A well-constructed, balanced story that was missing just one piece of information: cost. Had the article discussed the price tag of this approach, it would’ve aced our criteria.
In addition to summarizing the key points of the study, the article provides some important nuggets of context, describing how rosiglitazone is in the hot seat now, even mentioning that some feel clinical trials with it are unethical. Rosi is undergoing an
FDA review in July, which may decide its fate, amid calls for it to be withdrawn from the market. And GSK just settled a court case alleging that the drug causes heart attacks and strokes. See this article at theheart.org for a more detailed description of the new study in light of more the surrounding controversy.Costs and the cost-effectiveness of this strategy are not discussed. Any discussion of a preventive strategy should include comments on cost.
Avandia and metformin, at the doses used in the study, cost about $195 a month, according to drugstore.com.
We get absolute benefits, relative benefits, and the all-important number needed to treat (NNT). Very nice.
While harms weren’t quantified, the story provided a good amount of detail, context, and caveat about the safety of this regimen.
We get many important details about the study: the number of patients, the enrollment criteria, randomization, placebo control, half doses, and the length of follow-up. It also describes some limitations of the study, such as its inability to detect rare adverse events due to its size. It’s an important caveat, particularly with a cardiovascular cloud hanging over rosiglitazone. The author also points to the editorial’s observation that the approach didn’t affect the problems in the pancreas that underly diabetes and which must be addressed by such a strategy.
The author is very specific about the thresholds for the patient population, and who was considered at high risk to progress to diabetes. We note that it was judiciously limited in its use of the term "prevention."
Props to the author for citing the editorial written by two independent experts and published in the same issue of the Lancet. This article selects several of their many cogent comments. Ideally, another independent source outside the publication would’ve been consulted, too.
The story describes how GSK has a dog in this fight, funding the study and manufacturing Avandia. The story also provides the institutional affiliations of Zinman and the two editorialists. While it’s probably covered in the GSK funding source, we’ll point out that several investigators had other financial ties to GSK, too.
The article talks about the effectiveness of lifestyle changes and the challenge of implementing them. It also reviews the barriers to using full-dose rosi because of adverse events.
It’s clear Avandia and metformin are currently available.
We’re told of similar prior studies and the novelty of attempting a low-dose regimen to block progression.
We don’t see evidence that the article relied on any news releases.
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/
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