This was a story about a possible new medication in the pipeline that may enable people to lose weight. It did not include the information needed to understand the relative strength of the study reported about and did not quantify in absolute terms (number of pounds lost) the benefit that might be attained with the use of this medication.
It was an interesting piece in that it made an attempt to contrast this medication with one that was withdrawn from the market. However, in light of this comparison, the story should have explained something about the time frame of the current study, and how that compared with the period of time that was needed for the problems with the drug that was withdrawn from the market to be observed. It should have also mentioned that the current trials with the new medication specifically exclude people with type of heart issue that was seen to be problematic with the withdrawn drug. The bottom line is that while the company may be optimistic that this drug will not result in harms, there are not yet sufficient data available to determine whether this is the case. It would have been useful to readers had the story made this clear.
Finally, this was a San Diego paper reporting on “mid-stage” trial results on a San Diego company’s product. It is doubtful that the paper would report on such results from another company in another location. Applying that “business news” approach to health care product news is often problematic. It gives local readers a skewed picture of the research landscape and may give undue weight to the local idea.
If it’s not too early to project that the drug may be submitted to the FDA for approval within a year, then it’s not too early to get some estimate of cost or at least to give some context about the cost of other obesity drugs on the market.
The story detailed that individuals taking lorcaserin lost more weight in 12 weeks than did the individuals who were taking the placebo. However the story did not provide any information about the magnitude of the difference between the groups, nor did it actually provide absolute quantitative information about the actual amount of weight lost. The phrase "significantly more weight loss, at least 5 percent of their weight" doesn’t tell readers how much.
Although mentioning the heart valve problems which were seen to occur with the use of a different weight loss medication, there was no mention in this story of the side effects (headache, nausea, and dizziness) which were seen to occur with this medication during the relatively short period of time it was used. The story also failed to mention whether weight re-gain was common after use of the medication was stopped. Harm is of particular concern with obesity drugs, particularly given the experiences with Fen-Phen which had a similar mechanism of action.
Rather than reporting that "People taking the Arena pill experienced significantly more weight loss, at least 5 percent of their weight over 12 weeks, than people taking a placebo" the story should have provided information about the nature of the study (randomized, placebo controlled trial), the number of people involved in the study (10, 100 or more than 400?) an estimate for the number of pounds being lost and whether or not all people taking the drug lost weight.
Although most of the story did not engage in disease mongering, the statement by the study’s lead author indicating that the results would ‘provide reason for optimism for the millions of Americans struggling with the obesity epidemic’ could be argued to fall into this category. It is both hyperbole to conclude that the results of one study provides optimism for millions as well as disease mongering to describe people who are obese as struggling with the obesity epidemic. That statement should have been challenged.
There were no sources of information quoted that were independent of the study or the company developing the drug.
The story did not provide any information about other treatment options (currently available medications, lifestyle changes, and surgical interventions) that provide similar or superior weight loss results.
The story was clear that it was reporting on the results of a recent clinical trial and that a request for FDA approval had not yet been made, from which the reader could conclude that the drug is currently not available.
The story described that lorcasein targeted the 5HT-2c serotonin receptor but was specific to the brain receptor as opposed to fenfluramin which was less selective and was found to also target a serotonin receptor in the heart.
We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release. This was a San Diego paper reporting on a San Diego company’s product in "mid-stage" trials. It’s doubtful the paper would report on similar results from a company located somewhere else.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
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