Overall, this is a good piece that reports on a recent study that found policosanol to have no effect on low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. This observation differs from the previously published work on this compound, most of which has been conduced by a single research group in Cuba.
Although this product is readily available as a nutritional supplement, this new study calls into question the whether policosanol has any benefit in terms of reducing LDL cholesterol.
This article failed to mention some of the pharmaceutical and lifestyle interventions that have actually been demonstrated to reduce LDL cholesterol. This is one weakness in the article — there is ample evidence regarding other prescription medications that do improve LDL cholesterol — and alternative treatments . These should have been mentioned.
There were no cost estimates for policosanol either as sole ingredient supplement or when included in a multi-vitamin preparation.
The article reported that there was no difference in LDL cholesterol levels after 12 weeks of treatment between the ‘dummy pill’ and policosanol group.
The article neglected to mention that the study reported no severe adverse effects of policosanol.
Although policosanol was reported to be ineffective in lowering LDL cholesterol, the article failed to explicitly mention that – by definition – a harm of treatment is inadequate treatment of elevated LDL cholesterol.
This article reports on the findings of a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). It reported on the controversy that policosanol has previously been reported to reduce LDL cholesterol in studies sponsored by the Cuban sugar cane industry and Cuban government. – But the results of the new study differ markedly from these.
This article did not appear to engage in disease-mongering.
This piece included comments from several sources, including a spokesperson from the manufacturer of One-A-Day vitamins which contains policosanol in at least one formulation and a quote from a spokesperson from a trade group with interest in supplement sales. In addition, it appears that an attempt was made to get a statement from the Cuban scientific center that has sponsored the studies in Cuba of this compound.
This article failed to mention some of the pharmaceutical and lifestyle interventions that have actually been demonstrated to reduce LDL cholesterol. This is one key weakness in the article — there is ample evidence regarding other prescription medications that do improve LDL cholesterol — and alternative treatments . These should have been mentioned.
The article mentioned that this supplement is widely available from internet as well as brick and mortar stores. It would have been helpful to explicitly state that policosanol is available over-the-counter without a prescription.
As a nutritional supplement, policosanol requires no FDA approval for sale, information that would have been informative to include as well.
Although policosanol has been suggested by some as a natural substance that can be used to reduce cholesterol, the novelty reported on in this article was that a carefully designed study found it not effective in lowering LDL cholesterol.
It’s clear that the story did not rely solely on a news release, because at least one comment in the story came from the journal article’s “Discussion” section, and was not included in the JAMA news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
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/
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