Of the two stories we reviewed that reported the findings of a study showing an association between statin use and lower rates of rheumatoid arthritis, this one does the better job highlighting the preliminary nature of the research. Comments from a researcher about the need for further study before suggesting statins as a preventive measure to fight rheumatoid arthritis appear near the top of the story. The story also includes a comment from an independent source saying this type of study cannot tell us if there is a causal relationship. Like the other story we reviewed, this one fails to make any mention of side effects or any other downside to statin use. As with the other story reviewed, a significant shortcoming of this story was the failure to put the observed difference in rheumatoid arthritis rates into perspective. The story reports those who took statins faithfully for several years had a 40 percent lower rate of developing rheumatoid arthritis. But this was 40 percent lower than what? Neither story answers that question. The American College of Rheumatology estimates that rheumatoid arthritis affects between 2 and 10.7 people per 1,000. That means you would need to treat up to 998 people with statins to eliminate one case of RA. That statistic puts the finding in a different light and should have been included.
A small reduction in a common risk can affect more people than a big reduction in an uncommon risk; that is why stories must include some information about the absolute rates, not merely relative reductions or increases. Without this background information it is impossible to know how important a reduction in the risk really is.
The story does not mention the costs of statin therapy, which include not only the drug itself but also ongoing testing and other monitoring. For some patients, statins are part of a lifelong treatment regimen. In those cases in particular, the costs can really add up.
The story does not clearly explain what a 40 percent reduction in the risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis really means. How many fewer cases developed than were expected? The story doesn’t say. It reports that the researchers reviewed medical records of almost 2 million health plan members in Israel and that about 2,500 new cases of rheumatoid arthritis were diagnosed during the study period. But readers can’t tell from this information what the typical risk of rheumatoid arthritis might be, so they are left to ask: 40 percent of what?
Even though the authors of the research study commented on the risks of statin use in order to place this potential additional use into context, this story failed to include any mention of the potential harms.
Although the story headline and lead suggest the study evaluated whether statins could prevent rheumatoid arthritis, overall the story was clear that the study was observational and that all it can offer is an indication of an association between statin use and arthritis rates. Indeed, the story clearly pointed out that the results of this study merely suggest experimental trials and other research should evaluate the potential benefits of statin use in regard to rheumatoid arthritis. This is not the kind of evidence that can reveal whether statins were responsible for the lower risk seen among participants who took the drugs over an extended period.
This story does not engage in disease-mongering. At the same time, it fails to mention the prevalence or seriousness of rheumatoid arthritis. The American College of Rheumatology estimates the prevalence of RA between 2 and 10.7 per 1000 adults. While relatively uncommon, RA can be a devastating chronic illness. It would have been helpful to provide some information on prevalence in the story.
The story includes comments from an independent source. Although the story does not mention any potential conflicts of interest, none were disclosed by the study authors.
The story does not mention any alternative approaches to reducing the risk of rheumatoid arthritis. There are a number of risks factors associated with the development of rheumatoid arthritis. Of the four, only smoking is modifiable. The others are female gender (women get RA about twice as often as men), family history and age (most people with RA develop it between 40 and 50 years of age). A complete story would have provided a bit more background for the reader.
The story notes that statins are the most commonly prescribed class of drugs in the world, which is an even better description than the one used in the HealthDay story.
The story says there have been other studies that have looked into whether statin use may have any effect on rheumatoid arthritis.
The story does not appear to be based on a news release.
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