Experimental drug could replace burdensome anti-stroke treatment warfarin
Reviewed By
Rating
Experimental drug could replace burdensome anti-stroke treatment warfarin
Our Review Summary
Cost information is discussed inadequately, incompletely or not at all in 70% of the stories we review. It is an interesting paradox that this story didn’t provide an estimate of how much consumers will have to pay for the drug, but it did estimate the size of the market for such drugs. Indeed, we identified the cost of rivaroxaban to consumers in Canada within seconds and wonder why this important consideration was not included in this – or any of the stories we reviewed. The cost of the drug alone needs to be placed in context and comparison to the cost of coumadin and the requisite laboratory testing. The average reader, especially those undergoing treatment with coumadin would likely be more interested in purchase price than in revenue to the manufacturer.
Why This Matters
While the story was well done overall, the things that were missing were vital, and could have been addressed with just a few more words.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
It is an interesting paradox that the story didn’t provide an estimate of how much consumers will have to pay for the drug, but it did estimate the size of the market for such drugs. Indeed, we identified the cost of rivaroxaban to consumers in Canada within seconds and wonder why this important consideration was not included in this – or any of the stories we reviewed. The cost of the drug alone needs to be placed in context and comparison to the cost of coumadin and the requisite laboratory testing. The average reader, especially those undergoing treatment with coumadin would likely be more interested in purchase price than in revenue to the manufacturer.
Satisfactory
The story presented data from the study reported on that suggests the drug may reduce stroke risk more effectively. It alluded to some factors complicating the use of coumadin which would be eliminate with rivaroxaban. The story provided readers with information about atrial fibrillation and why a drug that prevents blood clots from forming is important.
Not Satisfactory
There was no discussion of potential harms or side effects from the use of rivaroxaban.
Not Satisfactory
The story was about study results that were presented at a recent meeting but have not yet undergone peer review. The story should have inlcuded at least a line of caution about interpreting results from a talk at a meeting. In addition, the story used only relative risk reduction data rather than absolute risk reduction stats which give readers a better sense of the magnitude of the difference.
Satisfactory
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
Satisfactory
The story provides comments from three experts in the field unaffiliated with the study or the manufacturer.
Satisfactory
The story contained information about the current ‘gold standard’ of treatment and indicated that rivaroxaban compared favorably; and that both rivaroxaban and the recently approved Pradaxa would be less complicated for patients to use.
Satisfactory
The story was clear that rivaroxaban is not yet approved for use and thus not available in the US.
The statement that ‘analysts predict’ the drug will be approved later this year may be overly optimistic, especially since the results reported on come from a study that has not been subjected to peer review or published in a completed form..
Satisfactory
The story explained that rivaroxaban was a medication under study as a substitute for coumadin. It also mentioned dabigatran (Pradaxa), a recently FDA approved medication that can be used instead of coumadin.
Satisfactory
Does not appear to rely on news release.
Total Score: 7 of 10 Satisfactory
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