This article discusses a new approach to birth control pills that would eliminate monthly menstrual bleeding altogether. A similar product that reduces menstrual bleeding to 4 times per year is already on the market. This story provides some useful context to explain why traditional birth control pills have a pill-free monthly phase when menstrual bleeding occurs. However, the article seems to have relied heavily on statements from a representative of the pill’s manufacturer–seeking input from more than one independent expert would have made the claims more balanced and credible.
It’s not clear from the article what kind of studies were done in support of the new pill’s FDA application. What kind of pills was the new version compared with? What was the experience of women who took the comparison pills–how different were the numbers of women who stopped having periods, or who started having them again when they quit taking the pills? This information would help readers evaluate whether the new pill really does offer advantages over current products. Similar information about what’s known about the new pill’s harms would also be helpful.
And just how big of a problem is monthly menstrual bleeding in women who take birth control pills? The story suggests that eliminating it might help women be more productive in the workplace–but cites no data to back up that statement, which seems like disease mongering. Women may be surprised to hear that doctors believe there’s no reason why they should have to put up with monthly periods while they’re on the pill–and they may have had more confidence in that assertion if the story had cited more independent experts who agree. This new approach to birth control pills may well offer significant advantages, without additional harms, to some women–but if that’s the case, there should be plenty of experts–not to mention women–who agree.
The story mentions potential cost savings for women who take the new birth control pill, which is intended to eliminate monthly menstrual-like bleeding, but the cost of the drug itself is not noted. The basis for a claim that the drug may also improve women’s work productivity is not clear either.
The article notes the percentage of women who took the new pill and stopped having periods–but it does not note how often this happens in women who take currently available pills. It’s also not clear how long the pill was taken by women who resumed menstruating after they stopped taking it–and how it compares with the experience of women who take traditional pills.
Harms of “all” birth control pills are noted, but no numbers provided. The story doesn’t mention whether these harms happened to similar numbers of women in trials of the new pill. The story would have been more balanced if it had quoted an independent expert discussing the real or perceived potential harms.
There’s no mention of the type of studies that were done in support of the new birth control pill, what type of pill it was compared with, and how the experience of women who took the comparison pills differed from that of women who took the new version.
While some women may indeed prefer no bleeding to the lighter, shorter ‘periods’ that are common in those who take traditional birth control pills, no evidence is cited to support this. it would have been interesting to hear from an expert as to whether this new approach is medicalizing a relatively normal bodily function. The suggestion that eliminating monthly menstrual bleeding might improve workplace productivity seems to come close to exaggerating the human consequences of this natural process.
The story appears to have relied largely on statements from a representative of the drug manufacturer. An additional expert is cited, but it’s not noted whether this person has any affiliation with the drug maker.
The article noted that some doctors may prescribe continous use of traditional pills, which can eliminate monthly periods; however, it doesn’t mention whether any other reversible birth control methods may have similar effects.
The article states that the drug maker has applied to FDA for approval, and expects a response by the end of June. The story also claims that the new birth control pill could be on the market by year’s end. However, there is no independent source cited in support of these claims. The trail of past baseless predictions of FDA approval and market availability is long.
The story explains that while the concept is fairly new, this particular product is not the first of its kind.
The article cites one independent expert, and so does not appear to have relied exclusively on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
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