TV anchor Matt Lauer, an asymptomatic 47 year old man with no history of diabetes, with normal blood pressure, borderline high cholesterol, and with a family history of heart disease (his 72 year old father had coronary artery bypass graft surgery) undergoes a heart scan on national TV. We learn that two of his arteries are “pristine” while there is a small “bad” plaque in one artery that could “eventually develop into a problem.” The cardiologist suggests lifestyle modification, baby aspirin, and a statin. There is no independent, second opinion in the story. What have we gained from this experience? Nothing, unless we are GE (parent company of NBC), and manufacturer of the scanning device used in the story.
There are many problems with this story. At the end, we are told that this technology should be used only for people experiencing symptoms such as shortness of breath, chest pain, etc. Yet the story featured asymptomatic Matt Lauer modeling the procedure. That is an example of disease-mongering. In the end, the true message of what this technology can and can’t do is completely distorted by the beautiful pictures (3-D rendering of the heart) and empty, non-evidence-based promises. The costs of this technology are ignored. Insurance coverage (an important issue) is downplayed. And the potential harms of having such a scan are not mentioned at all.
Does not specify what the costs are, which are entirely out-of-pocket since most insurance companies do not cover
it. The cardiologist downplays cost saying that they have had “good luck” getting insurance companies to cover it.
No estimates of benefit
are provided.
No information on harms is provided, which is a glaring omission. Harms might include: reaction to beta-blockers
(to slow the heart rate) or to the contrast dye, exposure to radiation that is many times greater than an x-ray, not to
mention any risks from any interventions (catheterization) needed to follow-up on any abnormal findings (that may or may not
result in any benefit to the patient). Furthermore, the cardiologist recommends taking statins and aspirin as a result of the
findings, but what about the harms of these drugs? What if the lesion were a false positive and the drugs were entirely
unnecessary?
There is absolutely no evidence provided. In order to really
evaluate this, we would need to know how the images correlate with his actual plaque buildup and we would want evidence that
early intervention with these scans can actually do anything to prevent an event or bad outcome. Furthermore, we don’t know
if this lesion could be confirmed with a catheterization (gold standard).
Although the story doesn’t exaggerate the prevalence of heart disease, it does not
accurately portray the natural history of heart disease. It is still controversial to say that these scans “can show us
exactly what’s going on in the heart.” We still don’t know whether plaques (good or bad) found with these scans are
actually going to be the ones to cause problems down the road. Matt Lauer’s father’s heart disease is actually not a major
risk factor, which raises the controversy that we don’t know what to do with asymptomatic, active and healthy people who
could have ‘bad’ plaques. Matt Lauer also confuses his plaque value of 56 as being ‘mild’, when in reality this indicates
a ‘soft’ plaque that is more vulnerable to developing an MI.
No attempts are
made at independent corroboration. Only a single source is quoted. Does mention that GE makes the machine and owns NBC.
Mentions cardiac catheterization but
neglects exercise tests, MRI and older CT scan alternatives. Does not attempt to place this kind of CT in context or explain
the advantages or disadvantages.
Mentions the availability of the machine in the U.S. since May, 2005.
The story is clear that this
is very new technology.
We
don’t know if the info came from a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
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