Our Review Summary
This story reports on the FDA approval of a new drug, Januvia, for the treatment of type-2 diabetes. Januvia is yet another option in a large sea of existing therapies for type -2 diabetes. Januvia may represent an improvement over other therapies in its convenience and a possible decreased risk of side effects. Januvia can be taken once a day orally, as opposed to injections or multiple daily oral doses for other drugs. However, because Januvia represents a new approach to treating diabetes, little is known about its long-term safety or efficacy and it is still unclear how it will fit in with existing approaches. This story does provide the reader with some context for the controversy around this drug, but could have gone further to inform the reader.
The story does not quantify the benefits of treatment. The story does state that the effects of the drug were "modest," but this is not adequate information on the benefits of treatment. Although the story indicates that further research is needed, it does not adequately describe the nature of the existing evidence. Furthermore, the story states that the drug will cost $4.86, but there is no indication of how this cost compares to existing therapies. Furthermore, it is likely that often the drug will need to be combined with other drugs, adding to the costs.
By accurately describing the prevalence and seriousness of diabetes, the story does not engage in disease mongering. The story does mention alternative treatments, such as diet and exercise, metformin, and insulin, however the story could have done more to explain how this new drug will fit in with existing therapies. Furthermore, the story should have compared the side effects of the new drug to some of the newer drugs on the market, such as Byetta, and not to some of the older drugs.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
The story states that the drug will cost $4.86, but there is no indication of how this cost compares to existing therapies. Furthermore, it is likely that often the drug will need to be combined with another drug, adding to the costs. Also the article cites what is likely to be the average wholesale price and not the price to the consumer.
Not Satisfactory
The story does not quantify the benefits of treatment. The story does state that the effects of the drug were "modest," but this is not adequate information on the benefits of treatment.
Satisfactory
The story mentions the side effects of the drug. The story also comments on the uncertainty around the long-term safety of the drug.
Not Satisfactory
Although the story indicates that further research is needed, it does not adequately describe the nature of the existing evidence.
Satisfactory
By accurately describing the prevalence and seriousness of diabetes, the story does not engage in disease mongering.
Satisfactory
The story quotes multiple sources. The story aso points out that an expert was paid by the drug company.
Satisfactory
The story does mention alternative treatments, such as diet and exercise, metformin, and insulin, however the story could have done more to explain how this new drug will fit in with existing therapies. Furthermore, the story should have compared the side effects of the new drug to some of the newer drugs on the market, such as Byetta, and not to some of the older drugs.
Satisfactory
The story clearly states that the drug was recently approved and will soon be on the market.
Satisfactory
The story clearly states that this drug is the first in its class, representing a novel approach to the treatment of diabetes, however there are several others that are in the pipeline that will likely be available by the end of the year.
Satisfactory
Because the story quotes multiple independent sources, the reader can assume the story does not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
Total Score: 7 of 10 Satisfactory
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