HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable

Why this matters to patients

As a news consumer and health care consumer, Dave deBronkart has learned to scrutinize the true novelty of some supposedly new health care claims.

Why does this Matter?

In health care, newer isn't always better. In fact, sometimes it really isn't even "newer"
Many "new" treatments, tests, products or procedures are not really novel. A "new" drug may be another member of a well-established therapeutic class of drugs.
Even if a drug is the first in a new class of drugs it may offer no more than the drugs that are widely available.
Drug companies are very good at promoting their new drugs as "novel" in order to increase initial sales.
Also realize that some claims about new drugs are claims made for uses that haven't been approved by the FDA. Doctors are allowed to prescribe a drug for such an "off-label" use. But the FDA advises doctors in such circumstances that .they have the responsibility to be well informed about the product, to base its use on firm scientific rationale and on sound medical evidence, and to maintain records of the product's use and effects."
But our experience with this project so far shows that journalism does an awful job of discussing costs - getting the weakest grades of any of our ten criteria.
One study recommended more careful monitoring of off-label uses that might waste money and harm patients.
And some insurance plans will not reimburse the cost of drugs prescribed for "off-label" use.
"New" medical devices may not be that novel, either. We reviewed a story on NBC about FDA approval of a new laser hair comb for baldness. NBC called it a .potential cure for baldness." But the story failed to point out how such devices are approved by the FDA. Some new devices must only pass a test of "substantial equivalence" to products already on the market. The FDA lists 10 such products. So not only did the story fail to tell how well the device works, it failed to put the new idea into the context of existing alternatives.
And if you think drug and device approval is less than a guarantee of novelty, consider that no one approves new surgical procedures.
We repeat: newer isn't always better in health care. And it may not really even be newer.

Erbitux OK for colorectal cancer patients with genetic marker

The article makes clear that the tested treatment is widely used. It also explains that previous research has been done on this specific question, preventing readers from thinking the conclusions of this research are novel.

Dialysis more often doesn't help patients

The story described the results of a soon-to-be published study and described this clearly. That said, it also mentioned that there had been previous studies, which were smaller and were based on outcomes from individual institutions with different outcomes from the study reported on. This provides a context for the reader to understand that the study reported on was not done in a complete vacuum of information.

Trial For New Lupus Treatment Is Called Promising

The pipeline for effective lupus drugs has indeed been dry for quite a while. The article indicates that this is a novel product of genomic technology.

Tomato Scoop

This story reports on a lycopene supplement as though this was news. There are other lycopene supplements on the market.

Study suggests a second LDL test

The article implies the LipoProfile test is a novel method of identifying otherwise hidden heart disease risk using lipid analysis.

In fact, there are several tests available and under development that seek to link heart disease risk with a variety of lipid measures other than LDL and HDL numbers.

Encouraging news about reversing heart disease

The story does not explain if the drug is new, old, investigational, or already approved.