NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

Panel calls for vaccine for adult smokers

Rating

3 Star

Panel calls for vaccine for adult smokers

Our Review Summary

This report on an advisory panel recommendation that all adult smokers be vaccinated for pneumococcal disease is competently done, and accurate as far as it goes. But it doesn’t go far enough.

The report correctly describes the actions of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). It adequately cites dissension among panel members about the value of immunizing smokers under 40. It usefully reports the general limitations on the vaccine’s effectiveness.

But it ignores the core question the panel’s recommendation raises: 

How effective will the recommendation be in preventing serious or fatal pneumococcal disease in the targeted population? How much money will be spent to save a life? 

That consideration is often the driver of a public health recommendation. Certainly it’s been considered by the panel members. But it’s not raised here.

The story also reports statistics linking flu to pneumonia to death–without indicating that such links are very unlikely to apply to the targeted population.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Satisfactory

The story reports per-dose price: $30 per dose for the most common form of the vaccine.

It might have been useful to do the math: If 50 percent of adult smokers got the recommended vaccine, it would cost about half a billion dollars annually. 

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The report leaves the most fundamental questions unanswered:

How vulnerable is the targeted population–adult smokers under 65 who have not been diagnosed with asthma or other chronic respiratory diseases–to pneumococcal disease, and especially to potentially deadly forms? And how good is the evidence that the current vaccine can reduce incidence?

This is a situation where the reporter should have sought the "number needed to treat" data: How many adult smokers would have to be vaccinated in order to prevent serious cases of the disease or death?

Further, the report cites the often-published statistic that pneumonia is linked to many of the 36,000. But this link exists almost exclusively in an elderly and immunocompromised population–not among otherwise healthy smokers under 65.  

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The report should have explicitly called out the minor risks of vaccination, and of the uNPRoven safety for women who are pregnant or who may become pregant.

Mentioning such risks is always important when dealing with a recommendation for a large population. 

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Applicable

Given the fact that the report is about an advisory panel recommendation–not publication of new research–the reporter is not required to discuss the evidence underlying the statement.

But see the note below under "Quantification of Benefits of Treatment." This exposes a serious flaw in failing to explore the underlying evidence.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Not Satisfactory

The story for the most part avoids exaggerating the risk of pneumococcal disease and the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing it. 

Yet the story cites the often reported annual statistics linking flu, pneumonia and death. These statistics apply mostly to an elderly and immunocompromised population. The vaccine is already recommended for this population. The use of this statistic without questioning its applicability to the population in question falsely supports the case for the recommendation.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

The story quotes a CDC epidemiologist and a physician representing a college health group who is skeptical of the recommendation. That’s borderline sufficient for discussion of a new population-wide vaccine recommendation.

We wish AP had sought commentary from an independent specialist in smoking-related disease and/or in pneumonia and other pneumococcal diseases.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

As a matter of course, the story should have mentioned other ways adult smokers can reduce the risk of pneumococcal disease, especially in younger smokers where the wisdom of vaccination is questioned by some panel members.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

The story implies correctly that pneumococcal vaccine is widely available. 

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The story correctly parses the facts that this is the first vaccine recommendation aimed at smokers, yet the treatment is currently in wide use.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Not Applicable

The CDC has not issued a press release about the advisory committee’s recommendation.

Total Score: 4 of 8 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.