Our Review Summary
We will never sway from our position that it is unacceptable for major news media to publish stories making claims about medical interventions when those claims are based on news releases. There was nothing so urgent about this story that it couldn’t have waited until one of the investigators involved in the work was available to explain it and answer questions about it.
Why This Matters
Gout can be a debilitating disease and the current treatments while very good are not ideal. The FDA approved Arcalyst in November 2011 for the prevention of gout flares in people initiating treatment with drugs that lower uric acid levels such as allopurinol. The drug was previously approved under an orphan drug designation for a rare inflammatory disease. Painful flares are common during the first few months of treatment so a drug that can reduce the events would be welcomed. However, Arcalyst was studied in 1,300 people in clinical trials prior to its approval for this very condition. The rationale for writing a story – based on a news release – about its use in 83 people remains somewhat of a mystery.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
This issue was discussed only vaguely.
An independent expert said that rilonacept was “very expensive” and that “insurance will be an issue.”
It’s good that both issues were acknowledged. But the story also explains that the drug is already used to treat another disease – so costs could have been nailed down precisely. But they weren’t. What does “very expensive” mean?
The NY Times reported the cost to be about $5,000 a week in a 2008 story. That comes to a whopping $80,000 for a 16 week course.
Not Satisfactory
The story reports that “Rilonacept patients were less likely to have flare-ups, with 15 percent experiencing flare-ups three-months into the study compared with 45 percent among the non-rilonacept group.”
But not all flare-ups are equal.
How was a flare-up measured? The story doesn’t explain.
Was it a measurement of uric acid levels? Or was it patient self-reporting?
In other words, what difference did this make in subjects’ lives? We can’t judge from the story the way it was reported.
Not Satisfactory
The standard line about “appears safe and well tolerated” is all we hear about harms.
Even the news release did better than that, stating: ” Common adverse events included infections reported in 15% of the rilonacept group compared with 26% with the placebo.”
Not Satisfactory
There was no critical analysis of the quality of research.
The story is based on a news release, with all investigator quotes lifted from a news release.
The only independent expert quoted really doesn’t critically evaluate – describing the findings only as “very promising.”
Satisfactory
There is no disease-mongering of gout in the story.
Satisfactory
One independent expert is quoted.
Not Satisfactory
There are at least other 6 drugs under development for gout at the moment. The story didn’t mention anything about any of them.
Not Satisfactory
We are not told that the drug was approved by the FDA for use in gout in November 2011.
Not Satisfactory
The story doesn’t provide any context about whether this is the first look at rilonacept for gout.
Not Satisfactory
The story admits that it lifted its investigator quotes from this journal news release.
If the investigator wasn’t available immediately, this story was not of such urgent importance that it couldn’t have waited until someone involved in the research could be interviewed.
Total Score: 2 of 10 Satisfactory
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