This Reuters story summarizes new findings about Jardiance (empaglifozin), a diabetes drug developed by Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim and approved by the FDA last year. Following a recently published study, Jardiance is now being positioned as an add-on to standard care and a preventative therapy that reduces the risk of cardiovascular death, as well as risk of death from any cause, in patients with type 2 diabetes. The story capably lays out the basics of the study, but its reliance on relative risk figures (which may tend to inflate the magnitude of the effect), as well as the lack of any comment on potential harms, were considered significant drawbacks by our reviewers.
Editor’s note: We learned that Reuters made updates to the initial version of this story, including the headline, after our review was complete. Although we applaud such efforts to provide more information and context to readers, such efforts do miss readers like us who only saw the original version of the story.
People with type 2 diabetes are two to four times more likely to develop cardiovascular disease than people without diabetes, according to the World Heart Association. Cardiovascular disease is also a leading cause of death among people with diabetes.
An add-on therapy that can help prevent serious heart disease and fatal complications could have a significant impact on the lives of millions of people with type 2 diabetes.The CDC estimates that more than 9% of the U.S. population — or 29 million people — have type 2 diabetes.
The initial version of the story that we reviewed did not address cost.
An update to the story, posted after our review, noted the drug costs more than $4,000 annually.
The story relies entirely on relative risks to convey the benefits found in the study — most notably in the headline. We think that estimates based on relative risk can be misleading in isolation, and so we always prefer for stories to include a measure of absolute risk reduction as well. For example, the abstract of the study explains that the “slashing” of deaths mentioned in the headline means that the death rate was 5.7% in the Jardiance group compared with 8.3% in the placebo group.
The article didn’t mention any harms associated with Jardiance, a type of SGLT2 inhibitor. Some mention of potential adverse effects is always appropriate in stories about new drugs.
A close call on this one. The story makes it clear that this was a trial comparing empagliflozin to placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes who were at high risk of cardiovascular disease. And it lays out the main outcomes. But beyond that, it doesn’t tell us much. And it allows the lead study author to speculate — prematurely perhaps — that the study “would prompt medical societies to recommend in their treatment guidelines that Jardiance be used for type 2 diabetics that have a history of heart disease or are at risk of cardiovascular events.” While that’s possible, we don’t really know what these societies will recommend until they actually synthesize this evidence together with other available data — and so the story could have pushed back on that point.
We’ll give the benefit of the doubt here.
There’s no evidence of disease mongering in the story.
The initial version of this story includes only comments from Dr. Bernard Zinman, the lead investigator. The updated version of the story includes additional perspectives on the research, but neither version of the story makes it clear the the study was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, or that Dr Zinman and other co-authors disclosed financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim related to the study and outside of the study.
This is a novel preventative therapy and designated as an add-on, not a replacement, to standard therapy which include statins to lower cholesterol, and blood pressure drugs. The story mentions Invokana, another drug in the same class as empagliflozin, and it talks about cholesterol-lowering drugs and blood pressure medication.
The story notes that Jardiance was approved for use in the United States last fall, so it’s clear that the drug is available.
The drug is newsworthy because it is the first drug to have shown a significant reduction in cardiovascular events in people with type 2 diabetes — and the story makes this clear.
The story includes quotes from interview with Dr. Zinman, so we know that it went beyond the news release issued for the study.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Questions to ask about new Alzheimer’s drug research by @KatKStone incl:
-does study focus on patient outcomes or surrogate markers?
-does study rely on selective subgroups? (yield more favourable outcomes)
-who were the patients? https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2017/08/6-questions-to-ask-when-writing-and-reading-about-new-alzheimers-research/#.YRw5xNVXths.twitter @HealthNewsRevu
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments (1)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
marry
September 21, 2015 at 8:26 pmI also hope lots of people don’t use drug to help fight your diabetes. Try good diet and exercise.
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