Duff Wilson’s New York Times piece, “Risks Seen in Cholesterol Drug Use in Healthy People,” raises important questions about expanding the market for statins.
Especially strong was his breakdown of absolute risk reduction – and of cost impact. Here’s how he ended the piece:
“Critics said the claim of cutting heart disease risk in half — repeated in news reports nationwide — may have misled some doctors and consumers because the patients were so healthy that they had little risk to begin with.
The rate of heart attacks, for example, was 0.37 percent, or 68 patients out of 8,901 who took a sugar pill. Among the Crestor patients it was 0.17 percent, or 31 patients. That 55 percent relative difference between the two groups translates to only 0.2 percentage points in absolute terms — or 2 people out of 1,000.
Stated another way, 500 people would need to be treated with Crestor for a year to avoid one usually survivable heart attack. Stroke numbers were similar.
“That’s statistically significant but not clinically significant,” said Dr. Steven W. Seiden, a cardiologist in Rockville Centre, N.Y., who is one of many practicing cardiologists closely following the issue. At $3.50 a pill, the cost of prescribing Crestor to 500 people for a year would be $638,000 to prevent one heart attack.
Is it worth it? AstraZeneca and the F.D.A. have concluded it is.
Others disagree.
“The benefit is vanishingly small,” Dr. Seiden said. “It just turns a lot of healthy people into patients and commits them to a lifetime of medication.”
Winnie O’Kelley, deputy business editor of the Times, talked about the story in this video:
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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.
Linda
March 31, 2010 at 7:23 am“The benefit is vanishingly small,” Dr. Seiden said. “It just turns a lot of healthy people into patients and commits them to a lifetime of medication.”
Wow! A doctor who is not a pimp for the pharmaceutical companies! Thank you, Dr. Seiden.
Alan
March 31, 2010 at 8:56 am“The benefit is vanishingly small,” Dr. Seiden said. “It just turns a lot of healthy people into patients and commits them to a lifetime of medication.”
And then when you add in the side-effects and uncertainties discussed in the earlier part of the article and the “vanishingly small” benefits just vanish.
Paul Scott
March 31, 2010 at 8:03 pmThere is also the issue of whether the vanishingly small benefit provided by a drug like Crerstor has anything with its effects on the signal being addressed: cholesterol. It may have more to do with its effects on inflammation.
AMH
April 1, 2010 at 11:42 amBut there are generic statins out there that cost far less. Heck, even an asprin a day may provide similar benefits. To single out one expensive statin may not be telling the whole story.
Gary Schwitzer
April 1, 2010 at 2:50 pmAMH:
Yes, there are cheaper generic statins.
But cost was not the main point of the NYT story, which was headlined,”Risks Seen in Cholesterol Drug Use in Healthy People.” Generic or brand name. Regardless the cost. The risk questions remain.
I chose to highlight cost in my blog post about the NYT story because doing the math on the number needed to treat and the cost impact therefrom is something that very few journalists capture. And I wanted to congratulate Duff Wilson for doing so.
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