A review of 200,000 cases of individuals who underwent aortic abdominal aneurysm repair using two different repair methods uncovered the fact that patients taking cholesterol-lowering medications fared better than those who did not. Unfortunately, almost none of the abundant data in the study published in the journal Vascular found its way into the news release. Instead of creating a nuanced picture of the impact statins may have on reducing deaths in people who undergo aortic aneurysm surgeries, the release uses scare tactics and overly broad language to make people think that statins will save them from an unexpected and grisly death.
While aorticabdominal aneurysms are not terribly common, and while there is a genetic link to some cases, the rupture of such an aneurysm can be catastrophic. Research uncovering a connection between statin use and better outcomes for people with aortic aneurysms points to an important avenue to be explored in future studies.
There is no discussion of costs in the release, not costs of statins or costs of the surgeries and procedures referenced. If the researchers truly believe that statin medication before, during, and after the procedure are a significant factor in reducing mortality, talking about the medication costs would help make their point as statins are a relatively cheap therapy.
We are giving this a failing grade because there are no absolute numbers in the release. It describes a 26% reduction in mortality, but we have no idea how many patients that actually represents. If there were 20,000 records reviewed, how many died? We don’t know. How many who did not die were taking statins? We don’t know. There are ample data in the paper, none of which is in the story. When you read the study, you see that — depending on the group being compared — the mortality rates were quite close. For example, in the group of patients studied who underwent an endovascular surgical repair for their aortic aneurysm, 1% of those who took statins died. And 1.45% of those who did not died. Both of these are very low rates.
Despite the horror show picture painted in the opening sentence, there is no explanation of the harms associated with statin therapy. Some discussion of the impact of giving statins to someone not already taking them would have added value to the release.
The release mentions that the study was published in the journal Vascular, but there is too little else in the release for anyone to make a good assessment of the study’s quality. The published paper has good quality information for what is in essence an epidemiological study, but the news release offers almost none of the available information.
We rarely ding stories on this criterion, but this one struck us wrong because of the mismatch between the first few sentences and what the science found. It says, “Rupture of an abdominal aortic aneurysm is one of the most dramatic medical emergencies a person can face. It usually strikes without warning, killing approximately 50 percent of those who experience it before they reach a hospital. Of those who do get to a health facility alive, only about 50 percent survive.” Are you scared? Well, you probably are hoping that these researchers have found a way to save you from dying unexpectedly before you get to the hospital. But they haven’t. Nor have they found something that is going to guarantee that you won’t die once you reach the hospital, not if the aorta is already ruptured, although we must note that the release is confusing on this point because the provenance of the survival statistics is unclear. What’s also confusing is that the release is conflating an enlarged aorta — which is a serious but manageable condition known as an aortic aneurysm — with a ruptured aorta, which is what leads to people bleeding to death at high rates. The statins might be helpful for people who have an aneurysm that’s surgically repaired; they do nothing in the event of a rupture. In all, the picture painted is far grimmer than the actual context necessary for this release, which is that if people have an aortic aneurysm they might benefit from statins.
It appears this epidemiological study received no outside funding so we believe it’s safe to conclude there is no conflict of interest.
The news release compares surgery outcomes with or without statins.
It’s assumed that the public is aware that statins are widely available as a prescription drug.
While the release doesn’t explicitly state the study’s novelty, we think it is implicit that no one has studied the outcome of patients who had been taking cholesterol lowering drugs prior to their surgery for aneurysm.
The lead is unjustified and way over the top. We believe that a more temperate approach, especially for a summary of an epidemiological study, would have been appropriate here.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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.
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