This CBS News segment on the drug Suboxone (sublingual buprenorphine) explores the medication’s use as a way to treat addiction to prescription painkillers. Its key strength is its lucid explanation, using a video, of the physiology of addiction and the drug’s mechanism of action.
But the piece falls far short of health journalism best practices in several significant ways.
The story appears to draw heavily on an article appearing in the Fall 2007 issue of NYU Physician, a publication of the New York University School of Medicine and Hospital Centers, employer of study lead investigator Marc N. Gourevitch.
The NYU Physician piece focuses on the story of Brian, the same man who is the focus of the CBS News segment.
The CBS piece appears to adapt language from the magazine article. In one place the article reads:
The hope is that this will eventually do for drug addiction what SSRI’s like Prozac did for depression: convince both primary-care physicians and the public that addiction is a chronic brain disease, not a character flaw.
The physician-reporter in the CBS piece says:
The hope is that one day Suboxone can do for painkiller addiction what drugs like Prozac did for depression: convince people that it’s more of a brain disease, not so much a character flaw.
It is also worth pointing out that Brian, according to the NYU Physician article, has had an outcome more complex than viewers might believe. In the NYU article, Brian is quoted as saying that after his initial treatment with Suboxone, his withdrawl was "the worst three weeks of my life," with "sleepless weeks of nausea, chills, diarrhea, apathy, and intense, uncontrolled cravings for opiates."
The CBS segment about Brian did not include this information.
The focus of the segment is, properly, the high costs of addiction to painkillers. Still, it fails to state how much Suboxone costs.
The segment fails to report how effective Suboxone is at treating addiction. No data. Thus, also no data comparing with alternatives (methadone and/or psychotherapy or abstinence-based treatments).
The drug labeling states that the drug was shown in two trials to be about 17 and 28 percent effective (compared to 6 percent and 9 percent for placebo).
The drug has considerable safety issues, yet the story didn’t discuss any of them.
The segment does not present any clinical evidence to describe the medication’s effectiveness.
In the interview with Brian, the segment explores the psychological impact of painkiller addiction. But it does not exaggerate the risks or severity of the condition.
Still, it is worth pointing out that the segment fails to state that many patients taking medicines for pain may be physically dependent on them, but do not "abuse" the medicine to get "high" and on balance benefit from its use. The news piece concerns only people abusing these painkillers, so it may imply that any use of these medications is problematic. This is not true.
There are several important shortcomings here:
The segment refers to methadone early on. But it does not mention counseling as a stand-alone option for addiction to painkillers, or other drug- or non-drug options.
The segment states that Suboxone (sublingual buprenorphine) is available from "any doctor, even a family physician."
It’s a bit more complicated than that. In order to prescribe Suboxone, a physican without specialized training in addiction needs to be certified by submitting an application to the federal government, completing an 8-hour training course and meeting other criteria.
The segment is unclear about availability in a second case. The segment itself implies (correctly) that the drug is currently available. But then the host says the drug is currently in clinical trials. The physician-reporter’s response does not clarify that these trials are for approval of an additional, specific use of the currently available drug.
The segment in places implies the drug is new and novel (by referring to the current clinical trial, by using the word "new" to describe it, and by emphasizing its hope for revolutionalizing treatment). But it also states that it is currently available. This leaves the viewer uncertain about what’s "new" here.
So what is new? Buprenorphine has been an approved parenteral analgesic for decades. The drug was approved in 2002 as an alternative to methadone–a drug to be taken as a more benign replacement for the more addicting drug being abused, such as heroin. It enables withdrawal from the addicitive drug, which may be followed by other addiction treatments or maintenance therapy.
The current trial involves only patients who are addicted to painkiller medications like OxyContin. The study is designed to determine whether those taking Suboxone and getting supportive counseling can taper off Suboxone fairly quickly and become entirely drug-free.
The article does not rely on any press release. It does, however, appear to draw heavily on an article appearing in the Fall 2007 issue of NYU Physician, a publication of the New York University School of Medicine and Hospital Centers, employer of study lead investigator Marc N. Gourevitch.
The NYU Physician piece focuses on the story of Brian, the same man who is the focus of the CBS News segment.
The CBS piece appears to adapt language from the magazine article. In one place the article reads:
The hope is that this will eventually do for drug addiction what SSRI’s like Prozac did for depression: convince both primary-care physicians and the public that addiction is a chronic brain disease, not a character flaw.
The physician-reporter in the CBS piece says:
The hope is that one day Suboxone can do for painkiller addiction what drugs like Prozac did for depression: convince people that it’s more of a brain disease, not so much a character flaw.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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