Few studies have examined the possible benefit or harm of clopidogrel in heart failure patients. This observational study does not provide definitive evidence that the benefit exceeds the risks. In fact, no mention of risk is mentioned in the article. It suggests possible benefit but that benefit may be because of physicians using their judgment to decide that sicker patients should not receive clopidogrel, so the improved survival observed in patients taking clopidogrel may simply be due to differences in how doctors selected patients for treatment or not. It is not clear if the study attempted to "adjust" for differences in the study populations using statistical methods.
It is overly enthusiastic to say that this drug ‘can’ cut death risk in heart failure patients. The story is misleading because it failed to report on the study nuances that prevent conclusions from being drawn at this time.
There was no discussion about the cost of this drug.
The story provided absolute numbers for two categories of patients who had had heart attacks and did not have angioplasty. In the first group, the chance of survival for those with heart failure at 18 months appeared to be higher for those that took Plavix than those who did not. In the second group, at two years, there did not appear to be a difference in survival between those without heart failure whether they took the drug or not.
While presenting the reader with the quantitative results, the story neglected to indicate if the differences observed were statistically significant.
It would also have been helpful to note the number needed to treat: 37 heart failure patients would need to be treated for a year in order for one life to be saved. For non-heart-failure patients, 667 patients would need to take the drug for a year in order for one life to be saved.
There was no discussion about any potential harms associated with the use of plavix.
The story did not do an adequate job in describing the quality of the evidence discussed. The story just assumed that the reason those receiving Plavix fared better was because of the drug. However – this was a non-randomized study so that patients who were taking Plavix could have differed from those that did not. They may have been healthier so the lower risk of dying might simply be due to this rather than from the addition of the medication.
Not applicable because there was really no discussion of heart failure incidence or seriousness.
The story quotes an editorial writer but did not appear to go beyond a news release for interpretation of the study results.
There was no discussion about the impact other medications in the same class as Plavix have in the populations studied.
Plavix (clopidogrel) is a medication already on the market. While the story did not state this explicitly, it was implied.
The story stated that "the value of clopidogrel (Plavix) to treat heart failure patients has been long debated."
The story states that its sole source was a news release from the American College of Cardiology.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Questions to ask about new Alzheimer’s drug research by @KatKStone incl:
-does study focus on patient outcomes or surrogate markers?
-does study rely on selective subgroups? (yield more favourable outcomes)
-who were the patients? https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2017/08/6-questions-to-ask-when-writing-and-reading-about-new-alzheimers-research/#.YRw5xNVXths.twitter @HealthNewsRevu
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