This is a story examining the outcomes of several large studies that have compared cardiovascular outcomes in individuals with type II diabetes who have more or less tightly controlled glucose levels.
This story would have been improved by including some information graphics laying out impact of the two treatment approaches on kidney, eye, and nerve problems; and on cardiovascular and all cause mortality and lastly costs. (Maybe this did appear in the print version; we only saw the online version.)
As it is, the story provides an extensive amount of data to the reader, but, as presented, it may be difficult to discern in the myriad of statistics and conflicting reports provided. The value of intensive glucose control in patients with Type 2 diabetes has been under examination for a number of years. Numerous studies have provided conflicting information leaving the question open. The story provides a glimpse into the controversy and the confusing results.
Cost seems to be a huge underlying issue, yet it was never discussed.
It’s odd that a story that addresses the lack of cardiovascular risk reduction from the drugs in question would fail to discuss the cost of the drugs. More broadly, what is the cost of tight glucose control and the "frequent doses of pills or insulin, blood-sugar monitoring and doctor visits" mentioned in the last paragraph?
The story indicated that there didn’t appear to be benefit from tighter control of circulating glucose levels.
The main point of the story is the potential for harm associated with intensive treatment for type 2 diabetes. However, cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes may be related to other common factors such as obesity, high blood pressure and elevated cholesterol. While there is evidence that intensive blood sugar treatment may not be beneficial, the story did not note the presence of other factors that may play a role, and therefore, lacked adequate context.
The story presents extensive data.
Although the initial paragraph is a bit over the top, the statistics related to cardiovascular disease are on target and appropriate.
The story quotes three individuals with expertise about diabetes and diabetes treatment.
This was a story examining whether tighter control of circulating glucose had beneficial impact on cardiovascular events and/or death as compared with less stringent control goals.
The widespread availability of drugs for the treatment of type 2 diabetes is clear from the story.
The story highlights the apparently conflicting information coming out of long term studies attempting to define the benefits of intensive glucose control with oral drugs. The information has been evolving over the past decade and continues to evolve.
Does not appear to rely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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