“Heart disease potential breakthrough”
Reviewed By
Rating
“Heart disease potential breakthrough”
Our Review Summary
This story covers a new study in which very high doses of the statin drug Crestor regressed atherosclerosis, or coronary artery plaque buildup, as shown on intravascular ultrasound, in high risk patients.The story states that the patients showed a 7 to 9% reduction in plaque. It is not clear if this is clinically meaningful. The story says “Crestor reduced so called bad cholesterol by more than 50 percent and increased good cholesterol by nearly 15 percent.” But 50 percent of what? 15 percent of what? What is the absolute increase or decrease? Although there is some mention of side effects, these are downplayed. Given that this trial used such high doses of Crestor, side effects are an important issue. The story also fails to mention that 12% of the patients discontinued using the drug before the end of the study. No costs are mentioned and only a single source, the lead author of the study, is quoted. The story doesn’t mention any alternatives, such as diet, exercise, or regular doses of statins (which is current practice). Although there is some description of the design of the study, there is no mention of the study’s limitations. The story hints at this point but doesn’t drive the point home: there can be a difference between surrogate markers (lowering LDL, raising HDL, shrinking plaque) and outcomes such as fewer heart attacks, strokes or deaths. These are important pieces of information that the viewer would need in order to critically evaluate the strength of the evidence. It was good that the story included the line, “Doctors say this does not suggest that everyone should start taking Crestor.â€
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
There is no mention of costs in the story.
Not Satisfactory
Quantitative estimates are given in relative frame only. The story states that the patients showed a 7 to 9% reduction in plaque. It is not clear if this is clinically meaningful. The story says “Crestor reduced so called bad cholesterol by more than 50 percent and increased good cholesterol by nearly 15 percent.” But 50 percent of what? 15 percent of what? What is the absolute increase or decrease?
Not Satisfactory
Although there is some mention of potential side effects, these are downplayed. Given the high dose of Crestor used in this study, side effects are important. The story also fails to mention that 12% of the patients discontinued using the drug before the end of the study.
Not Satisfactory
Although the story describes some aspects of the trial, there is no mention of the limitations of this trial. Specifically, there was no direct comparison of high-dose Crestor to current medical practice for this population, such as a lower dose statin. Furthermore, the study was not designed to look at the effects of the drug on hard cardiovascular end points, such as heart attack or death. The story hints at this point but doesn’t drive the point home: there can be a difference between surrogate markers (lowering LDL, raising HDL, shrinking plaque) and outcomes such as fewer heart attacks, strokes or deaths.
Satisfactory
No disease mongering. Story did a good job of including the line, “Doctors say this does not suggest that everyone should start taking Crestor.
Not Satisfactory
Only a single source, the lead author of the story, is quoted. Even in a short TV piece, time and space should be found to include the input of independent sources.
Not Satisfactory
The story doesn’t mention any alternative treatment options.
Satisfactory
It is clear from the story that Crestor is currently available.
Not Applicable
We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release, although, as noted, the story only included the input of the lead researcher.
Total Score: 3 of 9 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.
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