text_1: New hope for macular degeneration
text_2: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a common and potentially devastating eye disorder. There are two major types of AMD, “dry” and “wet”. “Dry” AMD is by far the more common type, but it progresses very slowly. “Wet” or neovascular AMD, is less common, but the onset is very sudden and can progress quickly to blindness. The recent FDA approval of the drug Lucentis and the publication of two studies on Lucentis in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine bring new information to patients with neovascular AMD. While the clinical trial results are promising, the extremely high cost of the drug (around $2000 a month) may be unaffordable for many patients and could place a great strain on Medicare, which would cover 80% of the cost. Furthermore, there are currently no studies showing how Lucentis compares to a very similar drug, Avastin, which is not approved for used in AMD, but is frequently used off-label for the condition and which costs much less. This story does a decent job of describing the new developments, but missed an opportunity to explain the controversy surrounding the use of Avastin. The story clearly states that Lucentis was recently approved by the FDA. The story should have been more clear that the approval was for neovascular, or “wet”, age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and not the more common “dry” form of AMD. The story does states that the cost of the drug is about $2000 a month. However, the story should have provided more context by comparing this cost to the cost of other treatments for AMD. The story could have been more clear about the difference between the “wet” and “dry” forms of the disease. Although the story mentions two studies, this is not enough information on the strength of the available evidence. Specifically, there have been no studies comparing the effectiveness of Lucentis to Avastin. The story provides estimates of benefit for the drug group only. The story should have given the estimates of benefit for both the drug group and the control group. Furthermore, the story only quotes one expert. The story should have quoted other researchers or clinicians who could provide more context.