This is a succinct article outlining an additional treatment that can be used by individuals with cystic fibrosis in additional to their currrent treatment that may help them avoid the serious complications of the disease. While it is clear that this treatment has the potential to provide some benefit, the story’s description of the treatment (a thirty minute session inhaling salt water nearly twice as salty as the ocean) leaves no doubt that this is not an entirely pleasant undertaking. The tradeoff is a decision left to the patients, though testing its benefit in infants may be next step in examining utility of the treatment. The only weaknesses of the story include not making clear how widespread is the availability of the treatment and not making clear these were randomized clinical trials (and why that’s important).
An estimate of the treatment cost,
$13/month was obtained from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
The absolute benefit, 41% of those using the treatment avoided complications, is compared with
the 16% of those not using the salt water treatment.
The treatment was noted as having potentially limited benefit because the prospect
of adding an additional 30 minutes of treatment to an already extensive treatment regimen could be a burden. No mention was
made of the small (5%) number of patients using the treatment that experienced adverse events.
The article describing the two studies failed to detail the nature of the studies. They were two randomized
clinical trials.
The article explains that cystic fibrosis is a genetic disease and a rare
disorder.
The reporter contacted a clinician from a cystic fibrosis center
that did not appear to have ties to either study. She also included commentsfrom an editorial on the two studies.
The advantage of this treatment is that it may reduce the incidence of some serious
complications of the disease. The article is clear that this treatment does not cure cystic fibrosis and is used in addition
to other therapies, not instead of them.
The treatment is available at the centers actually involved
in the studies; comments from a third clinician directing treatment of individuals with cystic fibrosis but not involved in
the studies indicates that use of this treatment has already been picked up by other groups specializing in cystic fibrosis
care. While this could suggest that other groups specializing in cystic fibrosis care might also be offering this treatment,
the actual availability is not clear.
This article reports on the
use of a novel adjunct treatment in the management of cystic fibrosis
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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