Read Original Story

New asthma inhaler approved for children

Rating

3 Star

New asthma inhaler approved for children

Our Review Summary

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

  • give the cost of the drug
  • provide any information about how much better the drug worked than current treatments (in fact, it didn’t quantify the benefit at all)
  • discuss a significant potential side effect – that people who use this medication may be more susceptible to infections; common childhood diseases such as chickenpox or measles can be more serious.
  • interview any pediatric lung specialists.  It only interviewed two PR people. 

 

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The story did not provide a cost estimate for this use of this medication.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

Though mentioning that this medication was significantly better than placebo, the story did not provide any details about how much better the treatment was.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

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.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

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.

 


Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

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. 

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

The story interviewed two PR people but no pediatric lung specialists to give some insight into the importance of this change.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

The story did provide information about how this product and its deliver system differed from other treatments currently on the market.  

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

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.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

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?

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Not Applicable

We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release.

Total Score: 4 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.