This article discusses the use of a dialysis-like process for the treatment of decompensated heart failure. It is a misleading piece because it reports that the use of this medical device is safer and more effective than ‘water pills’ when it is really being assessed as a substitute for intravenous(IV) diuretic administration. The article fails to mention that the results reported on are preliminary as they have not yet undergone peer-review and have only appeared in an abstract and a presentation at a conference – and that they are the result of a single study. The article did mention that the study was company sponsored.
The story explains that “The filtration device costs hospitals $10,000 and each treatment requires an $800 filter – expenses that should be more than offset by lower hospital bills because of shorter stays.”
The results of treatment as compared with IV diurectic are clearly laid out in terms of differences in fluid and weight loss; the difference in the number of days spent in the hospital and how less likely patients were to have a return visit to the emergency room (although no time frame for this observation was provided).
No harms associated with this treatment were mentioned; only that it was “safer’ than “water pills” (as opposed to the IV diuretic to which it was compared.) While no harms were mentioned, the article did mention that patients did not report feeling any better.
The article fails to mention that the results reported on are preliminary as they have not yet undergone peer-review and have only appeared in an abstract and a presentation; and that they are the result of a single study. The article did mention that the study was company sponsored.
Does not provide a natural history of heart failure; article mentions an estimate for the number of Americans that have heart failure (5 million) and the number who will be hospitalized for decompensation appear reasonable. But the tyranny of the anecdote comes into play with the patient testimonials used (“I actually could breathe again” and “It gave me my life back.”). How were these patients selected? Were there any negative experiences?
Research was discussed at an American College of Cardiology meeting. No abstract was available on-line. A quote from an American Heart Association spokesman, reported to have no role in the study, was included as part of the story. However, it does report on the use of a proprietary software and machine, and the story gave no details regarding the author’s relationship to the company.
The reporting in this article is problematic with regards to treatment options. Notwithstanding mention of pills ( a little vague) for which this device may substitute, the title “Safer method found to treat heart failure” is drawing conclusions prematurely. In addition, this treatment is not currently being suggested as a replacement to the daily “water pills” that many patients with heart failure take but rather as a substitute for the diuretics administered IV for decompensated heart failure patients. This point is not made clear in the article. Use of the term “pill” is inappropriate as the filtration was compared with medication administered IV, not by mouth.
There is no mention of whether this device is still in testing or whether it has garnered FDA device approval. (In fact, the FDA has determined that the device may be marketed as of August 18, 2005; the company was FDA approved to market it for “failed diuretic therapy” not as an alternative for heart failure patients – FDA Feb 2, 2006 .)
Described within this story as ‘a new device’ and that ‘about 100 hospitals around the country already are using the treatment’ which suggest that this is a relatively new approach.
No obvious use of text from the company’s press release in the article.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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