Fact Check Analysis: FDA Approves First New Type of Pain Medication in 25 Years

Fact-checking request submitted by a DBUNK subscriber. Want a news article fact-checked? Submit your request for free, and we’ll publish the results!

The article titled “FDA Approves First New Type of Pain Medication in 25 Years,” written by Brenda Goodman and published by CNN on January 30, 2025, discusses the FDA’s approval of a new non-opioid pain reliever, suzetrigine, marketed as Journavx. While the article contains largely accurate information, several points raise concerns about missing context, potential bias, and misleading conclusions that need to be addressed. Let’s dive into our detailed fact-checking analysis to uncover the truth.

Misleading Claims About Insurance Coverage and Affordability

The article briefly mentions the cost of the drug at $15.50 per pill and acknowledges that it may impact accessibility depending on insurance coverage. However, it fails to adequately explore whether insurance companies are likely to cover this expensive medication or what that might mean for patients. Given the drug’s pricing, this omission leaves readers with unanswered questions about affordability for the average American.

Though the article notes that patient assistance programs will be available, this claim is poorly substantiated and lacks specifics: how many patients will qualify, whether coverage extends to chronic versus acute pain, and what copay costs might look like. Readers understandably want to know whether insurers will deem this drug medically necessary for certain conditions. Without those answers, there’s a risk that this glorifies the approval without fully addressing its impact on accessibility.

Missing Scientific Data Transparency

The article provides some data from clinical trials but omits significant scientific details about the effectiveness of suzetrigine. For example, while it mentions that the drug reduced pain by about 50% in some trials (a 3.5-point reduction on a 0-10 pain scale), it also notes that suzetrigine performed no better than a placebo for sciatica-related chronic pain. The text glosses over this mixed result and does not explain the full implications. Readers may incorrectly conclude that suzetrigine represents a universal breakthrough, which is not the case.

Moreover, Vertex Pharmaceuticals’ claim that the drug could work for other types of chronic pain is presented without sufficient critique or third-party verification. This creates the impression of a bias toward the pharmaceutical company’s claims, which an independent analysis should never do.

Exaggerated Generalizations on Addiction Prevention

While the article emphasizes that suzetrigine prevents addiction due to its non-euphoric properties, it dangerously implies that it carries no risk of misuse or unintended consequences—an oversimplification of any drug’s long-term use effects. It’s true that suzetrigine operates differently than opioids, but concluding that it has no potential drawbacks lacks the nuance required for such a complex matter. For example, nerve signal suppression might carry unforeseen side effects, especially when the drug is used long-term. The article would benefit from input by additional experts skeptical of the “no addiction risk” claim.

Contextual Gaps in Research History

The claim that researchers took 25 years to leverage the genetic anomaly of a Pakistani family to develop the drug requires a more precise timeline and supporting evidence. Readers deserve to understand whether that timeframe reflects deliberate trial-and-error or broader scientific challenges. The absence of detailed context makes the discovery process sound more streamlined and inevitable than it likely was. Additionally, references to the study of sodium channel blockers lack sufficient grounding in prior attempts and their associated failures—skipping critical challenges that would make this approval more understandable as a genuine milestone.

Will Insurance Companies Cover This Medication?

As one of our readers asked: will this $15.50-per-pill medication actually be covered by insurance, or will it become yet another groundbreaking drug accessible to only a fraction of the population? Presently, it is too early to definitively answer this question. However, history suggests that high-cost medications often face significant hurdles before widespread coverage approval. Insurance companies commonly categorize such drugs as “specialty medications,” which means higher out-of-pocket costs and restrictive prior authorization processes for patients. Additionally, the lack of definitive studies beyond acute post-operative pain discussed in the article may hinder insurers’ willingness to cover suzetrigine.

Patients and doctors will undoubtedly face significant uncertainty until insurers announce their final coverage policies. DBUNK will continue monitoring this story for updates and provide a detailed breakdown as more information surfaces. Readers are encouraged to download our app to stay informed about evolving coverage landscapes.

Your Turn to Fact-Check With Us

The approval of suzetrigine is undoubtedly intriguing, but as this analysis reveals, surface-level reporting often hides deeper truths. With the DBUNK app, you can eliminate hours of personal research by relying on our nonpartisan, thorough fact-checking. Together, we can uncover reality beyond the headlines.

For the full article analyzed in this report, visit the original CNN article. And don’t forget—modern challenges require modern tools. Download the DBUNK app and empower yourself to cut through the noise and stay certifiedly informed.