Overall, a reasonably complete story that addressed our criteria. The story provides a reasonable amount of information on the study and places it in context of other studies and in context of other treatment options.
A cost for the medications discussed was provided; in addition the story noted that niacin was available in a less expensive, generic version.
The story adequately discussed the benefits observed in this study, in a somewhat scattered fashion. It mentioned the difference in heart attacks and other heart problems observed and though they were few, the difference was statistically significant.
The story does note the issues related to the surrogate endpoint and puts the study into context. The use of a spokesperson from the manufacturer of eztimibe in comments on the value of the surrogate endpoint is curious and takes away from the legitimate discussion on its value. This is offset somewhat by the comments of another presumably less conflicted expert.
The side effect, flushing, associate with naicin was mentioned in the story as well as an estimate (1/3 of those taking Niaspan) for how many in the study were affected.
The story provided information about the study in a piece meal fashion which included the number of individuals studied and that the study was stopped early because one group appeared to be faring better than the other with respect to size of carotid plaque. A comment from a representative of the other drug makers mentioned that the end point (size of plaque buildup in the carotid) needs to followed up on because in and of itself does not have a health impact. Coming from him it almost seemed as though it was sour grapes, but it is a very valid concern for interpreting the results of the study. It would have been better to have a less involved expert comment on the surrogate endpoint/
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
Comments from several expert sources outside of the study investigators or the manufacturer of the drug that appear to provide a better outcome were included in this story.
The story discussed several of the available medications that could be used in addition to statins to lower heart attack risk.
It might have been useful to include some information about dietary and lifestyle changes that could also be used to lower heart attack risk.
The story made it very clear that the medications discussed are all currently commercially available.
None of the medicines discussed in this story are new or novel and they were not presented as such.
Does not appear to rely exclusively on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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