This ABC story undertakes a worthy goal — throwing a dose of reality on a new drug for an intractable disease. Billed as the first new drug in 22 years, readers of health news may assume that this is a real boon for patients. This story attempts to ground the glowing headlines by right away focusing on the drug’s high cost, intensiveness of administering, and importantly, to remind readers that this is not a cure.
But, the story also seems to imply that this drug actually works, potentially raising false hopes among ALS patients and family members. First of all, if it does work, it is only in a small subset of ALS patients. The description of this subset of patients is not given, suggesting to readers that this drug could work for any ALS patient, which is misleading.
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a progressive neurologic disease in which motor neurons die and result in people losing the ability to speak, eat, move, and breathe. Some 5,000 people are diagnosed each year in the U.S. and average survival is three years. Clearly there’s a need for better treatments — if not a cure, a way to slow down the progression with more oomph that we currently have. The only other FDA-approved drug for ALS is riluzole, which slows progression and can increase survival by 2-3 months. This new drug comes with many limitations, and patients deserve to know all of them.
We applaud the story for tackling the costs, of not just treatment but of the nursing care that would be required. From the article: “the cost is around $1,000 per infusion – and treatment, which involves multiple infusions, may total about $146,000 per year” — and that’s just for the drug, not the in-office visit to get the hour-long infusion, for as many as 14 days in a row.
And:
“This is just for the drug; you also need a nurse and infusion equipment,” McCluskey said. “We don’t know who is going to cover it or what criteria will be used to decide who gets it.”
From the article: “Researchers found that those getting edaravone had a 33 percent reduction in their rate of decline in physical function.”
This sure sounds good, as does the independent expert’s characterization: “Thirty percent is pretty robust.” Still to get a Satisfactory rating here, we’d want to know how many of the patients in the treatment group saw that benefit. All of them, or some of them? Also, the “33%” difference represents differences in the change of a scale used to measure ALS severity (example), and it is unclear if this difference means something clinically important for ALS patients, such as walking, swallowing or difficulty breathing.
The story also should have pointed out that this study wasn’t just a general group of ALS patients. It was limited to a subset of patients–which we address in the evidence quality criterion in this review.
Harms were not discussed. They include bruising, gait problems, headaches, skin rashes, respiratory failure, among others.
The story should have made it very clear that this study was limited to patients who had a specific type of ALS disease process. In a commentary that accompanied the study, we learn that “less than 7% of patients with ALS would be eligible for enrollment.”
The commentary also pointed out that this was a short study “was short, comprising 24 weeks in total, preceded by a 12-week observation period. Most trial guidelines of the European Medicines Agency propose a duration of at least 12–18 months.”
No disease-mongering here. The article provides factual information on how many Americans are diagnosed with ALS each year and that typical survival times are two to five years. These were welcome details. However, if the drug does work, it is only useful in a subset of ALS patients.
An independent expert helps put the findings in context and gives voice to some necessary cautions. However, the story doesn’t explain that this approval was based on studies funded by the drug’s manufacturer, which is a detail readers need to know.
Even a brief mention of how ALS patients are currently treated would help put the promise and pitfalls of the new drug in better context.
The article discusses availability issues — particularly the difficulty of getting to a health care provider day after day for patients with mobility problems. Readers are told that the drug maker is working to facilitate access.
The article makes clear that the drug is newly approved and the first new drug for ALS in over two decades.
The article is not based on a news release.
This ABC story undertakes a worthy goal — throwing a dose of reality on a new drug for ALS, Radicava, that’s being billed as the first to be approved in 22 years. This story attempts to ground the glowing headlines by right away focusing on the drug’s high cost, intensiveness of administering, and importantly, to remind readers that this is not a cure.
But, the story didn’t explain that this drug was only shown to work in a very specific small subset of ALS patients. The description of this subset of patients is not given, suggesting to readers that this drug could work for any ALS patient, which is misleading.
Update: This review prompted us to explore this issue further in a blog post, “Facts about the new ALS drug Radicava that you’re unlikely to see in news stories.”
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a progressive neurologic disease in which motor neurons die and result in people losing the ability to speak, eat, move, and breathe. Some 5,000 people are diagnosed each year in the U.S. and average survival is three years. Clearly there’s a need for better treatments — if not a cure, a way to slow down the progression with more oomph that we currently have. The only other FDA-approved drug for ALS is riluzole, which slows progression and can increase survival by 2-3 months. This new drug comes with many limitations, and patients deserve to know all of them.
We applaud the story for tackling the costs of not just treatment but of the nursing care that would be required. From the article: “the cost is around $1,000 per infusion – and treatment, which involves multiple infusions, may total about $146,000 per year” — and that’s just for the drug, not the in-office visit to get the hour-long infusion, for as many as 14 days in a row.
And:
“This is just for the drug; you also need a nurse and infusion equipment,” McCluskey said. “We don’t know who is going to cover it or what criteria will be used to decide who gets it.”
From the article: “Researchers found that those getting edaravone had a 33 percent reduction in their rate of decline in physical function.”
This sure sounds good, as does the independent expert’s characterization: “Thirty percent is pretty robust.” Still to get a Satisfactory rating here, we’d want to know how many of the patients in the treatment group saw that benefit. All of them, or some of them? Also, the “33%” difference represents differences in the change of a scale used to measure ALS severity (example), and it is unclear if this difference means something clinically important for ALS patients, such as walking, swallowing or difficulty breathing.
The story also should have pointed out that this study wasn’t just a general group of ALS patients. It was limited to a subset of patients–which we address in the evidence quality criterion in this review.
Harms were not discussed. They include bruising, gait problems, headaches, skin rashes, respiratory failure, among others.
The story should have made it very clear that this study was limited to patients who had a specific type of ALS disease process. In a commentary that accompanied the study, we learn that “less than 7% of patients with ALS would be eligible for enrollment.”
The commentary also pointed out that this was a short study “was short, comprising 24 weeks in total, preceded by a 12-week observation period. Most trial guidelines of the European Medicines Agency propose a duration of at least 12–18 months.”
No disease-mongering here. The article provides factual information on how many Americans are diagnosed with ALS each year and that typical survival times are two to five years. These were welcome details. However, if the drug does work, it is only useful in a subset of ALS patients.
An independent expert helps put the findings in context and gives voice to some necessary cautions. However, the story doesn’t explain that this approval was based on studies funded by the drug’s manufacturer, which is a detail readers need to know.
Even a brief mention of how ALS patients are currently treated would help put the promise and pitfalls of the new drug in better context.
The article discusses availability issues — particularly the difficulty of getting to a health care provider day after day for patients with mobility problems. Readers are told that the drug maker is working to facilitate access.
The article makes clear that the drug is newly approved and the first new drug for ALS in over two decades.
The article is not based on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
For breakfast, @GarySchwitzer swallows 2 observational studies with an anti-irritant chaser. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/06/for-breakfast-give-me-2-observational-studies-and-an-anti-irritant/#.XvtqMk8i5e8.twitter
Sitting & cancer...alcohol & improved cognition. Waking up to a double whammy of miscommunicated observational studies.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/06/for-breakfast-give-me-2-observational-studies-and-an-anti-irritant/
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