HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Doubt Cited on Aspirin-Blood Thinner Combo
March 13, 2006
Some people taking the blood thinner Plavix on top of aspirin to try to prevent heart attacks, as many doctors recommend, now have good reason to stop. The drug combination not only didn't help most people in a newly released study, but it unexpectedly almost doubled the risk of death, heart attack or stroke for those with no clogged arteries but with worrisome conditions like high blood pressure and high cholesterol.
Our Review Summary
This story offers a good overview of the results of a trial that combined the blood thinner Plavix with aspirin to try to prevent heart attacks in people who don't appear to have heart disease but who have conditions like high blood pressure and high cholesterol. The story describes key outcomes of the study, and includes a clear statement that the results do not change recommendations for patients who seem to benefit from the combination - "people who recently have had heart attacks or a procedure to unclog an artery." This story stands as a good example of what can be included in a 700-word story.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
Cost of Plavix is included in the story.
The opposite of disease mongering, this story explains the study's questions of preventive benefit from the Plavix-aspirin combination, including one researcher's quote: "You don't use this drug for patients without coronary artery disease."
Good, easily-understandable explanation of how the study was done.
The story not only provided good data on benefits, but also a definition of which type of patients benefited.
Does not appear to have relied on a press release.
The story includes input from researchers, editorial writer, and from drug maker. However, it is not clear if the story included any input from any independent source not directly tied to the study.
Story explains why researchers thought adding clopidogrel to aspirin might be helpful in a broader group of people.
Total Score: 10 of 10 Satisfactory
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is considered the gold standard of preventive health recommendations - including on screening tests. It's a good source for journalists and consumers.
About 70% of the stories reviewed from 2006-9 failed to adequately discuss costs, or to explain how big (or small) are the potential benefits and harms of treatments, tests, products and procedures.
We have documented a disturbing trend of news stories taking an advocacy stance, promoting certain screening tests outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.
Stories on new technologies like Cyberknife, DaVinci robotic surgery systems, and proton beam cancer therapy often fail to scrutinize the evidence and/or to discuss the costs involved.
Rather than suggesting that everyone should be screened for everything, news stories could explain: "All screening tests cause harm; some may do good."
The first 38 network TV network morning health news stories reviewed in 2009 earned an average score of 1.2 stars. 13 of the 38 stories got ZERO stars.
Both TIME magazine and BusinessWeek have published terrific stories explaining the importance of the Number Needed to Treat - or NNT.
Knowing relative risk reduction is like knowing you have a 50% off coupon but not knowing whether it's for a Lexus or a lollipop. Absolute risk reduction tells you what the "coupon" is worth. Read more.
The website NoFreeLunch.org posts "a database of health care professionals who have pledged to accept no gifts from industry and to rely on non-promotional sources of information."
To help journalists cover stories responsibly, we post a list of independent experts who state that they do not have financial ties to drug or medical device manufacturers.
We apply the same ten standardized criteria to the review of every story.
We have about 30 story reviewers. Each story is reviewed by 3 different people.
Gary Schwitzer's seven words you shouldn't use in medical news: cure, miracle, breakthrough, promising, dramatic, hope, victim. Read why.
Our reviewers include two former CNN medical reporters and a former editor of the Washington Post health section.