This story reports on a potentially important development in the treatment of symptomatic multiple sclerosis (MS). MS is a devastating condition and although many different treatments are available, they have side effects and must be injected, leading to non-compliance. The six-month results of the first randomized trial of this drug were published this month in the New England Journal of Medicine. However, since then, the drug company has released newer data that has not yet been published or presented at a meeting. This story reports on the new data released by the drug company.
The story fails to mention treatment alternatives (of which there are several), does not quote any independent sources, and does not mention harms of the drug (including infection, headache, diarrhea, and nausea) or costs. The story also does not adequately describe the design of the study on which the story is based. In reality, this was a randomized trial in 281 patients. But it’s the first of its kind to study this drug, and further study is necessary before it will be used in clinical settings. Furthermore, the story appears to have relied on a drug company press release as its sole source of information. Not only does the story quote the same statistics, but it presents data that is not available from any other source (i.e. has not yet been published or presented at a meeting).
The story was given an “Unsatisfactory” rating on the Quantification of Benefits criteria for two reasons. First, the story presents unpublished data. The September 14, 2006 New England Journal article presents data at six months, which was the end of the controlled trial, whereas this story presents data out to two years. In the study, after six months, those assigned to placebo were placed on the drug, so comparisons to the placebo could no longer be made and the results for the drug would appear to be more favorable. Second, the story provides a main outcome measure, percentage of patients free of relapse at the end of the study, for the drug treatment group only. It does not compare this percentage to the control group. The story should have stated that 65% of patients in the drug group were free of relapse at six months, compared to 23% of patients in the control group.
The story does not mention the cost of the drug.
The story deserves an “Unsatisfactory” rating on this criteria for two reasons. First, the story presents unpublished data. The September 14, 2006 New England Journal article presents data at six months, which was the end of the controlled trial, whereas this story presents data out to two years. In the study, after six months, those assigned to placebo were placed on the drug, so comparisons to the placebo could no longer be made and the results for the drug would appear to be more favorable. Second, the story provides a main outcome measure, percentage of patients free of relapse at the end of the study, for the drug treatment group only. It does not compare this percentage to the control group. The story should have stated that 65% of patients in the drug group were free of relapse at six months, compared to 23% of patients in the control group.
The story does not mention harms of the drug, which include upper respiratory tract infection, headache, diarrhea, and nausea.
The story does not adequately describe the design of the study on which the story is based. In reality, this was a randomized trial in 281 patients, but is the first of its kind to study this drug, and further study is necessary before it will be used in clinical settings.
By accurately describing the prevalence and seriousness of MS, the story avoids disease mongering.
The story does not quote any researchers or clinicians who could have provided some perspective.
The story does not comment on any alternative treatment options, of which there are several.
The story states that the therapy is “experimental” and in “late-stage clinical trials,” suggesting that it is not yet available. The story could have been more explicit.
The story clearly states that the drug is new.
The story appears to have relied on a drug company press release as its sole source of information. Not only does the story quote the same statistics, but it presents data that is not available from any other source (i.e. has not yet been published or presented at a meeting).
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
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