Fibroids are common and can cause bothersome symptoms such as pain, bleeding, and pressure in some women. However, they are also benign and deciding about how or whether to treatment them depends on how much a woman is bothered by her symptoms, feels about the pros and cons of different treatments, and whether she wishes to conserve her fertility. There are many different safe and viable treatments available, ranging from medications to minimally invasive procedures to surgery. Women who make a fully-informed decision about treatment in conjunction with their doctor are likely to be satisfied with their treatment so long as their choice matches their goals and what’s important to them.
Even with so many options, it would be welcome news that a drug may not just treat the symptoms but actually might reduce the size of fibroids. A new study presented at this week’s European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology shows that EllaOne, currently available as an emergency contraceptive in Europe (but not in the US), may shrink fibroids and reduce symptoms relative to placebo. However, the results should be greeted cautiously. This was a small, short study and the full results have not been evaluated. More research is needed to confirm them and answer many outstanding questions.
Whilet EllaOne may be shown to be very helpful to women with fibroids in the future, these results are premature at best.
The story does not describe costs of the drug.
The story states that 80 to 95% of women have no bleeding after taking the drug. However, that leaves a lot of open questions about the effectiveness of the drug. For example, how long does this benefit last? What about other symptoms of fibroids like abdominal pain and pressure? The story repeatedly mentions that the drug shrinks fibroids. By how much? Is that difference clinically meaningful? In other words, can women perceive an improvement in bulk symptoms (pain, pressure) as a result of the decreased fibroid size? Do the fibroids grow back?
The story mentions the potential harm of elevated liver function test results. However, it does not explain that women commonly experience abdominal pain, headaches and nausea with this drug.
The story does not critically appraise the current study. This was a small study (57 patients) with a short follow-up time. The results have also yet to be fully evaluated and have only been presented at a scientific conference.
The story verges on disease mongering by exaggerating the seriousness of fibroids. While it is true that up to 80% of women may have fibroids, only about 20% of women will have symptoms that are bothersome enough that they would seek treatment. Fibroids in of themselves are benign and are not problematic unless they cause symptoms and treatment should only be initiated if a woman is bothered by them. Symptoms of fibroids also most often go away after menopause. However, this story leaves the impression that all women with fibroids should be treated.
The story quoted multiple independent experts.
The story mentions Lupron and Uterine Artery Embolization as alternatives to EllaOne but fails to mention many other safe and effective options that are currently available. For example, oral contraceptives (which are not approved for fibroids but are commonly used for that indication) can help reduce bleeding and cramping associated with fibroids. Likewise, the Mirena IUD often stops bleeding altogether. NSAIDs can also be used for pain. Myomectomy, surgery to remove fibroids, preserves fertility. By not mentioning these options, the story leaves the reader with the impression that there are few viable alternatives.
The story clearly states that EllaOne is available for emergency contraception only in Europe but is being considered for approval in the US.
The story clearly describes that this drug is not new, but has previously only been used as an emergency contraceptive in Europe.
Because the story quotes several indepdent experts, the reader can assume that the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
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