits seen in the study.
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.
Adequate job explaining how the study was done and what it means.
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.
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.
The story explains that Lucentis was approved 4 years ago for another cause.
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.
It’s clear the story did not rely 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