This story gave details about an asthma medication that has now received FDA approval for use in a new population, children aged 4-11 years of age. But the story didn’t:
The story did not provide a cost estimate for this use of this medication.
Though mentioning that this medication was significantly better than placebo, the story did not provide any details about how much better the treatment was.
While the story provided a list of the harms that have been associated with the use of this medication, it does not mention the specific concerns for the use of this product in the younger age group for which it has just been approved. People who use this medication may be more susceptible to infections; common childhood diseases such as chickenpox or measles can be more serious.
Although mentioning a small study in which the featured product was said to provide ‘significantly more’ symptom relief than a placebo , the story actually did not provide any information about the magnitude of the benefit.
The story did provide quite of bit of background about asthma – estimate of its prevalence, its toll on work and school attendance, and that it can, in fact, be a life threatening condition.
The story interviewed two PR people but no pediatric lung specialists to give some insight into the importance of this change.
The story did provide information about how this product and its deliver system differed from other treatments currently on the market.
The story provided quite a complete explanation about the availability of this medication – that it had been approved 2 years ago for use and that it has recently been approved for use by young children.
The story was clear that the medication had received approval for a new population. That said, how much of an impact will it have to decrease the age group for whom the medication is appropriate from 6 down to 4?
We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release.