This is a news release about progress toward a long-elusive goal — a pill form of insulin that eliminates the need for injections. It describes what appears to be a well-designed, randomized clinical trial powered with enough patients to achieve a significant result. Although it cites percent reduction in blood glucose values, it might have been stronger had it also included absolute reductions — from what to what. And it could have been more specific about what possible side effects might have been of concern.
The release also lacks context for understanding how the new drug’s effects might compare with those of injectable insulin or other drugs used in this clinical situation.
A Reuters story on the drug, which seemed to rely heavily on this news release, was also reviewed by HealthNewsReview.org.
The first line treatment for type 2 diabetes is usually weight loss (for those who are overweight) plus metformin. However, many people with diabetes are unable to achieve control of blood glucose with these measures, and a second drug must be added. Injectable night-time insulin is one option, but many people balk at the idea of giving themselves a shot every night. The potential to deliver insulin in pill form would be a welcome alternative — if future trials bear out its usefulness.
The story does not discuss costs but the drug is not approved for use — and may never be.
The news release contains a lot of good information. It describes the study of 180 adults with type 2 diabetes as double-blind, 28-day, and randomized. It notes that those who took the experimental treatment had a statistically significant decrease in their night-time blood sugar of more than 6%.
Had it also divulged the mean values of the absolute numbers, that information might have helped the reader determine whether the drop was clinically significant. It would also be helpful to know the percent reduction in blood glucose that is achieved with standard injectable insulin for comparison.
The news release also states as a benefit that people with type 2 diabetes might be more likely to be compliant about taking an insulin in pill form rather than by injection, but it does not offer evidence to support that suggestion.
“The study additionally demonstrated a good safety profile with no drug-related serious adverse events,” we are told. The news release does not say what a “good safety profile” means, nor does it say whether any not-so serious adverse events may have occurred.
It would be especially important to report hypoglycemia (low blood sugar), which is a common complication of injectable insulin therapy.
The news release describes the design of the study well. But it would have been stronger had it included absolute numbers in describing the reduction of blood sugar levels. And it would have helped to know whether the 6.47% drop in blood sugar was enough to move patients into the range of normal blood sugars. Is a 6.4% reduction in glucose large enough to achieve reduction in long-term complications of diabetes? Although this study is not designed to examine long-term outcomes of therapy, it could have provided more context that showed how the percentage of glucose reduction correlates with reduction in complications.
The news release does not say how common type 2 diabetes is and therefore cannot be accused of disease mongering. But the figures are astounding, with a quadrupling of cases since 1980, according to the World Health Organization.
The news release states that Oramed Pharmaceuticals conducted the study.
The release does not say whether an insulin pill would be better than other ways of lowering blood sugar, such as exercise, diet or sulfonylurea drugs which stimulate the pancreas to release more insulin.
The news release makes it clear that the drug remains experimental.
The news release notes that this drug would be the first oral form of insulin for type 2 diabetes.
The release doesn’t include unjustifiable language.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
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:
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.
You might also like