This story briefly reports on an announcement from a drug company that an ongoing study shows longer progression-free survival of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma if those patients are receiving a combination of two drugs: avelumab (sold under the trade name Bavencio) and axitinib (sold under the trade name Inlyta).
The story is focused on investors and meant to deliver a quick update on market-moving news. Yet the story will also show up in the searches of many patients who suffer from kidney cancer and can be misled by such one-sided coverage.
Primarily because the story takes the company’s word for the announced benefit without evaluating the claims and fails to address cost or side effects in any way, despite the fact that both drugs are already on the market.
This story fails to provide important contextual information related to the relevant product’s cost, safety and availability. This story is, essentially, a news release. That does a disservice to the story’s readers and to the newsroom it came from.
Cost is not addressed, which is unacceptable given that both drugs are already on the market. And the costs here are significant. Ten milliliters of Bavencio can cost more than $1,600. The cost of 180 one-milligram tablets of Inlyta can be more than $15,000. (What were the dosages used in this study? The story doesn’t tell us.)
The story makes clear to readers that it has no idea about the extent of the benefits: “While the company said the benefit was statistically significant, they did not specify the duration of progression-free survival.” We’re glad that the story makes its ignorance clear, but it raises the very serious question of why they would cover a story about which so little information is available.
Potential harms aren’t addressed. Again, this is unacceptable given that both drugs are already on the market. And these problems can be significant. The potential side effects associated with Bavencio include lung, liver and kidney problems. Potential side effects associated with Inlyta include heart failure and serious or fatal bleeding.
The story notes that the ongoing study involves patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, and that the study includes a control group that is receiving a drug called Sutent. It doesn’t tell readers how many patients are enrolled in the study or, well, anything else.
The story does make clear that the information about the ongoing study came from a company that makes one of the relevant drugs. That’s good. However, the story does not incorporate input from any independent sources.
The story states that a control group in the study is receiving treatment with a drug called Sutent, and that patients receiving that drug are not faring as well as patients who receive both Bavencio and Inlyta. However, the story doesn’t address whether any patients were receiving both Bavencio and Sutent, nor does it address any other potential treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Are there even other treatment options available? The story doesn’t say.
The story does not make clear that Bavencio and Inlyta are already on the market, much less that Bavencio’s current use is for treatment of a skin cancer called Merkel cell carcinoma.
The story provides no context for the research. Are there limited treatment options for advanced renal cell carcinoma? Is the joint use of immunotherapy treatments and anti-cancer drugs a busy area of research? How is this work similar to or different from earlier research? The story addresses none of those questions.
The story appears to be drawn entirely from a news release issued by Merck KGaA, the company that makes Bavencio. Of course, it could also have stemmed from a news release issued by Pfizer, the company that makes Inlyta. Given that the story attributes the information solely to Merck makes its release the likely source.
Ultimately, it makes little difference: No reporting appears to have gone into the story.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
@garyschwitzer has been a trailblazer in protecting us from bamboozled health reporting. Thrilled to get his endorsement here for #Malcharist, which fictionalizes problems he first helped us see. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1310190671555375109
Major revisions + reversals of reporting about the efficacy of remdesivir and HCQ have compromised the public's trust in scientists and physicians. Complexity and caution are key to public #COVID19 communications @garyschwitzer https://ja.ma/3fzUW0M
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