[ad_1]
Our summary summary
This story is one of two we're looking at, which is the FDA's approval of a drug designed to speed up the recovery of patients with flu symptoms (the second story is from the New York Times). The drug is baloxavir marboxil, marketed under the brand name Xofluza.
This ABC News article did not adequately address the costs, the potential damage or the fact that Xofluza did not do better than oseltamivir (sold under the name Tamiflu) to reduce flu symptoms in a clinical trial. He also told readers that the researchers thought the drug "would help reduce the spread of the flu," but said there was no evidence that would make a profit.
Why is it important
Influenza is quite common, as recent findings from the CDC demonstrate. This means that many people will probably have to make decisions about how to treat the flu and its symptoms over the next year. In order to make an informed decision, patients need good information about the costs and potential health risks associated with treatment options – and this is especially true when new treatment options appear on the market. This story does not properly address these key issues.
criteria
Does the narrative correctly quantify the benefits of the treatment / test / product / procedure?
Not satisfying
The story explains that Xofluza is designed to reduce the duration of flu symptoms by more than a day, which is more than the New York Times did – but it's still not a quantified benefit. In addition, although the NYT story clearly indicates that the results of the clinical trials demonstrate that the benefits are comparable between Xofluza and Tamiflu, this story does not mention the result.
In addition, neither ABC News nor NYT reported that there was no statistically significant difference for the Xofluza group with respect to study participants who reported feeling again in their usual state of health.
Finally, ABC News said that "the researchers believe that the drug will prevent patients from spreading the flu" – but the report does not explain that there is no evidence that this benefit exists.
Does the story correctly explain / quantify the disadvantages of the intervention?
Not satisfying
History indicates that Xofluza is associated with "fewer side effects" than Tamiflu, but it does not mention any potential danger. The company that markets Xofluza reports that its most common side effects are diarrhea, bronchitis, headache, nausea, and cold symptoms. These potential side effects deserve to be mentioned. In addition, neither this story nor that of the NYT, specified that the drug should not be used by breastfeeding mothers or pregnant women, given the lack of information as to whether Xofluza can enter the milk or how it could affect prenatal health.
Does history compare the new approach to existing alternatives?
Not satisfying
History does not mention that the results of the clinical trials have shown that the benefits are comparable between Xofluza and Tamiflu. It is a fundamental forgetfulness. Why is it important? First, the cost of the generic Tamiflu will be much lower than that of Xofluza (because there will be no generic on the market).
Does history establish the true novelty of the approach?
Satisfactory
The story deals directly with novelty, noting: "This drug is the first of a new class of antiviral drugs that blocks an influenza virus enzyme, which stops viral replication at the beginning of the flu cycle, announced the FDA. "
Overall score: 4 out of 10 Satisfactory
[ad_2]
Source link
