No discussion of costs, something we always look for and wish would be provided. As already noted, the story explained that the drug “isn’t a magic bullet. The study showed that 37 percent of women who got weekly injections of it delivered prematurely, compared to 55 percent of women who got injections of a placebo.” Good discussion of concerns and ongoing monitoring of the drug’s safety. The story explains the drug “isn’t a magic bullet. The study showed that 37 percent of women who got weekly injections of it delivered prematurely, compared to 55 percent of women who got injections of a placebo.” No disease-mongering of prematurity or its consequences. The medical director of The March of Dimes was quoted throughout. (Although they are seen as having a very pro-progesterone slant that is not held by consumer/advocacy/health policy/maternity care groups in UK, Australia, and Canada. in those countries surveys of providers uniformly get low utilization responses with the reason stated being need for more data. Similar surveys of US providers (specialty and generalists) show the vast majority use >70% (as opposed to low double digits in more evidence-driven countries) and that mission creep has started. Indications for which it is not tested see regular use in the US.) There was at least the historical perspective on “the last drug thought to prevent premature birth – a synthetic estrogen called diethylstilbesterol, or DES.” The focus of the story is FDA approval of the drug. Good historical context, explaining that “Interestingly, the drug is not new — it’s just taken a long and circuitous route to approval.” It’s clear the story didn’t rely solely on a news release.
FDA Approves First Drug To Prevent Preterm Births