Vaccine shows protection against gonorrhea, STAT reports. But what about the costs and potential harms?

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

Satisfactory

The story just passes the bar, giving actual numbers far down in the story. It states researchers “found people who were vaccinated were 31 percent less likely to be infected with gonorrhea than those who hadn’t received the meningococcal B vaccine.”

We would have liked to see that data higher in the story. Instead, the story states in the third paragraph that the gonorrhea rate was “significantly lower” among those who were vaccinated. The story doesn’t give the overall risk of getting gonorrhea, so it’s hard to tell whether a 31 percent drop amounts to a significant benefit for individuals.

The study itself states that the findings provide preliminary evidence of “moderate” cross-protection, and we think that should have been given more discussion so people get a better sense of how little is known about the efficacy compared to other vaccines.

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

Satisfactory

The story states that the findings were observational and adds: “Clinical trials will need to be conducted to see if the effect researchers have observed is actually due to the meningococcal B vaccine.”

It explains that only a particular vaccine component that protects against one strain of meningitis appears to offer some protection against gonorrhea, while meningococcal vaccines that protect against other strains do not.

The story could have mentioned the number of vaccinated young people in the study, which was nearly 15,000.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

The story dramatizes the threat of antibiotic resistance with an unattributed statement: “The last remaining drugs to cure this sexually transmitted infection are showing signs they may only have a few more years of usefulness left.”

It also gives a quote from a GSK spokeswoman who calls the findings “a positive step in the search for a vaccine against this common and distressing disease that is increasingly resistant to antibiotic treatment.”

As this Scientific American article explains, that actual rate of antibiotic-resistance–while on the rise–is still pretty small.

Independent sources would have been useful on this point, but we wouldn’t say this rises to the level of disease mongering.

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

Satisfactory

The story reports that the study was funded by GSK and Auckland Uniservices, the commercialization arm of the University of Auckland. It does not mention that one of the researchers in the study has been a paid consultant for GSK and other drugmakers.

The story appears to use one independent source, Dr. Jean Longtin, head of Quebec’s public health laboratory. It also quotes from an accompanying editorial by Kate Seib, of Australia’s Institute for Glycomics, who declared no conflicts.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

There’s no discussion of other strategies to address the spread of gonorrhea. The CDC has urged the development of new treatments for gonorrhea. Public health education, including condom use, can prevent new cases. A report sponsored by health agencies in the U.S. and the United Kingdom highlighted the need for strong data-driven public health surveillance to better understand how resistant strains evolve and get transmitted, as well as point-of-care diagnostic testing to identify resistant strains. At least a line or two discussing these alternatives would have informed readers that the vaccine isn’t the only solution.

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

Satisfactory

The story says the single-component vaccine used in New Zealand is no longer made but that the component is part of GSK’s Bexsero vaccine, which is on the market. The story also distinguishes the B vaccine from others on the market: “Meningococcal vaccines that protect against the other strains do not seem to have the same effect (on gonorrhea).”

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

Significance is conveyed in the headline: “Vaccine shows protection against gonorrhea for first time, study says.”

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

Satisfactory

The story does not appear to rely on the news release from The Lancet.