Read Original Story

New Blood Thinner May Outperform Warfarin for Irregular Heartbeat

Rating

5 Star

New Blood Thinner May Outperform Warfarin for Irregular Heartbeat

Our Review Summary

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.

 

Why This Matters

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.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Satisfactory

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.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

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.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Satisfactory

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.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Satisfactory

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.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

The story quoted a study researcher, a company spokesperson, and a cardiologist who did not appear to have ties to the study reported on.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

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.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

The story was clear that apixabane, the medication reported on, was experimental.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The story was clear that there is already a similar type of drug that has recently been approved for use by the FDA.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Satisfactory

While the story referenced a news release, it does not appear to be its sole source of information.

Total Score: 10 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.