The story reports the recent FDA approval of thalidomide for the treatment of multiple myeloma (or cancer of the bone marrow) with appropriate caution. The story weighs the unclear benefit and potentially serious side effects of the medication for a group of patients already undergoing chemotherapy.
The story mentions that thalidomide has been available since 1962, but it was banned worldwide for use in pregnant women, as it caused serious birth defects. It has been used “off-label” as part of the treatment for multiple myeloma. The story does mention that recent studies of the effectiveness of thalidomide in bone cancer patients are mixed: in one study the drug did not prolong patients’ lives; in another it did, but with serious side effects. However, the story does not mention what these side effects were, or if patients had to discontinue the drug as a result.
The story mentions the harms of taking thalidomide when pregnant. However, for the intended population of bone cancer patients, the greater potential harms would be blood clots in the brain or lungs, which are increased with the chemotherapy drug dexamethasone. More common side effects are not mentioned. In one of studies cited, these common side effects included fatigue, constipation, rash, sedation and peripheral neuropathy, or numbness and pain in peripheral nerves, usually in hands or feet.
There is no discussion of other treatment options for multiple myeloma, and no mention of the cost of thalidomide in addition to chemotherapy.
Overall, a good job for a 300-word breaking news story.
(We make copy-editing errors, so we know what it’s like. But it was surprising to see the drug’s name misspelled in the last paragraph of the story. This error was then duplicated in many media outlets that ran the AP story.)
The cost of thalidomide as part of chemotherapy treatment is not mentioned.
No quantitative evidence of the drug’s effectiveness. The story does mention that reviews of its effectiveness in helping patients live longer are mixed: in one study the drug did not prolong patients’ lives; in another it did, but with serious side effects. The story does not mention what these side effects are, the incidence of these side effects, or if the patients had to discontinue the drug as a result.
The story mention the harms of taking thalidomide when pregnant. However, for the intended treatment population of bone cancer patients, the greater potential harms would be blood clots in the brain or lungs. The incidence of these serious side effects in recent studies is not mentioned. The story does note that these serious risks are increased with the chemotherapy drug dexamethasone. More common side effects are not mentioned. In one of the studies cited, these common side effects included fatigue, constipation, rash, sedation and peripheral neuropathy (tingling and pain in the feet and hands). The story does mention that certain side effects may outweigh the benefit of the drug for some patients.
There is little mention of quantitative clinical evidence, however, there is a very brief overview of the pros and cons from recent studies, as well discussion of the mixed results of the drug in combination with chemotherapy.
No evidence of disease mongering. The drug is for patients with bone cancer.
FDA is cited.
The story does not mention other treatment options for multiple myeloma.
The focus of the story is the recent FDA approval of thalidomide as part of a multiple myeloma (or a form of bone cancer) treatment regimen.
The story mentions that thalidomide has been available since 1962 and has been used “off-label” as part of the treatment for multiple myeloma, or cancer within the bone marrow.
There is no evidence this is taken directly from a press release. The story mentions the approval of the drug for bone cancer, but is cautious in reporting its efficacy as part of cancer treatment. The story is balanced.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Like Michael Corleone of science reporting that @garyschwitzer is (he tries to get out, bullshit disguised as #science #journalism keeps pulling him back in!), he drops this on @nytimes idiocy 🙄 in reporting T1 diabetes "cure"
HT @HealthNewsRevu
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
A great read on this weekend’s NYT claims of a cure for Type 1.
Cure for Type 1 diabetes? We’ve been down this road before with NY Times https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
"But it is the framing and the emphasis of the #journalism by a leading science journalist at a leading newspaper that demands scrutiny. It has an impact on readers and on sick people that may cause harm by promoting false hope about extremely preliminary research"
👍👏💪 truth https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1465399358137024518
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