text_1: New Drug for Severe Eczema Is Successful in 2 New Trials
text_2: This story about the results of research for what would be the first biologic treatment of moderate-to-severe eczema (atopic dermatitis) in adults provides plenty of good news to patients. However, while the story accurately summarizes some of the important study results, it fails to alert readers to vital details about the trial design and funding. Not only is there no mention that the makers of the drug paid for the trials and hired writers to produce the article that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, the lone independent expert quoted actually receives consulting and speaking fees from one of the drug makers. Also, the story mentions three patients, but not one who had less than spectacular results. Including one of the many patients who did not see their eczema and itching completely disappear would have provided a more balanced view of the trial results. When a drug study is paid for and written by companies that are seeking FDA approval for a treatment, stories should pay special attention to conflicts of interest, study design, and the way the results are presented, in order to help readers sort out hard facts from sponsor spin. This story highlighted all the positive news, while glossing over information that might raise questions, including the lack of independent interpretation of the trial results.