The story suffers from the absence of disinterested expert opinion, of particular value when the studies reported were not peer-reviewed and were industry-sponsored. There is incomplete information about side-effects, and the main effect of the drug, to reduce pain in fibromyalgia, is not described in sufficient detail to inform the concerned reader of possible clinical benefit. It is an interesting story from the point of view of potential expansion of market by adding another disease "niche" for the drug, but the story does not inform the health care consumer about the likelihood or size of benefit of the drug, nor of the drawbacks.
It was surprising to see that no independent experts were quoted. The story appears to rely heavily on Pfizer input:
There is no information about the costs of this medication.
The story provided information from a single study showing a dose response to the medications. This was a large study (750 patients). While providing information about the drug's effect on pain, the reader is not left with sufficient information about whether this amount of pain reduction was sufficient to change the quality of life for the patients studied. In addition, the story did not provide information about the length of time patients took the medication in order to obtain the benefit that was described.
Although the story presented information about one side effect, dizziness, it did not do an adequate job address potential harms associated with treatment.
From the company's own website, it was possible to learn that:
The most common adverse events occurring during all controlled clinical trials for patients taking LYRICA vs those taking a placebo were dizziness, somnolence, dry mouth, edema, blurred vision, weight gain, and thinking abnormal (primarily difficulty with concentration/attention).
These might be important to patients or investors.
The evidence provided in this story comes from abstracts presented at two recent scientific conferences. The story should have mentioned that this means that the results have not yet undergone peer review and since both were presentations by the drug company that manufactures the drug, they should be viewed with some skepticism.
While the studies were described in some laudable detail, such as mentioning random allocation and a placebo-control, important information was lacking. All effects were reported as relative rather than absolute changes, and the duration of the first study was not mentioned. Whether results reached statistical significance was not disclosed. Without these sorts of descriptors, it is hard for the reader to assess the strength of evidence, especially without the assurance of a peer-review process.
The story provided an estimate of the number of individuals with fibromyalgia, and included the doubts of some about the existence of this condition.
No independent experts are quoted. The story appears to rely heavily on Pfizer input:
While the story did mention that fibromyalgia is traditionally treated with a 'cocktail of off-label drugs including antidepressants and painkillers', this is really not an adequate description of the the treatment options. In fact, one of the drugs that may be included in this 'cocktail' is the very drug that is being reported on.
The story explained that Lyrica is available for the treatment of pain, but that it is not yet approved for fibromyalgia.
The story stated that "Pfizer is expecting word form the Food and Drug Administartion on its application this year". However a search through www.clinicaltrials.gov shows that there are two phase III (trials to look at effectiveness of a treatment) trials of this drug for the treatment of fibromyalgia that are currently recruiting patients. This would suggest that it will take more time than till the end of this year before the FDA will make a decision about approving this use of the drug.
Nonethless, we'll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.
This is about a drug company developing a new market for a product already developed – which the story clearly explains. The story further explains that there is currently no FDA-approved treatment for fibromyalgia.
We can't be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release. However the story used the same statistics that appeared in a Pfizer news release about the estimated number of Americans with fibromyalgia, and the numbers presented in the article for the data presented at the American Academy of Neurology meeting.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
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