This was an engaging story reporting on news from the American Heart Association meeting about a medication for use in preventing clot related complications in individuals with coronary artery disease (at the same time that a paper detailing the study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine). It provided a very clear description of potential benefit and harms that could result from the use of this drug. In fact this was an outstanding example of using a summary to present the absolute effects (benefits and harms) and deserves special credit for this.
And the story was filed under deadline pressure – from the AHA meeting – and was done in less than 500 words.
The story didn’t give an estimate of the cost of this medication, but it did provide an estimated cost for the medication currently used in this situation. If the manufacturer intends to file for approval by the end of the year – as the story states – that is arguably only about 30 working days, so you can be assured they have a price in mind, and the story should have probed for it.
The story did a good job of presenting the benefit associated with the use of this treatment. In fact this was an outstanding example of using a summary to present the absolute effects (benefits and harms) and deserves special credit for this.
The story did a good job discussing the harms associated with the treatment.
Although the story did provide some information about the nature of the study on which it reported, it should have provided more detail about whether the study was a randomized clinical trial, any limitations on the people enrolled (men, women, age, other disease conditions, etc).
But the story did a very good job of presenting the outcomes of benefit and harms.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
The story would have been improved if it had provided more balance by including comment from someone removed from the study and perhaps more in touch with the perspective of the patient. It did include a commentary from one expert who was not involved in the study.
The story was clear that it was about a potential alternate treatment for prevention of clot related complications in individuals with coronary artery disease.
The story stated that the company planned to file for FDA approval by the end of the year.
The story was clear that this is a new medication.
Did not rely exclusively on the press release from the American Heart Association.