Read Original Story

New Drug Treats Fibroids With Fewer Side Effects


3 Star


New Drug Treats Fibroids With Fewer Side Effects

Our Review Summary

Both stories had overall strengths, but both missed the cost question and could have done more to explain both harms and benefits. In all, though, they took a dispassionate look at studies that easily could have been hyped.


Why This Matters

Whenever you have a drugmaker moving into the naming phase on a product line, you know the marketing machine is getting revved up. That’s what is happening with Esmya. This story attempts to explain both the science behind the drug and the marketing push. With a little harder look at the science and a little better explanation of the studies’ ties to the drugmakers, the story could have been stronger.


Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

No mention of costs.  If the drug is awaiting marketing approval in Europe, some estimate could have been obtained.  And, since the drug has the active chemical of the Ella contraceptive drug – only in smaller doses – at least the cost of Ella could have been cited.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?


Adequate discussion of benefits as seen in the two published studies.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

This story at least mentioned potential harms and that “it remains to be seen if the drug is safe for long-term, intermittent use.”

But we think it is inadequate to simply state that those on the drug had “significantly fewer side effects.”  What does “significantly fewer” mean?  And what were they?

Both stories we reviewed could have talked a bit more about the experimental nature of this drug and the problems seen in the past with hormone-regulating drugs.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?


The competing Associated Press story did a better job explaining the specifics behind the study and actually providing the number of patients studied. This story did a decent job, though, summarizing the evidence and bringing in the researcher who wrote an accompanying editorial to say that “it remains to be seen if the drug is safe for long-term, intermittent use.”

Does the story commit disease-mongering?


No disease mongering. This story provided a few more facts than the AP story and made it clear why these findings may be hugely important for women with fibroids. It said, “Uterine fibroids are the most common indication for the close to 600,000 hysterectomies performed each year in the U.S. About 1 in 4 women in their childbearing years have symptoms related to fibroids, such as heavy periods and related iron deficiency, abdominal pain, and fertility problems, according to figures from the National Institutes of Health.”

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

We were happy to see this story explain which drugmakers were interested in Esmya as a product line, but the story failed to make the same connection made in the AP story. The AP pointed out that the study was funded by these drug companies and that the researchers had worked as advisers for the companies. This is a big omission. The independent commentary from the researcher who wrote the accompanying editorial was welcome.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The story ended with an important message about patient decision-making and with an expert quote that there are good alternatives to hysterectomy but many patients never hear about them.  But then the story missed the golden opportunity of outlining what those alternatives are.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?


The story makes it clear that the drug is a variation of a drug already on the market but that it is not yet approved for use.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?


Neither story was very clear on this point, but the WebMD story did not make a claim of novelty the way the AP story did. Contrast the two leads:

WebMD: “A new drug appears to be effective for shrinking uterine fibroids and controlling the heavy menstrual bleeding they often cause, according to new research from Europe.”

AP: “New research offers hope for the first pill to treat a common problem in young women: fibroids in the uterus. The growths can cause pain, heavy bleeding and fertility problems, and they are the leading cause of hysterectomies.”

We’ll give a lukewarm “satisfactory” grade.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?


Neither story relied on a press release.

Total Score: 6 of 10 Satisfactory


Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.