This Reuters story looks at the results of a clinical trial for Repatha, and claims that the drug “significantly reduced the risk of heart attacks, strokes and death in patients with heart disease.”
Fortunately, the story touched on the high cost of the drug and concerns over insurance coverage. Other than that, though, it falls short, offering no data to back up the claims about the benefit of this drug. The story did tell us why there’s no data– “because the result of the trial will only be released next month at a scientific conference”–yet because of the lack of specifics, it reads more like marketing copy than journalism. We’d argue it’s more responsible to readers to wait for the actual data to be released–so it can be vetted by outside experts–than publicizing unverified results. At the very least, any story reporting on these results should be clear that they need to be consumed with a healthy side of caution and skepticism, given the company’s obvious incentive to frame the data positively.
Not surprisingly, some of these same problems were noted in our review of the news release from Amgen, Repatha’s manufacturer.
This story is targeted at a financial/investor audience, yet is widely available online to anyone with internet access, so it will likely be read by patients and others interested in heart disease.
All of these audiences deserve news coverage that’s solid–and not merely unverified hype from the drug company’s news release–since both investors and ordinary readers have something to lose if Amgen’s data, once released, doesn’t deliver on these initial claims.
To its credit, the story mentions the high cost of the drug Repatha — $14,000 per year — and cites reluctance on the part of some insurers to cover that cost without more substantive data on its efficacy. The news release issued by the drug’s manufacturer, Amgen, didn’t include either point.
The story says that the drug “significantly reduced the risk of heart attacks, strokes and death in patients with heart disease” and quotes an Amgen officer as saying, “These results show unequivocally the connection between lowering LDL cholesterol with Repatha and cardiovascular risk reduction.” Unfortunately, the story fails to provide any actual data that would support those claims. It does at least explain that this is because Amgen hasn’t released any details yet on the magnitude of benefit. We’d argue that it’s better journalism to wait until that data is in hand, and can be assessed by independent experts.
The story says that “No new safety problems cropped up in the 27,500 patient study.” The news release issued by the drug manufacturer Amgen about the same clinical trial revealed what was not known about potential harms for the use of the drug, as well as a number of contraindications, adverse events and harms that arose during the trial. The story would have done well to reference these.
The story provides no evidence other than the number of people enrolled in the trial. Without factual data, this story seems to be playing into the marketing wishes of the drug’s manufacturer.
The story doesn’t appear to be disease mongering. We do wish it had included some statistics on the prevalence of heart disease, which is something the news release did.
The only source mentioned in the story is an official from Amgen, the drugmaker. Therefore, there is an assumed conflict of interest since the company is touting the success of their product, even without any substantive data to back that up. No independent source is included in the story.
There are no alternatives to the use of Repatha mentioned in the story although it does mention that patients in the clinical trial already were being treated with “optimized statin therapy.” That’s not enough to give readers any firm sense of what the alternatives are and how well they work. There is no mention of diet or exercise or any other treatment approach.
The story makes clear that the drug Repatha is already on the market and available for use.
The story attempts to explain the novelty of the research several times; for example, when it states that the study possibly offers “concrete proof that the drug could actually reduce the risk of heart attacks and death.” The story should have explained that this is unverified until the data is released.
The story contained some information not found in the news release, such as the cost of the drug, so some original reporting was done. See our review of the news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
A week like this should teach you how/what to ignore: #COVID19 news & PR about studies in monkeys & mice...about studies of dishonesty & BMI…and about rating attractiveness of women with endometriosis!!! https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/08/crazy-week-of-pr-news-on-studies-should-teach-us-how-what-to-ignore/
“to project certainty where it simply does not exist is communication malpractice at a time like this and with a public health issue like this.” @garyschwitzer on @ContentScience https://review.content-science.com/covering-covid-19-vaccine-news-part-two-from-the-publisher-of-health-news-review/
In case you weren't aware: Prestigious journalism organizations and outlets take money from pharma, @garyschwitzer https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/08/drug-company-influence-on-journalism/#.XyrYGZeNvXA.twitter @HealthNewsRevu
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