Week after week, it’s a gem.
This week, Dr. Richard Lehman’s journal roundup on his blog for The BMJ starts with a parody of Edgar Allen Poe, goes on to channel Vincent Price, and then it gets darker.
He describes a New England Journal of Medicine paper on “Clonal Hematopoiesis and Blood-Cancer Risk Inferred from Blood DNA Sequence,” and concludes:
“But although the NEJM kindly makes this paper freely available to all, together with an editorial about Clone Wars, we are not about to see a new epidemic of haematological malignancies in older patients: we will just understand them better and probably devise new poorly predictive tests to worry people more.” (my emphasis added, as with all bold italics in this post)
Next, he’s on to another NEJM paper:
“A cure for myeloma may soon be within grasp, but—Edgar Allen Poe again—not quite yet. Carfilzomib is the latest agent to arrive but nobody quite knows where it fits in. Standard therapy for relapsed multiple myeloma now includes lenalidomide and dexamethasone, and the manufacturers of carfilzomib (Onyx Pharmaceuticals) decided to add it to this regimen in a randomised trial, which recruited 792 patients with relapsed MM. This is an interim report, showing a favourable effect on progression and on quality of life, but “the median overall survival was not reached in either group at the interim analysis,” which I think means that too many people in both groups were still alive to tell if this drug makes any real difference. Since its basic cost in the United States is $1 658 per 60mg vial, and all patients required many, many vials, it would be nice to know.”
Next, he analyzes a third NEJM paper on a drug for venous thrombosis – “one of the biggest markets in medicine.”
“Well, Isis Pharmaceuticals … have persuaded the NEJM to accept what appears to be a phase 2 open label trial of the drug in 300 patients about to undergo unilateral knee replacement, with enoxaparin as the comparator. Their drug had an equal protective effect with less bleeding. But when you are thinking of giving a preventive treatment to millions of healthy people, you need quite a lot more evidence than this.“
Ba da bing ba da boom for the New England Journal this week!
Lehman moves us on to a Lancet paper:
“Does the world need new stents? No, but device companies need new products for when current ones go off patent. And the Lancet needs to sell article reprints as part of its stated business plan. But do you, dear reader, really need to read a paper entitled “Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent for percutaneous coronary revascularisation (BIOSCIENCE): a randomised, single-blind, non-inferiority trial?” I would suggest not.”
There are more gems in the journal review by Lehman this week. There always are. If you share my interests (sick though they may be), you’ll love Lehman’s work as he stays up late, perhaps as Poe imagined:
“Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary, Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore…”
—————————
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Many of the principles that we promoted to journalists and to the general public from 2006-18 are embodied in this terrific project based in Oslo. https://t.co/KO1o9JTYK7
Following a shift in journalism’s business model, a diverse ecosystem of publications, many covering science, has sprung up online. This has made it more difficult to sort out what qualifies as journalism, what doesn’t, and whether the public even cares.
https://t.co/qO2a27FiSe
Researchers and journalists do the public a grave disservice when they spin health study results to make them appear safer or more effective than warranted, says @HealthNewsRevu founder @garyschwitzer https://t.co/QIKsRbP6Ed
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.
Comments are closed.
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