FDA approves Amgen osteoporosis drug
Reviewed By
Rating
FDA approves Amgen osteoporosis drug
Our Review Summary
This story had a number of glaring omissions. Read the full review for details. And, although headlined as a story about osteoporosis, the story veered off to discuss studies evaluating this drug in patients with advanced cancer – again, with no data to support this tangent.
Why This Matters
While this story is clearly a business-targeted story, the way we found it online is the way many would find it – and it wasn’t locked away in a special "this is for business interests-only" section. Important information regarding potential harms and degree of efficacy should be included. Furthermore, shareholders deserve the same level of detail that patients need.
Criteria
Satisfactory
According to the story, each injection is estimated to cost $825 and people will require two injections per year. There is no mention of whether insurance companies will cover the cost, particularly since cheaper drugs for osteoporosis are available.
Not Satisfactory
The story did not provide any data from the trial.
Not Satisfactory
This story did not discuss adverse effects associated with denosumab. For example, this drug is associated with significantly more cases of infection requiring hospitalization and an increased risk of eczema. Readers should also be aware that long-term effects are unknown.
Not Satisfactory
Despite the headline built around approval of the drug for osteoporosis, there was only a cursory mention of the trial evaluating denosumab for preventing fractures in women with osteoporosis. Oddly, more space was devoted to other studies evaluating this drug in patients with bone metastases.
It would have been helpful to the reader if the story mentioned that the osteoporosis study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. It also would have been useful to know more about the patients included in the trial (7868 women ages 60-90 years) and how long they took denosumab (36 months).
Satisfactory
The story did not engage in disease mongering. Statistics from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases on osteoporosis-related bone fractures in postmenopausal women were provided.
Not Satisfactory
The quote from the one independent source in the story was lifted directly from a press release and the story also failed to mention that the study was supported by the drug manufacturer, Amgen.
Not Satisfactory
The story briefly mentioned biphosphonates, suggesting that they are “pretty good” and that a large percentage of women discontinue their use within the first year. We don’t think that’s much of a comparison of the new drug with existing approaches.
Satisfactory
The story makes it clear that denosumab has only recently been approved by the FDA and will be available in the next two weeks.
Satisfactory
The story makes it clear that this is a novel drug for osteoporosis.
Satisfactory
This story does not appear to be based solely on the press release.
Total Score: 5 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