This story reported on two studies published in the same issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. Both studies compared the effects of an anti-clotting medication on a currently available treatment, though the two studies involved different patient populations. The story never made clear whether there was a connection between the two studies reported; as the information provided on the two studies differed, this review focused on the first half of the story about the results of a phase III clinical trial involving the medication ticagrelor.
The reporting on ticagrelor, a medication for use in patients with acute coronary syndrome that may be available in the future. There was discussion of how this drug differs from the currently available therapies and the story discussed, albeit incompletely, some of the reasons this drug may be preferable to those on the market as well as covering some issues that may arise from the use of this drug.
The story would have been improved if it had included results from the other studies that have been conducted which had different results. Providing a more complete picture would better enable readers to understand the value in the new treatment.
As the drug reported on is currently not available a precise cost may not yet be known. However – while not providing a precise cost of this treatment, the story indicated that it is likely to cost more than the currently approved and available clopidogrel especially in 2011 when it will be off patent.
The story described the benefits of treatment with ticagrelor in terms of the absolute reduction in risk of the composite endpoint of heart attack, stroke, and death from cardiovascular disease as well as the relative risk reduction.
The story mentioned the disadvantage that this medication required pills to be taken twice a day (as opposed to the once a day dosing with the currently available medications). It also mentioned that this drug had the potential for resulting in shortness of breath and also that the results of the medication wore off faster than the currently available medication. It could have provided readers with some explanation about why this has the potential to be a problem.
Although it included a quote from a doctor indicating that this drug would likely become "the new standard of care," the story did not adequately highlight the new side effects seen with this new treatment to help readers understand that it may not be an appropriate treatment option for all individuals with acute coronary syndrome.
Lastly and perhaps most importantly – the story included the statement "There was no increase in the risk of dangerous bleeding associated with the new drug." This statement is misleading as the study reported on found that outside of bleeding related to coronary-artery bypass grafting, ticagrelor was associated with higher rates of major bleeding (4.5% versus 3.8).
Nonetheless, overall, the story meets the standard for discussing harms.
The story included sufficient information for readers to appreciate that the study involved a large number of patients and it described the main comparison in absolute terms.
It could have mentioned that this was a phase III clinical trial designed to examine both the drug’s safety and efficacy. It also could have discussed how the result of the current study differs from the previous large, phase III clinical trials that have been conducted.
While mentioning that acute coronary syndrome results in the hospitalization of more than 1.3 million Americans per year, the story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
There was only one clinician quoted with respect to the utility of the medication ticagrelor. The story should have included other perspectives.
The story mentioned that there were other medications that prevent platelets from forming clumps, mentioning the two prescription medications, clopdogrel and pasugrel by name.
The part of the story on the treatment of acute coronary syndrome using the drug ticagrelor ended with a clear sentence indicating that the company is hoping to have FDA approval for this drug by the end of the year and have it commercially available for consumers by early 2010. Placing it here means it could be missed by readers. Further what a company ‘hopes’ may not translate to the drug being available on the timetable outlined. However – a careful read of this story would results in correctly understanding that this drug is currently not FDA approved for sale.
The story was about a new medication which is not yet available.
does not appear to rely on a press release
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