Our Review Summary
This is a story about FDA approval for an inhaled form of insulin marketed as Exubera. The story discusses how this new form of insulin delivery may affect diabetics, possibly increasing adherence to blood sugar management by reducing the need for injected insulin. A cost comparison of the two forms of insulin is provided. There are appropriate caveats from medical professionals who specialize in diabetes care regarding the need for continued insulin injections for some diabetics. These warnings are contradictory to the story’s sub-headline which states that Exubera is an “alternative to daily injections”. (We realize that reporters don’t write headlines, but someone at AP is responsible for it.) Some diabetics, especially those with Type 1 diabetes, may need a longer-acting injected insulin and cannot rely solely on inhaled insulin. The story discusses some potentially serious side effects, such as a decrease in lung capacity in some people, however, there is no data on the incidence of this or other side effects. Overall, there is little quantitative information on the efficacy of the new form of insulin compared with the existing method of insulin delivery. While investors may be interested that this could be a “$1 billion a year seller for Pfizer”, diabetics who are considering inhaled insulin would appreciate quantitative information on the risks and benefits of Exubera.
Criteria
Satisfactory
Gives a cost comparison with injected insulin. Given that the article stresses the need for injected
insulin as an adjunct to inhaled insulin (in some cases), the cost would be higher.
Not Satisfactory
No quantitative data presented. No information on the efficacy
of Exubera at controlling blood sugar as compared to existing methods of insulin delivery. No data on the side effects, or
how many people who did not have pre-pre-existing lung disease experienced inflammation due to Exubera.
Not Satisfactory
No quantitative data
presented. No long-term data on the side effects, or how many people who did not have pre-existing lung disease experienced
inflammation due to Exubera.
Not Satisfactory
No data from any Exubera trials. No
mention of study design or incidence of side effects.
Satisfactory
Provides American Diabetes
Association statistics on prevalence. Does not appear to be disease mongering. Mentions that not all diabetics take insulin
and some people with Type 2 can manage with oral hypoglycemics, diet and exercise. There is some discussion that more
diabetics will take insulin if it is inhaled form, which may or may not be true.
Satisfactory
Balanced. FDA, American Diabetes
Association, Juvenile Diabetes Foundation and diabetic patient perspective provided. No conflict of interest noted. (No
mention if anyone received research funding from Pfizer.)
Satisfactory
Mention of alternative
treatment (i.e. injections alone) and possible treatment needed in conjunction with inhalable insulin. There is mention of
some of the side effects on the lungs (coughing or decrease in lung capacity) , and that the inhaled form of insulin is not
appropriate for all diabetics, especially those with asthma or poorly controlled lung disease. There is a reminder that
diabetics still need to check their blood sugar levels via needles, pens or pumps.
Satisfactory
Mentions availability of treatment and that Exubera won’t replace injected insulin.
Satisfactory
The story focuses on recent
FDA approval.
Not Applicable
No clear evidence that the story relied heavily on a press
release; however, the financial information seems to be PR-driven. While investors may be interested that this could be a
“$1 billion a year seller for Pfizer”, people with diabetes who take daily insulin in this new form would appreciate
quantitative information on the risks and benefits of Exubera.
Total Score: 6 of 9 Satisfactory
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