This is a thorough and well-researched story. Clearly laying out the apparently dubious benefits and definite downsides to the implantable vagus nerve stimulator (VNS), this article describes the ‘unusual circumstances’ of the device’s FDA approval last summer and reviews the limited and unconvincing evidence of its effectiveness at treating intractable depression. The piece cites both satisfied and dissatisfied patients as well as skeptical providers and those who assert the device is worth a try for those who’ve exhausted other options. Woven throughout are details of the possible harms of the device, including the very likely chance that it may not ease depression at all.
The story explains the cost of the device and of the implantation procedure. It also explains that some insurers are reluctant to reimburse for this technology.
The story does a good job giving details of trial data.
Very thorough discussion of potential harms. The story mentions cardiovascular problems that can be life-threatening. It says the device must be replaced every five years or so when the battery runs low. The story also profiles a patient who “frequently lost her voice while she was talking and felt a persistent constriction in the back of her throat. Both are common side effects of VNS treatment.” It states that “Worsening depression and suicide attempts were reported by one-third of patients in one study funded by Cyberonics, according to data presented to the FDA.” The story also suggests that while the device generator may be removed from the chest of a person who wants to stop VNS use, the “electrodes in her neck must remain forever; doctors tell VNS patients that removing them is too risky because tissue grows around them As a result, VNS recipients cannot undergo a full body MRI or therapeutic ultrasound.”
Notes both randomized and non-randomized results, with caution about interpretation.
No evidence of disease mongering. The story did not exaggerate or misrepresent depression or suicide,
Patients, providers, FDA spokesperson, device manufacturer, skeptics and supporters are interviewed or cited.
There is mention of psychotherapy, electroconvulsive therapy and antidepressants but few details are given about these options.
The story explains how many Americans have had the device implanted (more than 550 since FDA approval), how many are waiting insurance company approval (7,000), and how many Washington, DC-area physicians have been trained in the use of the device (more than 3,700).
The story makes it clear that the device was approved by the FDA in late 2005.
There is no evidence that this story relied on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
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
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.