FDA Approves Krystexxa to Treat Gout
Reviewed By
Rating
FDA Approves Krystexxa to Treat Gout
Our Review Summary
There are several ways to cover FDA approval of a new drug.
You could take the FDA approval itself as gospel and/or take the word of the manufacturer as gospel.
Or you could do independent vetting of the claims and seek independent perspectives on "how big a story is this?"
This story chose the former approach.
We prefer the latter.
Why This Matters
A story that doesn’t quantify benefits, doesn’t explain costs (of what is likely to be a costly approach), and doesn’t seek independent expert voices is not first-class health journalism.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
No mention of costs. Why not? And, since the drug must be administered every two weeks as an intravenous infusion, cost of delivery could be another substantial issue. (Our medical editor on this story says such biologic infusions tend to cost more than $1,000 per infusion.) How could this be excluded from such a story?
Not Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory. All the story said was "that the drug lowered uric acid levels and reduced deposits of uric acid crystals in joints and soft tissue."
How many people saw a benefit? How much did the drug lower these levels? Was that significant in peoples’ lives? This, again, is where the story could have benefited from an independent perspective.
Satisfactory
The story did explain:
- "A quarter of the patients who participated in the clinical trials experienced a severe allergic reaction to the new drug. The FDA recommends that health care providers provide patients a corticosteroid and an antihistamine to reduce the risk of an allergic reaction. Other reactions during the clinical trial included gout flare, nausea, injection site bruising, irritation of the nasal passages, constipation, chest pain, and vomiting. Doctors should exercise caution when administering Krystexxa to patients with congestive heart failure because that condition was not formally studied."
Not Satisfactory
There was no discussion of the quality of the evidence and, in fact, minimal discussion of how the research was done at all.
Satisfactory
Story explains that "about 3% of the 3 million adults with gout are not helped by conventional therapy." So no disease-mongering here.
Not Satisfactory
Inadequate. We weren’t told who funded the research. And why do we have to hear claims of novelty only from a company president, lifted from a news release? That’s inadequate sourcing.
Not Satisfactory
The company president may say that "Krystexxa is the first-ever and only treatment approved by the FDA for adult patients who suffer with chronic gout that is refractory to conventional therapy" but a good news story would explain:
- is this the ONLY alternative approach that’s ever been tested?
- Presumably not – so how MUCH better was this than past alternative treatment attempts?
- how much better this approach was than conventional treatment?
Satisfactory
The story is about new FDA approval of the drug. It notes that the manufacturer expects it to be available by prescription later this year.
Satisfactory
The story states: "Krystexxa is the first-ever and only treatment approved by the FDA for adult patients who suffer with chronic gout that is refractory to conventional therapy," Paul Hamelin, RPh, president of Savient Pharmaceuticals, says in a news release."
But why couldn’t we have heard that from an independent expert?
We’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt, but barely.
Not Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory. Both quotes – according to the story itself – came from a news release. Why not do independent reporting on this?
Total Score: 4 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