The focus of this story is recently published data showing a slight increase in the absolute risk of suicide and suicidal symptoms in patients treated with certain anti-seizure medications compared with placebo. The story appropriately provides context for this new information–and educates the health consumer in the process by presenting this data in both relative and absolute terms. However, the story could have been improved by giving info on how often these medications are prescribed and/or how common the illnesses are.
The story is well-balanced. A range of clinicians, caregivers and pharmaceutical spokespeople are interviewed. Regarding the latter, the story notes that findings from pharma-sponsored research were either more positive, or similar to that of the FDA’s review. The interviews in this story provide context for the increased risk of suicidality, and help patients weigh the risks and benefits of taking these medications.
The focus of the story is a potential harm of anti-seizure medication, namely, an increased risk of suicidal thoughts or behaviors. The story does not note other, less serious harms of these drugs. These can include weight gain, mental confusion and an upset stomach. The story notes only newer pharmacological treatments. No other treatments are discussed. The story might have been enhanced by giving more info on alternative treatments along with their pros/cons.
While cost is not the focus of the story, it is important information, especially for epileptic and bipolar patients who often take medications for life. The drugs under discussion are fairly expensive drugs (approximately. $150-200/month for newer drugs); however, there are older, less expensive medications that might work as well for some people.
The story does not mention the average cost of these drugs. This is important information, especially for epileptic and bipolar patients who often take medications for most of their life.
The drugs under discussion are fairly expensive drugs (approximately. $150-200/month for the newer drugs). There are older, and less expensive medications that might work as well for some people.
The story mentions cons of not treating epilepsy with anti-seizure meds. You want to be able to balance the benefits against the potential harms. The story does not note the number needed to treat to prevent a seizure, or similar consumer-friendly data. This information would be useful in light of the FDA review, especially for patients considering stopping these drugs, and for patients thinking about the the long-term benefits.
The focus of the story is a potential harm of treatment, namely, an increased risk of suicidal thoughts or behaviors. The story notes the risks are greater for epileptics than for those taking the same medications for psychiatric conditions or for chronic pain. The story does not note other, less serious harms of these drugs, which can include weight gain, mental confusion and an upset stomach. Discussion of other side effects would be useful information if patients are considering the full risks and benefits of taking this class of medication over the long-term.
The story does an excellent job describing the FDA review and explaining both the relative and absolute data. This helps the consumer make a more informed decision when weights the benefits and risks of certain anti-seizure medications.
The story does not engage in disease-mongering. The story would have been improved by giving info on how often these medications are prescribed AND/OR how common the illnesses are.
The story does a good job citing a range of clinicians, patients and pharmaceutical spokespeople. Regarding the latter, the story notes that findings from pharma-sponsored research were either more positive, or similar to that of the FDA’s review. The interviews in this story provide context for the new information; however, Dr. Nierenberg makes a blanket statement about the risks not outweighing the benefits. For some of these drugs, the benefit in bipolar disorder has not been shown.We are not told if Dr. Nierenberg or Dr. Harden receive pharmaceutical funding.
The story notes some pharmacological treatments available for patients with epilepsy. No other treatments are discussed. The story might have been enhanced by giving more info on alternative treatments along with some pros/cons.
Other available drug treaments include: phenobarbital, phenytoin, carbamazepine, valproate, gabapentin, lamotrigine, topiramate, levetriacetam, oxcarbazepine, zonisamide, felbamate.
The story notes some pharmacological treatments available for epilepsy. The story notes these same medications may also be used to treat chronic pain, mood disorders and headaches. The risks of suicidality are not as great in non-epileptics.
The focus is recently published data (http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2008/NEW01786.html) showing a slight increase in the absolute risk of suicide and suicidal symptoms in patients treated with certain anti-seizure medications compared with placebo. The story appropriately provides context for this new information (and educates the health consumer in the process) by presenting this data in both relative and absolute terms, as well as citing a range of sources to provide clinical context.
There is independent reporting and no evidence that information in this story is taken directly from a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
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