Terrific idea for a new medical journal series. Excerpt:
“Less is More,” a new series in the Archives, will highlight situations in which the overuse of medical care may result in harm and in which less care is likely to result in better health. For example, a series of articles in this issue of the Archives documents serious adverse effects of proton pump inhibitors, including increased rates of fractures, Clostridium difficile infection, and recurrence of diarrhea caused by C difficile; previous reports have also documented an increased risk of pneumonia. Harm will result if these commonly used medications are prescribed for conditions for which there is no benefit, such as nonulcer dyspepsia.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
Comments (4)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Elaine Schattner, M.D.
May 14, 2010 at 2:14 pmI agree this is a terrific idea (mammography aside), but it’s unlikely to persuade doctors who order lots of tests without reason. Few specialists, even among internists, read the Archives of Internal Medicine.
Greg Pawelski
May 15, 2010 at 8:36 amThe less is more axiom often applies in cancer medicine. I’m not claiming that low dose therapy is to be preferred, anymore than claiming that high dose therapy is to be preferred. If one has a highly effective drug or drug regimen, then this should be given at the optimum dose to achieve whatever it is supposed to achieve.
There appears to be a number of patients who have had long-term survival after high dose therapy, but there are a number of patients whose tumors are responsive to chemotherapy who have had long-term remissions from low dose therapy, as well as a number who show no difference in survival when treated with low-dose or high-dose therapy.
More emphasis should be put on matching treatment to the patient, having more respect for minimal partial response or stable disease, when it can be achieved through use of the least toxic and mutagenic drug regimens, and reserve the use of higher dose therapy or aggressive combination chemotherapy to those patients with tumor biologies most amenable to attack and destroy by these treatments.
Trying to mate a notoriously heterogeneous disease into one-size-fits-all treatments is disingenuous to all who are inflicted with it. And the criticism remains: All of the clinical trials resources have gone toward driving a square peg (one-size-fits-all chemotherapy) into a round hole (notoriously heterogeneous disease).
To beat down your individual cancer mortality, an oncologist needs to target all the many cancers that make up your individual cancer, the dozens of different pathways that cells use to proliferate and spread. That is the leading edge of research and treatment, determining how an individual’s tumor cells work and hitting those pathways with multiple drugs, simultaneously or sequentially, each chosen because it targets one of those growth, replication and angiogenesis pathways.
The hope is to match tumor type to drug. We need to make the next leap, getting the right drug to the right patient.
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