This story is about bevirimat, a new drug for late stage HIV. While there is interesting background on the current stage of HIV/AIDS drug development in the story, it has several important flaws. The story provides no evidence on the safety or efficacy of this drug, despite the drug company president’s comments that bevirimat “. . .looks potent and has a great safety profile”. What is the evidence?
The story does not discuss the potential side effects of this new drug, and it does not provide a caveat that the drug may not live up to its predicted effect in humans. The story mentions that this new drug would be taken in combination with current antiretroviral therapies. But there is no discussion of any possible negative interaction(s) with other HIV drugs, or with drugs for co-existing medical conditions.
Researchers and physicians who work with HIV/AIDS therapies are cited to provide perspective on this potential new treatment in the context of current therapies. Sources who are also paid consultants for Panacos Pharmaceuticals are appropriately noted. Some appropriate attempt at balance is provided by the concluding quote from Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health.
There is one error in the article: “People who started AIDS therapy in 2003 lived an estimated 13 years longer than people diagnosed with AIDS in 1988.” Presumably they meant that people starting treatment in 2003 are EXPECTED to live 13 yrs longer.
The story provides appropriate prevalence and incidence data on Americans living with HIV. If anything, the story under-reports HIV prevalence worldwide. The story might have aked the question: If this therapy is approved, would it be made available to the millions infected with HIV in developing countries?
Finally, the story does not provide any projections of what the drug might cost. But the story was able to estimate annual sales of the drug for Panacos Pharmaceuticals. If you can give the latter, you should be able to provide the former.
The story does not provide any projections of what the drug might cost. But the story was able to estimate annual sales of the drug for Panacos Pharmaceuticals. If you can give the latter, you should be able to provide the former.
If the story is even going to report on a drug that is three or more years away from FDA approval and still undergoing initial safety testing in humans, it should at least temper enthusiasm. The story did point out that the drug is at least three years away from being on the market and still being tested. And the story did end with a “proof of the pudding” comment from NIH’s Dr. Fauci. However what is missing is a comment that we do not know how much impact the drug would have on survival or quality of life, for example.
And the story is laden with comments such as “generating excitement…researchers are excited…the therapy is exciting…so far it looks potent and it has a great safety profile” — all without any hard data provided.
The story does not discuss the potential side effects of this new drug, nor does the story provide a caveat that the drug may not live up to its predicted effect in humans. The possibility of a negative interaction with other HIV drugs, or with drugs for co-existing medical conditions is also not mentioned. But this is one of the hazards of reporting on data that have not yet been peer-reviewed (Or have they? The story doesn’t make it clear.) The company and the investigators certainly know what side effects have been experienced so far. Having the company president say that the drug has “a great safety profile” is inadequate.
Bevirimat is currently being tested in an initial clinical trial. No evidence is available on the safety or efficacy of this drug yet, despite the drug company president’s comments that bevirimat “. . .looks potent and has a great safety profile”. What is the evidence?
The story provides appropriate prevalence and incidence data on Americans living with HIV. If anything, the story under-reports HIV prevalence worldwide. The story could have questioned: if the therapy is approved, would it be made available to the millions infected with HIV in developing countries?
Researchers and physicians who work with HIV/AIDS therapies are cited to provide perspective on this potential new drug treatment. Sources who are paid consultants for Panacos Pharmaceuticals are appropriately noted. Some appropriate attempt at balance is provided by the concluding quote from Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health.
The story mentions that this drug would be taken in combination with current antiretroviral therapies. The story places this new drug in the context of a discussion of new drugs that interrupt the replication of HIV; however, bevirimat is still in the midst of clinical trials.
The drug, bevirimat, is derived in part from the herb syzigium claviforum. This herb is currently used in traditional Chinese medicine to treat diarrhea and stop bleeding. Bevirimat is a manufactured drug, using certain components of this herb to potentially inhibit HIV replication. The story does mention that the drug is at least 3 years from market and still in early clinical trials.
The story reports that bevirimat is a novel treatment and discusses how it may work to improve current treatment regimens. The story states this drug is made from an herb that’s been used for other indications, but is quite clear that the pharma product is novel.
The story does not appear to rely on a press release as the only source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
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