The story did a good job providing information about the study, the potential for benefit and the possible side effects associated with this medication. Good comparison with coumadin, the effective, though challenging, medication used to treat atrial fib. It also mentioned the newly FDA approved medication Pradaxa for this condition.
The story ended with a terrific quote indicating that “we’re left with a question of cost versus convenience.” The ending quote goes right to the heart of the issue (pun intended). In reality, there was no signficant difference in outcomes between coumadin and rivaroxaban in the study. If approved, rivaroxaban will presumably be more convenient to use and may end up being less expensive when you include laboratory testing.
The story mentioned that the price of rivaroxaban would likely be significantly greater than coumadin. But it could have been more specific, noting, at least, what Canadians pay for it already. There coumadin is about 50 cents a day and rivaroxaban is about $9 a day. It wouldn’t have taken long to do that extra research.
The story mentioned that the study reported on found rivaroxaban to be equally effective as coumadin in reducing stroke and clot risk.
This story provided more information about the adverse events from the drug than did other stories we reviewed.
The story should have included at least a line about the limitations of drawing conclusions from a talk at a scientific meeting. It has not been published, has not undergone the kind of peer review a journal would employ, and not all data have been released. These are important caveats that take only a few words to explain.
The story made a point of calling one expert, Elaine Hylek of Boston University, “an independent expert.” However, MedPageToday wrote, in their story, that:
“Hylek disclosed research grants from NIH/NINDS, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Ortho-McNeil. She also said she serves on advisory boards at Bayer, Boehringer-Ingleheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, Medtronic, Merck, Pfizer, and sanofi-aventis.”
Perhaps the story should have explained how it defines “independent.”
The drug reported on was compared with the old standard as well as some discussion about a newly approved medication for AF.
The story makes it clear that rivaroxaban is not available in the US and that the companies co-producing the product will seek FDA approval. The story admirably resists the temptation to suggest approval is a foregone conclusion. Readers may have benefited by knowing the drug is approved in other countries including Canada.
The story ended with a terrific quote indicating that “we’re left with a question of cost versus convenience.” The story also contained information about another drug used in this patient population which was recently FDA approved
Does not appear to rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
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/
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