The drug Vytorin is a hot news topic. It was a big seller until an industry-sponsored study failed to show that it helped slow plaque buildup, and may have made it worse. This new article describes yet another industry-sponsored study with disappointing results for this drug. This business-oriented article describes in vague terms the lack of benefit for certain problems and the presence of benefit for others. The dramatic and incomplete description of increased cancer risk in the treated subjects may overstate the risk, despite later tempering description of further studies. There is not enough detail about study design for the reader to judge whether the positive effects reported (for non-aortic stenosis related outcomes) are credible. The inclusion of several experts is good, but their connection to or independence from the study is inadequately described. Patients, let alone stock-market speculators, would be better served by a more informative analysis.
Athough the story did mention that one of the components of the study drug Vytorin was available as a cheap generic, it did not contain actual price information for the study drug or the price for the individual components.
Although the story mentioned that there was a benefit observed, it did not accurately report what the benefit was, nor did it provide quantitative data indicating the magnitude of the benefit.
The story waffled back and forth about the possible effect of the study drug on cancer and cancer death without providing the reader with a clear picture. The perceived increase in cancer incidence was presented as relative risk rather than absolute risk, which distorts what was actually observed.
In fact, there was about a 9.9% rate of cancers in the Vytorin group and 7% in the control group. There were 4.1% and 2.5% cancer death rates respectively (borderline significance). Would these data inform the reader better than the inflammatory news that the researchers were "startled" to see a "50% more" new cancers and cancer deaths among the Vytorin recipients? It may be the case, after full analysis of other Vytorin studies, that there is no increased cancer risk, and this story makes the point only begrudgingly.
The article fails to describe the study in enough detail to understand whether the positive effects of Vytorin that were found are valid. Journalists need to serve as intelligent filters for their readers to help them understand that not all studies are equal and that new findings are not the end of the discussion. The story’s description of the side-effects evidence was poor, as already noted.
The story did engage in disease mongering in its approach to presenting the information about the effect of Vytorin on cancer incidence. Rather than provide the absolute increased number of cancer cases and cancer deaths, the story instead chose to report these in relative terms – "50 percent more new cancer cases and cancer deaths in patients who received Vytorin." Journalists and readers should demand the information – 50% of what? See our primer on this vital statistical detail.
The story did include several quotes from experts in the field who did not appear to have direct ties to the study reported on, though the story did not actually indicate whether the experts did or did not have ties to the study.
The story did not provide information about the available treatment options for aortic stenosis.
The story explained that Vytorin, the study drug, was a combination of Zocor and Zetia. It did not explain whether these are prescription or over-the-counter medications. The story also failed to explain that the drug is not FDA approved for treatment of aortic valve disease.
The story was clear that the drug being discussed was actually a combination of two previously available medications and that one of the compounds was already available as a generic medication. However, the story should have been clearer that the use of a cholesterol lowering medication for the purpose of decreasing risk from aortic stenosis is not an accepted practice and so in this sense would be a ‘novel’ indication.
It does not appear that the story relied solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
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