AP and HealthDay told this tale differently, with different context and subplots. Our review of this AP article points out the good stuff and areas for improvement, most importantly the misleading way that benefits are presented.
There’s a need for additional effective, well-tolerated treatment options for uncontrolled asthma, and this study provides early evidence—to be confirmed in future research—of a drug that’s sometimes given to such patients but is not currently approved by the FDA for that use.
The major bone we have to pick with this article is the way it presents benefits data. As the method (and/or source) is not disclosed, we think it’s inappropriate.
But we also note the interesting and important angle AP pursued in detailing the subplot that Glaxo didn’t donate Severent or placebos for use in the study.
Costs of the treatment arms were not discussed.
Our main reason for scoring this criterion as unsatisfactory has to do with the way the data are presented. The study says that people taking Severent gained 51 asthma-free days a year makes it sound like they took the drug for a year in this study. We’re unable to locate data on asthma-free days per year in the publications, and it seems to us that perhaps the writer — or another source — extrapolated the study’s 14-week data out to 1 year. Whatever the source, we feel that the article should’ve been clearer that these were not real days observed in the study; the extrapolation should’ve been disclosed. The results could’ve been very different if the subjects took each drug for 52 weeks instead of 14, and there’s a difference in the quality of evidence from a 14-week treatment period versus year-long treatment. It’s the difference between this trial and a long-term one.
Benefits and harm are related in terms of relief from asthma symptoms, and the article tells us that more study on safety is needed while giving points of view on Spiriva’s safety concerns. But we think safety information from this study, including the rates of serious events, could’ve been mentioned if not quantified.
In addition, the HealthDay article we reviewed pointed out serious safety concerns of Severent.
The 210 subjects, treatment arms, background steroid therapy, and length of therapy are important bits of content. It would’ve been useful to explain that this was high-quality evidence because of its randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled design, and explain why these points matter. Further studies are needed because this study didn’t enroll enough patients nor follow them for a long enough time to answer several important questions about the comparison. In addition, while the article is wholly correct to say that 210 people “took each drug for 14 weeks” with washout periods in between, we’re unsure it’s clear who received what for how long. And how long was the study overall? As a crossover study, these can be challenging points to convey briefly, but we think they’re meaningful. Asking an independent expert or two to evaluate the quality of the evidence would have undoubtedly unearthed these concerns.
We have other concerns about the way the data were presented. See our comments in the "Benefits" criterion below.
It’s up-front and consistent that we’re talking about adults with hard-to-control asthma, a subset of the larger group with asthma described. So no disease-mongering here.
We applaud the writer for citing an Editorial and Commentary from the same issue of the NEJM. It also quotes a Glaxo spokeswoman regarding the donation debate. The perspective on the research from the Commentary was useful. Citing an external independent voice would’ve provided more context on the study as well.
It provides a great deal of detail on the sources of funding and reported conflicts of interest.
The study was designed to compare the new (unapproved) option to two existing treatment options.
It’s clear that both Spiriva and Severent are available, although Spiriva is not indicated for this use. We also appreciate the point, from the NEJM commentary, that some docs already use Spiriva for this purpose.
The article explains that Spiriva is not approved for asthma, although some doctors use it in this population who don’t respond to steroids.
The article could have also explained the similarities and differences between Spiriva and Severent.
We haven’t found evidence that the article relies on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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
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
.@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/
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