text_1: New Merck osteoporosis drug boosts bone density
text_2: "This story, about results from a Phase II trial of Merck’s new osteoporosis drug odanacatib, should not have been published in a mainstream publication. Phase II results are not necessarily predictive of Phase III results or of FDA approval. Readers looking for new treatments for osteoporosis are likely to assume incorrectly that safety, efficacy and availability are assured. The reporter could have tempered the story by interviewing independent experts with no stake in the drug being studied, who likely would have pointed this out. Further, by talking to an independent clinician, the reporter could have learned about existing treatments for osteoporosis and how this one could–possibly, and at some point in the future–compare. Supplements, diet and exercise have been shown to slow or even halt osteoporosis for some patients. So have some drugs currently on the market. The story also fails to clarify a point that would be valuable to consumers: That risk of fracture, not bone mass density, is the most meaningful outcome for osteoporosis drugs. Because this trial did not look at that outcome, the drug’s practical clinical value remains untested. The report should have plainly stated this caveat. And finally, it is well known that osteoporosis is a ""big market opportunity"" in the pharma trade. In other words, new drugs in this field, if well-publicized and well-marketed, can be huge revenue and profit drivers for the company. By failing to mention price, and the very strong financial motivation for a company to be first-to-market with a novel drug in this category, the reporter misses an opportunity to help educate readers about a source of rising healthcare costs–and to invite a skeptical view of news about unpublished Phase II results about this drug. Which is why we think this story should not have been published in a newspaper."