This is a brief story on findings from a phase II trial of a new oral insulin medication conducted by Oramed, a pharmaceutical company.
The story gives us the basics on the study design and findings. It’s made clear that the drug must undergo further testing before it’s approved for use.
The only commentary, though, was from the CEO. Given the nature of the research–unpublished and coming directly from a pharmaceutical company–an outside source would have made this story stronger. (We also reviewed the news release this story seems to be based on.)
The worldwide occurrence of diabetes is about 400 million people, 90 percent of whom have type II diabetes. Many of these people eventually have to supplement their oral medications with injected insulin. Previously, oral delivery of insulin was considered impossible because the drug degrades in the digestive system, but Oramed believes they have overcome this problem.
A comparison of cost to currently available long-acting insulin would have been informative, but the report is on a trial for safety and efficacy, so this is preliminary.
The story reports a decrease in “mean night-time glucose of nearly 6.5 percent” compared with a placebo. However, there is no indication of what that means for control of type II diabetes–absolute numbers are needed to be useful. The difference appears to be small and similar to what already-available oral medications can do. It’s also not clear if these patients continued to take metformin or not.
This story states that there were “no reported serious adverse side effects and no issues with hypoglycemia, or dangerously low blood sugar.”
The story tells us this was a randomly chosen, blinded study of 180 people over 28 days, and considered a Phase II trial. The story also mentions that stage III trials still need to be done, which is when the drug might be considered for approval. These are important details.
But, because it’s an unpublished study, no one outside of the company has taken a look at the evidence. This story should have had a stronger signal that this is potentially straying from the realm of science and into marketing.
Type II diabetes is a known disease of the industrial world and the numbers of people are increasing while the ages at which they are diagnosed is decreasing. An oral insulin would aid people in controlling their blood sugar levels.
The story includes comments from the CEO. Getting an independent voice is especially important when the data is preliminary and comes from the pharmaceutical company.
The story does say that this drug is intended for those for whom metformin, a standard treatment for type II diabetes, is no longer sufficient. But because there are many alternatives for diabetes management, and none were mentioned, this is Not Satisfactory.
The story makes it clear that the drug needs more research before it will be reviewed by the FDA for approval.
The story makes it clear that if this drug delivers the necessary insulin by mouth, then this would be a novel advance in treatment–and a “multibillion-dollar product.”
Because the story contains original quotes not found in the news release, this squeaks by as Satisfactory. It is clear, however, that this story is being published because of promotional outreach by the company, and the lack of outside perspective makes this feel more like a news release than a piece of journalism. (We also reviewed the news release.)
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
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/
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