We understand that the news of the day was the FDA approval. But some review of the data – and some independent critique of the quality of the evidence – would make a story like this more meaningful even on FDA approval day (or especially on FDA approval day). While the results of all the trials submitted to the FDA are not available, the results of one of the trials were published in November of 2011.
One piece of context that the New York Times provided was this:
“The story behind Kalydeco is a cautionary tale for those who believe the sequencing of the human genome will lead to a bonanza of new drugs. While the gene responsible for cystic fibrosis was identified in 1989, it took many years to figure out exactly how mutations led to the disease and even longer to figure out how to counteract the mutations.”
The story explains the cost of $294,000 a year for this drug. And it describes the drug company’s financial assistance plan.
We understand that the focus of this story was the FDA approval. Nonetheless, we wish that even a brief description of the data that led to approval had been provided.
There was no discussion of potential harms from the drug.
The prescribing information for the drug states: “Overall, the most common adverse reactions in 353 patients with CF were headache (17%), upper respiratory tract infection (16%), nasal congestion (16%), nausea (10%), rash (10%), rhinitis (6%), dizziness (5%), arthralgia (5%), and bacteria in sputum (5%).”
The story’s close almost begs for more explanation: “Kalydeco was approved …in about three months and ahead of an April deadline.”
Another story we saw at least reported: “The agency based its expedited approval on two clinical studies involving 213 patients aged 11 and over that lasted nearly a year. In both studies, those treated with Kalydeco had improved lung function, increased weight gain, and fewer acute problems that often require hospital visits and treatment with antibiotics, compared with those who took a placebo, according to Vertex.”
Given the expedited approval process, we wish the story had offered some critical analysis of the evidence.
There was no independent medical expert interviewed for the story. The story also quoted the same patient we saw profiled in other stories. Did the drug company provide access to her for all who quoted her?
The story at least mentioned that until now patients took “medicines that only tackled the symptoms of the disease, such as antibiotics to treat the infections. Patients typically spent a few hours each day wearing vibrating vests to dislodge mucus build-up.” But there was no comparison of the effectiveness of the new drug with this past approaches.
The story focused on FDA approval. It also mentioned the drug company’s financial assistance plan.
The opening sentence explained that this was “the first therapy to treat an underlying cause of cystic fibrosis.”
It’s clear that the story did not rely solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
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/
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