Diabetes is a huge public health problem, but it is also a rapidly evolving field of research. This story reports on the release of clinical trial results of a new class of diabetes drugs at the American Diabetes Association meeting.
Although the story claims that the pills are “experimental” and that the drug companies “hope to win FDA approval to begin selling them by year’s end”, this is not sufficient information on availability. The story should provide more insight about what phase of research the drugs are in and provide some justification for the proposed timeline for approval. Although the story does mention other diabetes drugs, the story does not elaborate on the advantages or disadvantages of the new drugs compared to existing drugs. Ultimately, it is not clear how these new drugs will fit with existing approaches.
Furthermore, iIn several places, the article leaves the reader with the impression that everyone with diabetes needs to have strict blood sugar control (i.e. A1C less than 7%). In reality, there is little data to support this.
The story provides quantification of benefits in relative terms only. (See “absolute vs. relative risk” under “Things you should know about research stories” on the home page of this site.) The story provides quantification of benefits in relative terms only. And it does not give enough details about the impact on weight loss, the amount of weight loss, or if people were able to maintain it. Although the story mentions two trials, the story does not provide adequate information on the strength of the available evidence. The story quotes an American Diabetes Associaiton official saying “The positive effects of the drugs, coupled with fewer of the negatives seen in other diabetes treatments, is what sets them apart.” But it doesn’t adequately explain or quantify those “fewer negatives.” It also says “Side effects of the pills include cold and flulike symptoms and headaches,” but doesn’t give any detail about how often these are seen.
The story does mention that the drugs are expensive, $3 to $6 a day compared to pennies a day for other diabetes drugs. What isn’t clear is whether these new drugs need to be taken in combination with older ones, which obviously increases the cost. The story does quote a vice president of the American Diabetes Association and a Merck employee, but could have quoted other clinicians or researchers who do not have a stake in the claims being made and who could provide some additional perspectives.
The story does mention that the drugs are expensive, $3 to $6 a day compared to pennies a day for other diabetes drugs. What isn’t clear is whether these new drugs need to be taken in combination with older ones, which obviously increases the cost.
The story provides quantification of benefits in relative terms only. And it does not give enough details about the impact on weight loss, the amount of weight loss, or if people were able to maintain it.
The story quotes an American Diabetes Associaiton official saying “The positive effects of the drugs, coupled with fewer of the negatives seen in other diabetes treatments, is what sets them apart.” But it doesn’t adequately explain or quantify those “fewer negatives.” It also says “Side effects of the pills include cold and flulike symptoms and headaches,” but doesn’t give any detail about how often these are seen.
Although the story mentions two trials, the story does not provide adequate information on the strength of the available evidence.
In several places, the article leaves the reader with the impression that everyone with diabetes needs to have strict blood sugar control (i.e. A1C less than 7%). In reality, there is little data to support this. This is disease mongering by implying that everyone with diabetes needs to have an A1C less than 7%.
The story does quote a vice president of the American Diabetes Association and a Merck employee. The story could have quoted other clinicians or researchers who do not have a stake in the claims being made and who could provide some additional perspectives. Nonetheless, we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt and rate it satisfactory here.
Although the story does mention other diabetes drugs, the story does not elaborate on the advantages or disadvantages of the new drugs compared to existing drugs. Ultimately, it is not clear how these new drugs will fit with existing approaches.
Although the story claims that the pills are “experimental” and that the drug companies “hope to win FDA approval to begin selling them by year’s end”, this is not sufficient information on availability. The story should provide more insight about what phase of research the drugs are in and provide some justification for the proposed timeline for approval.
The story clearly states that these medications are the first in a new class of drugs.
We can’t be sure if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information.
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