Word choice affects public perception of drugs

Drug production

Photo courtesy of the FDA

Using the words “breakthrough” and “promising” to describe new drugs affects the public’s perception of the drugs’ effectiveness, according to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Investigators noted that, in everyday usage, the term “breakthrough” represents a highly significant or definitive advance.

However, the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) “breakthrough therapy designation” has a different meaning.

Since the Safety and Innovation Act became law in 2012, the FDA can assign breakthrough designation to a drug that “treats a serious or life-threatening condition” and “may demonstrate a substantial improvement . . . over available therapies” based on preliminary evidence.

And since the creation of the Safety and Innovation Act, all FDA press releases announcing the approval of breakthrough-designated drugs have used the term “breakthrough,” while about half have used the term “promising.”

“Today, patients and their families can easily find FDA press releases on the Internet, or they often hear about them in the news,” said study author Steven Woloshin, MD, of The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice in Lebanon, New Hampshire.

“But the reality is that unless patients fully understand how the FDA is using the term ‘breakthrough,’ they may have unwarranted confidence in the evidence supporting drug claims. So we thought it was important to test how these terms affect the judgement of people without medical training.”

Survey details

The investigators conducted an online survey of 597 Americans. Participants were randomly given 1 of 5 short descriptions of a recently approved drug.

The descriptions were based on an FDA press release for a metastatic lung cancer breakthrough-designated drug that was conditionally approved based on the surrogate outcome of tumor shrinkage.

The first, “facts-only” description described the drug as meeting the criteria for breakthrough designation but did not actually use the term “breakthrough.”

A second and a third description included the facts and added the terms “breakthrough” and “promising,” respectively.

The fourth, “tentative” description included the facts, used the word “breakthrough,” and used the following FDA-required language for professional labeling:

The FDA pointed out that the drug was approved based on tumor shrinkage but that an improvement in survival or disease-related symptoms has not been established. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The fifth, “definitive” description included the same information as the tentative description, but “may be contingent” was changed to “is contingent.”

Participants were then asked to judge the drug’s benefit, harm, and strength of evidence.

Results

The investigators found that adding either “breakthrough” or “promising” in the description significantly increased the percentage of participants who rated the drug as “very” or “completely” effective compared with the facts-only description—23% and 25% vs 11%.

Adding “breakthrough” or “promising” to the description also significantly increased the number of people who reported believing that evidence supporting the drug is “strong” or “extremely strong”—59% and 63% vs 43%.

At the same time, adding either the tentative or definitive explanations significantly reduced the percentage of participants who believed (incorrectly) that the drug had been “proven to save lives”—16% tentative and 10% definitive vs 31% breakthrough.

Finally, when participants were asked which of 2 drugs—one described as “breakthrough,” the other as meeting the breakthrough criteria—they would take for a potentially deadly condition, 92% chose the “breakthrough” drug.

“Our findings clearly indicate that words like ‘breakthrough’ and ‘promising’ increase people’s beliefs in a drug’s effectiveness,” said Lisa Schwartz, MD, of The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice.

“In light of [the findings], press releases with neutral terms and that clearly explain the limited evidence supporting what breakthrough designation and accelerated approval mean might help consumers make more accurate judgements about these drugs.”

Drug production

Photo courtesy of the FDA

Using the words “breakthrough” and “promising” to describe new drugs affects the public’s perception of the drugs’ effectiveness, according to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Investigators noted that, in everyday usage, the term “breakthrough” represents a highly significant or definitive advance.

However, the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) “breakthrough therapy designation” has a different meaning.

Since the Safety and Innovation Act became law in 2012, the FDA can assign breakthrough designation to a drug that “treats a serious or life-threatening condition” and “may demonstrate a substantial improvement . . . over available therapies” based on preliminary evidence.

And since the creation of the Safety and Innovation Act, all FDA press releases announcing the approval of breakthrough-designated drugs have used the term “breakthrough,” while about half have used the term “promising.”

“Today, patients and their families can easily find FDA press releases on the Internet, or they often hear about them in the news,” said study author Steven Woloshin, MD, of The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice in Lebanon, New Hampshire.

“But the reality is that unless patients fully understand how the FDA is using the term ‘breakthrough,’ they may have unwarranted confidence in the evidence supporting drug claims. So we thought it was important to test how these terms affect the judgement of people without medical training.”

Survey details

The investigators conducted an online survey of 597 Americans. Participants were randomly given 1 of 5 short descriptions of a recently approved drug.

The descriptions were based on an FDA press release for a metastatic lung cancer breakthrough-designated drug that was conditionally approved based on the surrogate outcome of tumor shrinkage.

The first, “facts-only” description described the drug as meeting the criteria for breakthrough designation but did not actually use the term “breakthrough.”

