This story reports on a new diet drug that works in much the same way as the discredited and dangerous fen-phen pill that was pulled from the market in 1997. The story reports that the drug appears to be safer than that drug and to be helping people lose weight. But it felt a bit boosterish – especially without the perspective of a truly independent expert – and could have done a better job evaluating the evidence.
Drug companies want a diet pill that works and that doesn’t kill people in the process. If they can create one that does, they will make a mountain of money. People who fight weight the old fashioned way — through diet and exercise — but can’t seem to make any headway could stand to benefit from some pharmaceutical help. The story says the race is on for FDA approval among several new competitors. The evidence that this drug is a big improvement, though, is shaky.
There is no mention of costs. If the drug works similarly to fen-phen. Why not at least mention what that drug cost? If you have to take it twice a day for a year to see any results, what might that long term therapy add up to?
See comments above about evaluating the evidence. We’ll rule this satisfactory because the story did a decent job of quantifying the likely magnitude of weight loss, both in terms of expected pounds lost, % who drop out, and % losing 5% or 10% body weight.
Stronger points:
Weaker points:
It makes several stabs at evaluating the evidence, but it lacked absolute numbers to give people a true sense of the improvement. It starts out by saying, "About half the dieters who took lorcaserin for a year in the study lost at least 5% of their body weight, compared to 20% of dieters who took a placebo pill." That sounds like an amazing result. Even better, "About one in five lorcaserin users lost 10% or more of their body weight, compared to one out of 14 placebo users." And, in case you were wondering whether those pounds would reappear quickly, the story says, "People who continued on the drug for two years were able to maintain their weight loss better than those switched to placebo after one year, researcher Steven R. Smith, MD, of the Florida Hospital and the Sanford-Burnham Institute tells WebMD." But much lower in the story, the caveats start coming. "All the participants were counseled about diet and exercise." But, presumably, some were already better at choosing the right foods and following an exercise regimen than others. How did the study control for this? This is the most dramatic fact, "By the end of year one, 55% of the patients in the placebo group and 45% of those taking the diet drug had dropped out of the study." What did that do to the absolute difference in the number of people who lost more weight? Because the outside voices in this story are weak, it’s hard to know how big of a deal this drug really is.
This is one of the high points of this story compared to others. Instead of framing the story as "new hope in the war on obesity," it focuses more narrowly on the research. A line about obesity prevalence would have been nice.
It identifies conflicts in some cases, but there is no truly independent expert source quoted in the story – something that was badly needed.
The story misses one huge point. How does this drug do when compared to diet and exercise? The story mentions that the drug is not as effective as two existing drugs, but doesn’t compare it to other weight loss treatments. If people walked 30 minutes a day and ate a balanced diet, would they lose more than 12 pounds on average in a year’s time? (Ask that Subway pitchman.)
The story makes it clear that the drug is still in trials although it could have done a better job explaining how far it has come and what steps it still has to take to win approval.
The story places this drug into a sort of horse race of diet drugs galloping toward approval by the FDA. It does a pretty good job explaining why this one is different than the others, but it doesn’t do a great job of explaining how this works in comparison to the OTC drugs out there now.
The story does not rely on a news release, but it also doesn’t take the extra effort of having unbiased sources evaluate the drug.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
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