Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a significant cause of blindness in the elderly and is becoming more common as the population ages. There are two major kinds of AMD, "wet" or neovascular and "dry." Although the "wet" form is much less common than "dry", it is much more likely to lead to blindness, which can occur very suddenly. Until recently, wet AMD was treated with lasers or phototherapy, however in June, 2006 the FDA approved the drug Lucentis for the condition. This story reports on advancements in treatment of AMD but then goes on to talk about developments in treating cataracts, diabetic retinopathy and glaucoma. This review will focus on the discussion of treating wet AMD with Lucentis, which comprises the first five paragraphs of this story.
By not exaggerating the seriousness of wet AMD, the story avoids disease mongering. The story should have provided some sense of the prevalence of wet AMD, which is relatively rare compared to the more common dry AMD. The story mentions Avastin, laser treatment, and phototherapy as alternatives. The story could have provided more information on the advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches. The story does mention the increased risk of strokes with Lucentis, however the story should have also mentioned risk of inflammation and infection from injection into the eye.
The story does not mention the cost of Lucentis, which is substantial, up to $2000 per injection. Since the injections need to be given monthly for an indefinite amount of time, cost is a major issue and has the potential to be a signficant barrier to obtaining the drug. The story does mention that Avastin is a much cheaper alternative, but this is not enough information on the cost of treatment.
The story does not adequately describe the strength of the available evidence, nor does it quantify the benefits of Lucentis. Finally, the story only quotes one expert and one satisfied patient who happens to be a physician. The story should have quoted other clinicians/researchers who could have provided some additional perspective.
The story does not mention the cost of Lucentis, which is substantial, up to $2000 per injection. Since the injections need to be given monthly for an indefinite amount of time, cost is a huge issue and has the potential to be a signficant barrier to obtaining the drug. The story does mention that Avastin is a much cheaper alternative, but this is not enough information on the cost of treatment.
The story does not quantify the benefits of treatment.
The story does mention the increased risk of strokes with Lucentis. The story should have also mentioned risk of inflammation and infection from injection into the eye.
The story does not adequately describe the strength of the available evidence.
By not exaggerating the seriousness of wet AMD, the story avoids disease mongering. The story should have provided some sense of the prevalence of wet AMD, which is relatively rare compared to the more common dry AMD.
The story only quotes one expert and one satisfied patient who happens to be a physician. The story should have quoted other clinicians/researchers who could have provided some additional perspective.
The story mentions Avastin, laser treatment, and phototherapy as alternatives. The story could have provided more information on the advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches. The story should have also mentioned that Avastin isn't approved for this indication.
The article mentions that Lucentis was approved last June for wet AMD, but doesn't tell the reader how available it is – that is, is it in widespread use?
The story clearly states that Lucentis is a novel approach to treating wet AMD.
There is no way to know if the story relies on a press release as the sole source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
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/
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