Our Review Summary
This broadcast segment reports on long-delayed findings about the widely promoted anti-cholesterol drugs Zetia and Vytorin. Overall its implications are accurate: a new report suggests the drugs may not be as effective as previously thought, and the cardiology community is wondering whether those taking it should consider other treatment options.
But the segment has several important flaws.
The most serious flaw is the segment’s assertion that the study found the drugs fail to protect against heart attacks, stroke or death. The anchor suggests this. The reporter says the companies "admit" their drugs fails to protect against those outcomes.
The study did not show that, and the companies did not admit it.
The study found the drugs appeared to reduce LDL cholesterol but contribute to buildup of plaque in the arteries. The study did not, and by design lacks the power to, offer conclusions about the outcomes of heart attack, stroke and death.
The report failed to convey that the study has not been presented, peer reviewed or published. It failed to mention that the study was done on people with a genetic form of very high cholsterol, which is not the condition most people take the drugs for.
The most interesting and publicly significant aspect of the story is that the companies withheld the data for two years and produced it, in a brief form, only after a Congressional inquiry was launched. Instead of reporting this, the segment exaggerated the quality of the findings themselves.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
The segment does not mention the costs of either drug. Given the implication that the drugs are heavily advertised because they are money-makers, the report should have mentioned the drugs’ cost compared to the alternatives.
Not Satisfactory
The segment makes no attempt to quantify the results, either the reduction in LDL cholesterol or the increase in plaque volume.
Not Satisfactory
While the story does not go into detail, it makes clear that the drugs may not have the benefits expected–and may expose those taking the drugs to a higher risk of bad cardiac outcomes.
The story failed to mention a related potential harm, that the combination of the two drugs in Vytorin may have higher rates of adverse events than the drug alone in Zetia.
Not Satisfactory
The study upon which the report is based is a prospective, blinded clinical trial of reasonable size and rigor. But it has not been peer-reviewed, published or even presented at a medical conference.
The only report of the results appeared in a difficult-to-parse public statement issued by the drugs’ makers.
The story didn’t make this clear – and it should have.
Not Satisfactory
The segment exaggerates the research question and findings in a way that makes the story more dramatic.
The ENHANCE study’s findings were related to cholesterol levels and plaque accumulation. Yet the reports says, "the makers of Zetia and Vytorin admitted there is no evidence the drugs actually prevent heart attacks, strokes or even death." The anchor makes a similar statement. These statements are misleading. In fact, the bigger issue is that they should be studying real events like heart attack, stroke and death – not intermediate or surrogate endpoints such as plaque levels.
Satisfactory
The segment includes interviews with a widely-quoted cardiologist who did not participate in the study and an industry antagonist who is knowledgeable about the drugs. It summarizes the drugmakers’ official response.
Satisfactory
The story briefly suggests that older statin drugs may be a better choice for people taking Zetia or Vytorin.
Satisfactory
The segment makes clear that the drugs Zetia and Vytorin are widely used.
Satisfactory
The segment briefly explains that Zetia works differently than the more common statin drugs.
Not Applicable
We can’t be sure if the story relied soley or largely on a news release, although – since the study data hasn’t been published or presented at a scientific conference – it appears it was at least inspired by a news release.
Total Score: 4 of 9 Satisfactory
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