May 16, 2018 Read Original Story

Reuters story on MS drug for kids even less informative than the FDA news release

Reviewed By

Rating

FDA expands use of Novartis MS drug to pediatric patients

Our Review Summary

ms drug for kids This incredibly short news brief reported on the FDA’s expanded approval of a drug for relapsing multiple sclerosis called Gilenya (fingolimid) to treat children and adolescents 10 and older. The drug was previously approved for use in adults.

This news flash was targeted at investors and addressed the availability and novelty of this drug. Still, we think it should have gone beyond what was contained in an FDA news release to mention the high cost and potential harms of this drug along with the limited evidence about its long-term safety and effectiveness in young people.

We’ve written about how MS patients can be harmed when news media outlets take news releases about treatments at face value, without exploring the limitations of the evidence. This is a case in point.

Why This Matters

There’s no cure for MS, an inflammatory, autoimmune disease of the central nervous system that disrupts communication between the brain and other parts of the body. It’s hoped that new drugs may be able to prevent episodes of worsening function and appearance of new symptoms, called relapses, which may lead to progressive declines in function and greater disability.

News reports should offer cautious reporting. That’s particularly true with drugs such as this one, which was approved via the FDA’s Breakthrough Therapy designation, an accelerated review process that allows approvals of drugs for serious conditions based on preliminary evidence that they might offer a substantial improvement over existing therapies.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

There was no cost data. Gilenya costs $8,210 for a 30-day supply, according to the web site drugs.com.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The story stated:

In a clinical trial 86 percent of patients receiving Gilenya remained relapse-free after 24 months of treatment, compared to 46 percent of those who were administered another MS drug.

However, it didn’t explain how many relapses patients in either groups experienced, so readers can’t tell how much of an impact these drugs actually had.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

No potential harms were mentioned.

The FDA said side effects of Gilenya in pediatric trial participants were “similar to those seen in adults,” with the most common being headache, liver enzyme elevation, diarrhea, cough, flu, sinusitis, back pain, abdominal pain and pain in extremities.

The FDA added there are other serious risks with the drug including slowing heart rate, infections including a rare brain infection, vision problems, swelling and narrowing of the blood vessels in the brain, respiratory problems, liver injury, increased blood pressure and skin cancer, as well as potential harm to a developing fetus.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

The story didn’t give a sense of the strength of evidence behind this drug. For example, it didn’t tell readers what the comparison drug was in the trial, nor how many children were in the trial.

According to the FDA, the clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of Gilenya in treating pediatric patients with MS included 214 patients aged 10 to 17 and compared it to the drug interferon beta-1a. Novartis said it was the first clinical trial of the drug specifically designed for children and adolescents with relapsing MS.

The story also could have mentioned that it’s unclear whether the frequency of relapses will accurately predict a patient’s degree of disability years later.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

The story stated that MS is “among the most common causes of neurological disability in young adults,” but numbers would have helped.

According to the FDA, 2-5% of people with MS get symptoms before age 18 and its estimated that 8,000 to 10,000 children and adolescents in the U.S. have MS.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

There were no independent sources, and the fact that Novartis funded the study to support the FDA approval isn’t mentioned.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The story mentioned that Gilenya was compared with another drug, but it doesn’t go into specifics. It also doesn’t mention that corticosteroid medications can be used to reduce inflammation.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

The story mentioned that Gilenya has already been approved to treat adults with MS. However, it would have been stronger it had mentioned that the expanded indication is for ages 10 and older.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The story reported that Gilenya is the first FDA-approved drug to treat pediatric patients suffering from relapsing MS. This appears to be accurate.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Not Satisfactory

The story appears to have relied solely on the news release. But it was less informative and had fewer details than the news release.

Total Score: 3 of 10 Satisfactory

Comments

We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.

COMMENTS button We welcome comments, which users can leave at the end of any of our systematic story reviews or at the end of any of our blog posts.

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:

“Shed light, not just heat. Facts, challenges, disagreements, corrections — those are all fine. Attacking the person, instead of the idea or the interpretation, is neither acceptable nor helpful.”

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.

Getty Images