This story reported on the results of a recently published study that found a new anti-clotting medication (which is not yet FDA approved) had better outcomes than the currently available medication used to treat people with acute coronary syndrome. We are troubled by journalistic predictions that FDA "approval seems likely" based on this study. Give the data and set the crystal ball aside. Such predictions sound more like marketing than journalism.
While predicting that FDA approval is likely, the story never gives a cost estimate. How much will it cost to get a 1.1% reduction in death?
There was no discussion of costs, although the story did mention that the twice a day dosing of the drug would be required. If the drug is as close to FDA approval as indicated in the story, it would suggest that the company has some idea about its pricing.
The story highlighted the potential benefits of this drug over the current medication as reducing overall death rates by 1.1%
The story did discuss the main harm – the difference in bleeding – and that since ticagrelor must be taken twice a day, missing a dose can be very dangerous since the drug wears off so quickly.
The story did not provide an adequate description of the study it was reporting on.
Although it did include the number of patients given the two drugs, there was an incomplete description of those patients who were studied. The story described them as patients who ‘had stents installed’. There are actually several different conditions for which stents are used. Acute coronary syndrome was mentioned in the story, but are readers expected to know what that is? Finally – some of the patients in the study reported on had coronary bypass surgery and so would not be described as having had a stent installed.
The story indicated that the drug reported on was needed because ‘blood clots can be a deadly complication of getting a stent’. While this is a true statement, it would be more informative to provide some context about how commonly blood clots occur after a person receives a stent. This information would help readers evaluate the importance of a medicine to prevent this from occurring. Nonetheless, we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this.
The story quotes one independent source and identifies potential conflicts of interest. It would have been better if the "independent" commenter didn’t have industry ties.
The story indicated that the drug reported on was more effective than the currently available treatments at reducing death, heart attack, and stent clotting. The story would have been greatly improved had it provided absolute data on the occurrence of these events.
The story was clear that ticagrelor is not yet have FDA approval.
However, the story stated that ‘approval was likely’ and that the drug will be marketed as Brilinta. Both pieces of information are more akin to marketing than reporting. It would be more accurate to state that the drug is currently under consideration for FDA approval and that the name Brilinta has been proposed.
The story mentioned in passing that ticagrelor released platelets more readily than the available medications. The story could have included more information about the unique aspects of this drug.
Does not appear to rely solely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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