A second and a third description included the facts and added the terms “breakthrough” and “promising,” respectively.

The fourth, “tentative” description included the facts, used the word “breakthrough,” and used the following FDA-required language for professional labeling:

The FDA pointed out that the drug was approved based on tumor shrinkage but that an improvement in survival or disease-related symptoms has not been established. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The fifth, “definitive” description included the same information as the tentative description, but “may be contingent” was changed to “is contingent.”

Participants were then asked to judge the drug’s benefit, harm, and strength of evidence.

Results

The investigators found that adding either “breakthrough” or “promising” in the description significantly increased the percentage of participants who rated the drug as “very” or “completely” effective compared with the facts-only description—23% and 25% vs 11%.

Adding “breakthrough” or “promising” to the description also significantly increased the number of people who reported believing that evidence supporting the drug is “strong” or “extremely strong”—59% and 63% vs 43%.

At the same time, adding either the tentative or definitive explanations significantly reduced the percentage of participants who believed (incorrectly) that the drug had been “proven to save lives”—16% tentative and 10% definitive vs 31% breakthrough.

Finally, when participants were asked which of 2 drugs—one described as “breakthrough,” the other as meeting the breakthrough criteria—they would take for a potentially deadly condition, 92% chose the “breakthrough” drug.

“Our findings clearly indicate that words like ‘breakthrough’ and ‘promising’ increase people’s beliefs in a drug’s effectiveness,” said Lisa Schwartz, MD, of The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice.

“In light of [the findings], press releases with neutral terms and that clearly explain the limited evidence supporting what breakthrough designation and accelerated approval mean might help consumers make more accurate judgements about these drugs.”

Drug production

Photo courtesy of the FDA

Using the words “breakthrough” and “promising” to describe new drugs affects the public’s perception of the drugs’ effectiveness, according to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Investigators noted that, in everyday usage, the term “breakthrough” represents a highly significant or definitive advance.

However, the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) “breakthrough therapy designation” has a different meaning.

Since the Safety and Innovation Act became law in 2012, the FDA can assign breakthrough designation to a drug that “treats a serious or life-threatening condition” and “may demonstrate a substantial improvement . . . over available therapies” based on preliminary evidence.

And since the creation of the Safety and Innovation Act, all FDA press releases announcing the approval of breakthrough-designated drugs have used the term “breakthrough,” while about half have used the term “promising.”

“Today, patients and their families can easily find FDA press releases on the Internet, or they often hear about them in the news,” said study author Steven Woloshin, MD, of The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice in Lebanon, New Hampshire.

“But the reality is that unless patients fully understand how the FDA is using the term ‘breakthrough,’ they may have unwarranted confidence in the evidence supporting drug claims. So we thought it was important to test how these terms affect the judgement of people without medical training.”

Survey details

The investigators conducted an online survey of 597 Americans. Participants were randomly given 1 of 5 short descriptions of a recently approved drug.

The descriptions were based on an FDA press release for a metastatic lung cancer breakthrough-designated drug that was conditionally approved based on the surrogate outcome of tumor shrinkage.

The first, “facts-only” description described the drug as meeting the criteria for breakthrough designation but did not actually use the term “breakthrough.”

A second and a third description included the facts and added the terms “breakthrough” and “promising,” respectively.

The fourth, “tentative” description included the facts, used the word “breakthrough,” and used the following FDA-required language for professional labeling:

The FDA pointed out that the drug was approved based on tumor shrinkage but that an improvement in survival or disease-related symptoms has not been established. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The fifth, “definitive” description included the same information as the tentative description, but “may be contingent” was changed to “is contingent.”

Participants were then asked to judge the drug’s benefit, harm, and strength of evidence.

Results

The investigators found that adding either “breakthrough” or “promising” in the description significantly increased the percentage of participants who rated the drug as “very” or “completely” effective compared with the facts-only description—23% and 25% vs 11%.

Adding “breakthrough” or “promising” to the description also significantly increased the number of people who reported believing that evidence supporting the drug is “strong” or “extremely strong”—59% and 63% vs 43%.

At the same time, adding either the tentative or definitive explanations significantly reduced the percentage of participants who believed (incorrectly) that the drug had been “proven to save lives”—16% tentative and 10% definitive vs 31% breakthrough.

Finally, when participants were asked which of 2 drugs—one described as “breakthrough,” the other as meeting the breakthrough criteria—they would take for a potentially deadly condition, 92% chose the “breakthrough” drug.

“Our findings clearly indicate that words like ‘breakthrough’ and ‘promising’ increase people’s beliefs in a drug’s effectiveness,” said Lisa Schwartz, MD, of The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice.

“In light of [the findings], press releases with neutral terms and that clearly explain the limited evidence supporting what breakthrough designation and accelerated approval mean might help consumers make more accurate judgements about these drugs.”