"The story states that the drug will cost $4.86, but there is no indication of how this cost compares to existing therapies. Furthermore, it is likely that often the drug will need to be combined with another drug, adding to the costs. Also the article cites what is likely to be the average wholesale price and not the price to the consumer. The story does not quantify the benefits of treatment. The story does state that the effects of the drug were ""modest,"" but this is not adequate information on the benefits of treatment. The story mentions the side effects of the drug. The story also comments on the uncertainty around the long-term safety of the drug. Although the story indicates that further research is needed, it does not adequately describe the nature of the existing evidence. By accurately describing the prevalence and seriousness of diabetes, the story does not engage in disease mongering. The story quotes multiple sources. The story aso points out that an expert was paid by the drug company. The story does mention alternative treatments, such as diet and exercise, metformin, and insulin, however the story could have done more to explain how this new drug will fit in with existing therapies. Furthermore, the story should have compared the side effects of the new drug to some of the newer drugs on the market, such as Byetta, and not to some of the older drugs. The story clearly states that the drug was recently approved and will soon be on the market. The story clearly states that this drug is the first in its class, representing a novel approach to the treatment of diabetes, however there are several others that are in the pipeline that will likely be available by the end of the year. Because the story quotes multiple independent sources, the reader can assume the story does not rely on a press release as the sole source of information."
One-a-day pill OK’d for Type 2 diabetes