This is a story about an experimental new blood thinner for use by people who have atrial fibrillation. This story delivers a sound presentation of why this drug may have benefit over the commonly used warfarin.
The need for medication to reduce clotting risk from atrial fibrillation is common and there is long-standing interest in eliminating the need for routine monitoring that the current treatment with warfarin requires.
The story mentioned that apixabane would cost more than warafarin, and included a quote from a company spokesperson to indicate that the exact price is uncertain as the medication has not yet been approved. The story also presented a reasoned examination of total costs for the use of warafin that accounted not just for per pill costs but also the expenses associated with the routine blood draws to examine warafarin levels.
The story provided the absolute decrease in the number of strokes or clots, major bleeding events and hemorrhagic stroke as compared to the people in the study taking warafarin.
The story provided good insight about possible problems associated with apixabane in patients with coronary artery disease who were simultaneously taking two blood thinners in addition to apixabane.
The story provided a clear explanation about the nature of the patients, the size of the study, and the fact that it was a randomized clinical trial.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
The story quoted a study researcher, a company spokesperson, and a cardiologist who did not appear to have ties to the study reported on.
The story compared the outcome measure of apixabane to warafarin; in addition, it indicated that there is another medication in the same category that has been recently approved by the FDA.
The story was clear that apixabane, the medication reported on, was experimental.
The story was clear that there is already a similar type of drug that has recently been approved for use by the FDA.
While the story referenced a news release, it does not appear to be its sole source of information.
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