This report, triggered by the FDA’s investigation into a possible link between the allergy/asthma drug Singulair and suicide, is a good example of how a news operation can take a potentially explosive, emotional medical news story and keep it focused on what viewers need to know to make more informed decisions.
From the top the segment is framed by the question, "So what should you do?" The medical editor responds well by making clear the connection isn’t proven and that the number of reports at this point is very small.
She also takes advantage of the "teachable moment" to explain the differences between clinical trial data and post-marketing surveillance reports of side effects, without diminishing the importance of either.
The segment’s biggest shortcoming is that it fails to report that many other drugs are available for asthma and allergies, and that people taking Singulair should discuss those options with their doctors. We also wish journalists would leave their personal lives out of health stories. The medical editor’s comment – "I have a teenage daughter on it who has done quite well" – is not vital information and has potentially biasing influence on the overall message of the piece.
The price of the drug is not reported.
The piece cites specific figures from the clinical studies and post-surveillance reports. It also does a good job of explaining the differences between the two without favoring either.
The story is focused on potential harmful side effects of the drug, so this criterion was clearly established.
The report is based on news of the FDA opening an investigation and information from pre-approval clinical trials and post-marketing data. This is adequate evidence to justify a story.
The article does not exaggerate the severity or frequency of the side effects that may be linked to the drug.
Sources include the FDA’s announcment of its investigation, and information about pre-approval clinical trials and post-approval reporting.
The medical editor’s and host’s suggestions that people using the drug should look carefully for these potential side effects and talk to their physicians are useful. But the report should have mentioned that there are many other drugs available to treat asthma and allergies.
The segment makes clear that Singulair is widely used.
Singulair is widely used, and its novelty is not in question.
The report was triggered by the FDA’s announcement of its investigation, not a company press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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.