This story raises insightful questions about the use of a particular statin medication, Crestor, in a patient population without elevated cholesterol levels. The story mentioned that a company financed study demonstrated benefit from the use of this drug in a cohort of individuals with modest LDL levels (<130) but who had elevated levels of C-reactive protein and contrasted that with a recent review which found that while the drug did further lower LDL level, it did not appear to confer benefit in terms of helping patients live longer. The story was useful for helping raise reader awareness to question the value of the particular study endpoints reported.
The final quote of the story is the take-home point: "We just don’t know what the balance of benefits and harms are for people who are going to take this for a lifetime."
The story included Crestor sales figures but did not tell readers how much it cost consumers. Unlike some of the other statin medications, Crestor is not yet available in a generic form and thus is one of the more costly statin medications.
The story raised questions about the benefits to be obtained with the use of this medication by individuals who do not have elevated cholesterol but who may have elevated levels of CRP. It mentioned both the cholesterol lowering capacity of the drug and the question of whether it had any impact on how long a person lived.
The story raised the question about the appropriateness of recommending a drug for long-term use when the study which is the basis for its recommendation monitored people for only two years. "Too little attention is paid to potential risks, such as developing diabetes" – was a short explanation.
The story questions evidence generated by a study underwritten by the company which sells the drug. The story questioned the merit in a 2 yr. decrease in cholesterol levels in light of there possibly being no associated increase in longevity.
And it gave a brief overview of three new papers in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
The story did not engage in disease mongering.
The story included quotes from clinicians with different viewpoints and perspectives.
The story did not delve into the realm of whether this statin medication is really any different than other statin medications. So many stories about the JUPITER trial and now this followup analysis only mention Crestor but don’t explain whether this is a "class-effect" issue affecting all drugs in this class.
In addition, in terms of alternatives, the story could have included at least a line about the appropriate context for the use of these medications (i.e. in combination with a heart healthy diet and lifestyle).
The drug mentioned in the story, Crestor, was correctly reported to be FDA approved for elevated total cholesterol or LDL levels.
The story accurately captured the on-going discussion about whether long-term use of statin medications provides long-term benefit to the consumer.
Did not appear to rely largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Like Michael Corleone of science reporting that @garyschwitzer is (he tries to get out, bullshit disguised as #science #journalism keeps pulling him back in!), he drops this on @nytimes idiocy 🙄 in reporting T1 diabetes "cure"
HT @HealthNewsRevu
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
A great read on this weekend’s NYT claims of a cure for Type 1.
Cure for Type 1 diabetes? We’ve been down this road before with NY Times https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
"But it is the framing and the emphasis of the #journalism by a leading science journalist at a leading newspaper that demands scrutiny. It has an impact on readers and on sick people that may cause harm by promoting false hope about extremely preliminary research"
👍👏💪 truth https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1465399358137024518
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