Clear, succinct, and important reporting that tones down some of the celebratory tone that greeted a drug’s “landmark study” from a few months ago.
The story notes that there was a lot of celebrating when news came out in November that taking a pill can reduce the risk of getting HIV. But the story delivered a clear dose of evidence and caution – important journalism.
Strong point. The story said, “There’s one other thing, the CDC says. Make sure patients understand that warding off HIV isn’t cheap. Each pill currently costs around $36, which adds up to more than $13,000 a year. Some insurers might pay, but some might balk”
The story stated the benefits clearly – albeit only in relative risk reduction terms. We would have preferred absolute numbers. But it did such a good job in telling the updated story about proper use of the drug in question that we give it a satisfactory score.
Several clear points were made about harms:
The story did a great job of communicating the read-between-the-lines reality of the evidence for the use of this drug.
NO disease-mongering here.
The story is based on the CDC’s evaluation and warnings about proper use of the drug.
We would have liked to have seen a clinician-researcher’s perspective – someone not affiliated with the CDC analysis.
Not applicable. Because of the nature of this drug, no comparison is really necessary. As the story stated, “It’s the first time anybody’s shown that taking a pill can prevent HIV – and it was the first new weapon against HIV unveiled in many years.”
The story is clear that Truvada is already on the market.
The story stated, “It’s the first time anybody’s shown that taking a pill can prevent HIV – and it was the first new weapon against HIV unveiled in many years.”
We have no evidence that the story relied on a news release.