We applaud the degree and clarity of the context and explanations provided by this story – about how this is not new info, how the FDA had problems with this kind of data when it reviewed it earlier, and how there were financial ties between the study authors and the drug maker.
This is the kind of explanatory journalism we appreciate: seeing through the headlines and the trumpeting of benefits that may come through even in journal articles and their news releases.
Not applicable. There was no discussion of costs, but the entire story was about the troubled path of a drug that was denied FDA approval last Fall.
This story didn’t quantify the benefits reported in the latest published study as well as the competing CNN.com story did. The story did make it clear that the journal article and accompanying news release “touted” benefits – but that “In its assessment of those improvements in a June 17 memorandum last year, the FDA’s scientists were not quite as breathless.”
But by not giving the actual numbers seen in the study, the story deprives readers of the chance to assess the value of the combo pill for themselves.
No discussion of potential harms.
Excellent job. Readers should have no question after reading:
No disease mongering in this story.
Good job on this. The story stated clearly: “The study described in the Lancet was funded by Vivus. Three of its seven authors are employees of Vivus, a fourth was an employee of the contract research organization that coordinated the study for Vivus. The lead author has served as a consultant to Vivus, and the second author acknowledged receiving donations, honoraria, consulting fees or grants from Vivus (as well as several other pharmaceutical firms with interests in weight-loss drugs).”
There was an adequate analysis of the drugs that were the focus of the latest published study. The story stated:
This story was clear that the drug Qnexa was “investigational” and had been denied FDA approval last October.
The story does a good job painting the picture of the landscape of Qnexa and two other drugs that have not won FDA approval.
More importantly, while some other news organizations reported, for example, on the “significant promise” in “the new report,” this story emphasized: “this study is not so new — and its findings may be less weighty than might be concluded with its publication in this respected medical journal.”
It’s clear that this story did not rely on a news release. In fact, it countered some of the claims in a news release.