NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

Newer ‘Second-Line’ Diabetes Drug May Outperform Older Meds

Rating

4 Star

Categories

Newer ‘Second-Line’ Diabetes Drug May Outperform Older Meds

Our Review Summary

This tightly written comparison of the side effects from a new diabetes drug compared to the most popular drugs on the market answers most of our questions but should have provided more hard numbers to address benefits, harms and costs.

 

Why This Matters

Diabetes rates are climbing throughout the world, and effective treatments are needed to address the core problem and to minimize side effects. Because these drugs are for chronic conditions, they can carry a high price tag. To help readers understand whether the lower side effect profile of a new drug is worth the additional cost, stories like this should provide better quantification of benefits, harms and costs.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Satisfactory

We were glad to see the story at least mentioned the cost issues, although we would have preferred some actual dollar figures. It says, “One expert said patients and doctors may still have to balance the superiority of linagliptin against its higher cost in comparison to older drugs.” And later it says, “millions of Americans suffer from type 2 diabetes, so ‘cost issues favoring sulfonylureas may be the only reason for preferring continued sulfonylurea use,’ he added.”  Barely satisfactory.

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

Not Satisfactory

The benefits were not fully described to back up the lead.  The information on the decreased number of heart attacks and strokes with linagliptin treatment is mentioned in the Lancet abstract and could have easily been added to this article.  Instead, all we got were vague comments of “worked as well” or “effectiveness of the drugs were (sic) similar. “

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

Satisfactory

There was inadequate/incomplete quantification of the harms.

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

Satisfactory

There’s a good description of the basic components of the study’s design. “To compare the effects of linagliptin to glimepiride (the most commonly used sulphonylurea), the researchers conducted a double-blind study over the course of two years. The study, which was funded by linagliptin’s maker, Boehringer Ingelheim, involved 1,500 people from 16 countries with type 2 diabetes. None of the patients had responded to metformin alone.”

In addition, this study is longer than most prior studies in this area which have only been over the course of 3-6 month rather than 2 full years, and therefore provides better evidence, over a longer timeframe, than prior work.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

There is no disease mongering in the story.

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

Satisfactory

The story says quite high that the study “was funded by linagliptin’s maker, Boehringer Ingelheim,” and it quotes one independent source. More sources would have been better.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The story basically talks about three drugs. The main drug, metformin; the supplementary class of drugs known as sulphonylureas; and the new drug being studied. But it does not talk more broadly about other approaches to diabetes management, which could have been accomplished with a few more sentences.

The article is set up, as the study is, to give a comparison between two specific drug types for second-line therapy along with metformin (a sulphonylurea and DPP-IV inhibitor, linagliptin).  However, there are several other “second-line therapy” drug classes out there that are used for the same purpose, including meglitinides such as repaglinide that may cause less hypoglycemia than sulphonylureas but are less expensive than DPP-IV inhibitors, and therefore may be a better option for patients than either of the drugs in this study.  So one or two sentences that place this study in the larger perspective of second-line therapy for diabetes, acknowledging other possible alternatives, would have been helpful for readers.

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

Not Satisfactory

It is not clear from the story whether this drug is available anywhere. You could interpret the story both ways. “The study authors pointed out linagliptin was licensed in 2011 and this is the first long-term study examining its safety and effectiveness. They added more research is needed to confirm their findings.”

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Applicable

There are no claims of novelty in the story.

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

Satisfactory

The story does cite the Lancet press release as a source.  We don’t understand why a major news organization would have to do this.  But since an independent source was quoted, we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.

Total Score: 6 of 9 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.