HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Super shot? Can it cut weight by 25%?
July 14, 2009
Woefully inadequate reporting on animal research on a weight loss drug. Makes the unfounded leap that this is a "promising new drug that could ultimately impact how to control obesity and diabetes."
Our Review Summary
This segment barely scratched the surface of reporting on animal research on an injectable drug approach to weight loss.
It failed to:
- explain the limitations of animal research
- put the stage of research into clear context, confusing viewers by once saying "science is about to help you out" but at another point it said it was "years away from human trials" and "10 years out."
- put the research into the context of other weight loss therapies
- acknowledge that all drugs have side effects
Click on Criteria for definitions.
Confusing terms used - at one time saying "science is about to help you out" but at another point it said it was "years away from human trials" and "10 years out." Nonetheless, we'll give it the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.
No estimate of costs - which may be understandable given the early phase of research. But if the drug contains the active ingredients of two drugs already in use - and if it would be a weekly injection - couldn't some projection of these costs have been made based on what's known about the two existing drugs' prices and the cost of a weekly visit to the doctor?
No overt disease mongering. But hype for the drug, framing it as if it is for the "millions who want to lose weight." A hesitant satisfactory score on this criterion.
The limitations of animal research- and the enormity of the leap from mice to men - were important factors that received no attention.
Potential harms were waved away with this exchange:
(Robin Roberts:) "there's been no adverse effects, right?
(David Muir:) Not yet.
None? What's the track record of Byetta and Glucagon? Drawing conclusions about side effects in rodent models as if they are applicable to humans is absurd. All drugs have side effects.
The segment made no attempt to put this research into the context of other weight loss research.
All we were told was that "A single injection of this drug decreased the rodents’ body weight by a quarter and fat mass by 42 percent after just one week." But a quarter of what? 42% of what? What were the longer term results? Anyone can deliver anecdotes about weight loss results in a week.
Two different sources were interviewed, so the segment did not appear to rely solely or largely on a news release.
Two people were interviewed but we weren't told what their connection was to the research, what their expertise was, etc.
The story simply stated, "Despite the introduction of the weight loss pill Alli in 2007, surgical interventions like gastric bypass remain the closest thing to an obesity cure. Experts say this new drug mimics the action of that surgery and that this drug shows we've made enormous progress in understanding obesity." That's totally insufficienct context for all of the treatment options for obesity. And equating the drug to a surgical approach is puzzling.
Total Score: 3 of 10 Satisfactory
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is considered the gold standard of preventive health recommendations - including on screening tests. It's a good source for journalists and consumers.
About 70% of the stories reviewed from 2006-9 failed to adequately discuss costs, or to explain how big (or small) are the potential benefits and harms of treatments, tests, products and procedures.
We have documented a disturbing trend of news stories taking an advocacy stance, promoting certain screening tests outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.
Stories on new technologies like Cyberknife, DaVinci robotic surgery systems, and proton beam cancer therapy often fail to scrutinize the evidence and/or to discuss the costs involved.
Rather than suggesting that everyone should be screened for everything, news stories could explain: "All screening tests cause harm; some may do good."
The first 38 network TV network morning health news stories reviewed in 2009 earned an average score of 1.2 stars. 13 of the 38 stories got ZERO stars.
Both TIME magazine and BusinessWeek have published terrific stories explaining the importance of the Number Needed to Treat - or NNT.
Knowing relative risk reduction is like knowing you have a 50% off coupon but not knowing whether it's for a Lexus or a lollipop. Absolute risk reduction tells you what the "coupon" is worth. Read more.
The website NoFreeLunch.org posts "a database of health care professionals who have pledged to accept no gifts from industry and to rely on non-promotional sources of information."
To help journalists cover stories responsibly, we post a list of independent experts who state that they do not have financial ties to drug or medical device manufacturers.
We apply the same ten standardized criteria to the review of every story.
We have about 30 story reviewers. Each story is reviewed by 3 different people.
Gary Schwitzer's seven words you shouldn't use in medical news: cure, miracle, breakthrough, promising, dramatic, hope, victim. Read why.
Our reviewers include two former CNN medical reporters and a former editor of the Washington Post health section.