This story attempted to provide readers with some insight about the results of recent study that a medication (ezetimibe) used to lower cholesterol may have an unforeseen side effect on cancer incidence and/or death.
But the story:
This is one time when it is helpful to compare how other journalists covered the story. The New York Times piece in its continuing excellent "Evidence Gap" series did a far better job of giving context and explaining the questions surrounding ezetimibe to readers. The Associated Press says it had three reporters working on this piece. The end result could have been much better.
There was no discussion of cost.
The story provided several pieces of information about the benefits of treatment. The first was that the drug Vytorin did not demonstrate benefit for individuals with aortic valve disease. The second piece of information that was partially presented was that the drug Vytorin is used to lower cholesterol. Here the story was inadequate because it did not indicate how well the drug worked in terms of its ability to lower cholesterol and did not provide quantitative information about the potential benefit of lowering cholesterol.
The story indicated that there was a question as to whether the use of the medication Vytorin was associated with an increased risk of developing cancer or dying of cancer. However – while supplying the reader with the actual number of individuals in the respective groups that developed cancer, the story gave no denominator (i.e. how many people were in the group) – so it is not possible for readers to do a meaningful comparison of how the numbers compare to one another.
The story attempted to explain the sources of the data being combined in order to get a clearer indication of whether or not there was an increased risk of cancer. It could have done a better job of explaining the type of studies and that the observed increase in cancer was not for a specific type or types of cancer but was seen only when all cancers were combined.
There was some disease mongering in that the story – at times – framed high cholesterol as a disease itself and failed to emphasize that the goal is to reduce heart attacks and strokes, for which there isn’t good evidence. This isn’t difficult to explain – the New York Times did an excellent job on this issue on the same story this same day.
The story included quotes from several investigators who were not directly associated with the study reported on.
The story included a statement from Dr. Weaver indicating that if the only way to get his cholesterol down was to take Vytorin, he would not change his therapy based on the results of the recent study. However the story (and Dr. Weaver) failed to indicate what the options are for patients who are intent on lowering their cholesterol.
The story makes it clear that "Vytorin is a combination of Merck’s Zocor, a long-sold statin drug, and Schering-Plough’s Zetia, a newer type of medicine that lowers cholesterol in a different way."
The story indicated that the drug under investigation was a combination of 2 medications that lowered cholesterol, one of which utilized a novel mechanism.
Does not appear to rely on a press 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.