The introduction of Gleevec represented a major advance in the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). This story reports on a study printed in Nature Medicine describing 10 patients who developed heart failure while taking the drug. The authors of the study suggest that this drug needs to be thoroughly evaluated to quantify the magnitude of the heart risk.
This does not adequately describe the nature of the existing evidence, which is very preliminary. Although the story focuses on the heart risks associated with Gleevec, it does not adequately describe the harms of treatment. What other side effects are there? How common are they? How common is heart damage?
Although the main focus of the story is on new reports of toxicity from Gleevec, the story still allowed some promotional claims to enter into the story. (e.g., “Gleevec is a wonderful drug and patients with these diseases need to be on it. It’s a lifesaving drug for sure” and “Novartis said Force’s work does not change ‘the positive benefit/risk ratio of Glivec for thousands of patients being treated for cancer and other life-threatening diseases.’ “) Yet there are no data given to back up these claims of benefit.
The story also does not mention alternative treatments. The story should have explain why Gleevec is consider to be better and provide some perspective as to whether it still would if indeed heart failure is found to be a significant side effect. The story never mentions the cost of Gleevec, which is very expensive. These new reports on side effects may decrease the cost-effectiveness of the drug. Cost should not have been left out of the story.
Furthermore, the story only quotes the author of the study and a statement from Novartis. The story should have quoted other, independent researchers or clinicians who could have provided additional perspectives.
The story never mentions the cost of Gleevec, which is very expensive. These new reports on side effects may decrease the cost-effectiveness of the drug. Cost should not have been left out of the story.
Although the main focus of the story is on new reports of toxicity from Gleevec, the story still allowed some promotional claims to enter into the story. (e.g., “Gleevec is a wonderful drug and patients with these diseases need to be on it. It’s a lifesaving drug for sure” and “Novartis said Force’s work does not change ‘the positive benefit/risk ratio of Glivec for thousands of patients being treated for cancer and other life-threatening diseases.’ “) Yet there are no data given to back up these claims of benefit.
Although the story focuses on the heart risks associated with Gleevec, it does not adequately describe the harms of treatment. What other side effects are there? How common are they? How common is heart damage?
The story does not adequately describe the nature of the existing evidence. It does not provide evidence from prior studies on heart failure.
The story does not engage in disease mongering.
The story only quotes the author of the study and a statement from Novartis. The story should have quoted other, independent researchers or clinicians who could have provided additional perspectives.
The story does not mention alternative treatments. The story should have explained why Gleevec is considered to be better and provided some perspective as to whether it still would be if indeed heart failure is found to be a significant side effect.
The availability of the drug is clear in this story.
The story states that Gleevec is an existing therapy for leukemia.
There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information.
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