text_1: Problems spur FDA caution on insulin pump
text_2: "First, let’s be clear that this is a review of an Associated Press story as shortened by the St. Paul Pioneer Press. Some of the flaws commented on were not present in the original AP story. The story was about a 10-year retrospective study of adverse events resulting from adolescent use of insulin pumps conducted by the FDA and published in the May issue of the journal Pediatrics. Insulin pumps are being used more often to deliver insulin to the body through a plastic tube with a small tip that inserts under the skin. The article provides a good description of the pumps, indicating that they are approximately the size of a cell phone and can be worn on a belt or kept in a pocket. Insulin pumps have been primarily used by adults but are now being used more often by adolescents because it allows them to lead more normal lives by eliminating the need for them to give themselves insulin injections in public. The results of adverse events reported by in the FDA study, including 13 deaths and more than 1,500 pump-related injuries over the past decade, were accurately presented. However, no denominator was given so the numbers lose context and meaning. Estimated causes of these adverse events – patient misuse, lack of education, and device malfunction – were also described. A notable omission from the story was the importance of parental supervision as three of the 13 deaths occurred when there was no adult supervision. The original AP story provided a good overall summary of the health concerns related to insulin pump use among adolescents and the need for for more study to address safety concerns. But all for the sake of cutting 290 words, the St. Paul Pioneer Press version lost:    any discussion of cost – something lacking in about 75% of all stories we review. (And at a time when the US devotes 16% of the GDP to health care spending!) the emphasis on the parental oversight issue the perspectives of two other knowledgeable sources  Yet it left in a defensive comment from the Medtronic company ""which makes the top-selling insulin pump."" Why cut out independent perspectives and leave in the Medtronic comment? Is it because it’s a local Twin Cities company? Not a good reason in our estimation."