But benefits and harms seen in the trial weren’t adequately quantified to our liking, making it difficult for readers to judge the true scope of each as seen in the study.
Instead, a lot of space was given to exuberant quotes about “game changer…one of biggest steps in cardiovascular medicine in our lifetime” and predictions that the new approach “will be performed on tens of thousands of patients each year.” All may become true.
But for now, we’d like to see more hard numbers.
As the story mentions, aortic stenosis is common among the elderly population and information about a potential additional treatment option for those at the greatest risk is important. The real question will be whether the benefit-harm tradeoff for the “minimally invasive” approach is good enough to outweigh the downsides of surgery.
The story indicated that the device costs around $30,000; and that combined with the costs of surgery, it works out to around $50,200 per year for the two additional years of life that might be obtained.
While not essential, it might be reasonable to raise the question of how these costs will likely be covered – i.e. out of pocket, insurance, medicare, hospitals – or some combination.
The new trial didn’t produce any mortality benefit at 1 year, and had an increased rate of stroke and bleeding (but less major bleeding and arrythmias than with surgery). These effects were not quantified, however, so it is hard to judge their relative importance.
No absolute risk information was provided about potential harms. This may have been the biggest weakness in the story.
In the big picture, the story adequately explained that for those in the high-risk category, valve replacement by a “minimally-invasive” procedure “is at least as effective as surgery.”
No overt disease mongering, but the story could have been improved by reporting the number of people in the US who fall into the 10% high risk category.
Experts who were identified as not being involved in the study reported on were quoted in the story.
For those patients who are among the top 10% at risk, the story reported on the results from a study that compared a potential new, catheter based treatment with the existing alternative, which is surgery
About 2/3 of the way through the piece, it was mentioned that the device is approved for use in Europe but not in this country, and that an FDA advisory panel is expected to consider it later this summer.
The novelty and importance of the new approach was made clear, largely through the quotes of experts.
The story does not appear to rely solely 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