Prevention magazine wrote about “9 remarkable innovations that promise to revolutionize how doctors prevent, diagnose, and treat common conditions and diseases.” The NBC Today Show chopped the list from 9 down to 6 and then put it on the air and on their website, labeling it as “6 breakthroughs that could change medicine: Prevention magazine shares some game-changing new developments.” NBC even further blessed the list by having its medical correspondent Dr. Nancy Snyderman go on the air to talk about each one. The anchorwoman said Snyderman would explain “how they could affect all of us.”
Well, we asked one of our medical editors, Dr. Steve Atlas of the Massachusetts General Hospital, to critique the story. To begin with, Dr. Atlas says:
“Catchy title, too bad it’s not true. Most clinicians know that true ‘game changers’ in medicine are real but uncommon.”
So let’s review these “game changers.”
1. Vaguely described as “breakthrough that could stave off cancer naturally.” They were talking about exercise and the fact that the American College of Sports Medicine is now certifying “cancer exercise trainers.”
Dr. Atlas says:
“Of course exercise is a good thing for everyone, including those with cancer. Is this a breakthrough? Hardly. How does the cancer exercise trainer compare to someone who just provides support and no exercise to the cancer patient or compared to a recommendation to walk for 3 hours a week?”
2. “A new drug called dabigatran prevents more strokes with less bleeding than warfarin.” Dr. Atlas says:
“Dabigatran may be a game changer, but there is one thing the story didn’t mention. The group that got Dabigatran had more heart attacks than those who got coumadin. Oops! This could be the real game changer from the FDA’s perspective. Note it’s still under review there.”
3. Research that offers new hope for an HIV vaccine. Dr. Atlas says:
“Good news, but it will be years before additional research leads to a vaccine. And the results weren’t spectacular by any means. Just better than the dismal prior attempts.”
4. “Omega-3 fatty acids have been upgraded from nutritional supplement to bona fide heart medicine: Lovaza, a prescription medication.” Dr.Atlas says:
“There hasn’t been a large randomized trial comparing (the cholesterol-lowering drug) Lipitor alone to Lipitor plus omega-3 fatty acid. That’s the breakthrough study I’m waiting for! Data so far is hopeful. What’s the bang for the buck? No clue.”
5. Device to predict heart attack or stroke risk. Dr. Atlas says:
“This is hardly worth mentioning. Every year there are 10 new predictors. The Framingham prediction rule is still going strong after many, many years.”
6. Breakthrough that could lead to a cure for Alzheimer’s. This was about a test and also a drug – a drug that doesn’t even go into clinical trials until this year. Dr. Atlas says:
“This one’s cruel. Desperate families with Alzheimer’s patients can have no hope that this drug will be available outside of studies for 3-5 years. Who knows if it will help?”
Breakthroughs? That could affect all of us?
Just look at the simple, cautious, common-sense, evidence-based approach Dr. Atlas applied to each of the claims. That’s something any of could start to do better. And THAT would be a breakthrough!
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Kevin
January 15, 2010 at 11:15 amRe: the bang for buck calculations on Lovaza, the back-of-envelope calculations are not good. Check out this post from William Davis’s Heart Scan Blog. “Prescription” does not necessarily mean better, though many will assume that it does.
http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/lovaza-rip-off.html
Bill Gleason
January 15, 2010 at 8:48 pmExaggerations seem to be de rigueur for medical school deans, also. Here at the University of Minnesota our medical school dean bragged today in the Strib:
“‘Curing Alzheimer’s, curing diabetes, making new hearts to replace diseased ones — that’s what this investment* will make possible,’ he [Cerra] said. A state that’s eager to control medical costs and improve people’s lives does well to make that investment, even — or especially — during lean times.”
Let me know when all of these things happen, please, Dr. Cerra. No doubt there will be a large number of Nobel prizes at Minnesota by then?
*The “investment” is going for multiple new biomedical research buildings whose need is debatable, to put it politely. The U is also engaged in a childrens hospital arms race that is not going to help in keeping health care costs down. And of course we are too busy with all of this to attend to the open wound that is a new conflict of interest policy.
And so it goes…
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like