NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine -
Read Original Story

New Blood Thinner May Outperform Warfarin for Irregular Heartbeat


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.


Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?


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?


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?


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?


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?


The story did not engage in overt disease mongering.

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


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?


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?


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

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?


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?


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

Total Score: 10 of 10 Satisfactory


Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.