Even in – or perhaps especially in – a business story, more critical analysis of such very early research is warranted. More context and more background is necessary for investors or for patients to have in order to judge this extremely preliminary report that is framed by the company as “promising.”
We have seen how drugs for erectile dysfunction have been marketed – and how drug makers have tried to expand the market for these drugs.
Such an early story about a surgical approach should have emphasized just that – this is a surgical approach that may not be a good choice for many of the millions of men estimated to have some kind of erectile dysfunction.
Sure, it’s early in development.
But just as surely, some estimate could have been made of what the stent, the surgery, and followup care would cost.
If it’s not too early to report on “promising” results after ann initial feasibility study, then it’s not too early to start projecting costs – even in – or perhaps especially in – a business story.
As stated above in the “evidence” criterion, the potential benefit wasn’t made clear. There was no critical evaluation or explanation of what it means to improve by 4 points on the 30-point index of erectile dysfunction scale.
What difference does such an improvement mean in men’s lives?
Basically, to interpret the results, we would also need to know baseline function and then post-procedure function. More interpretable data would be responses to specific standard questions about erectile function, e.g., whether erections were firm enough for intercourse, how often did the man have an erection when he wanted one.
Yes, the story explained that there were no adverse events reported up to three months later but that risks may become evident much later. That’s an appropriate and important reminder.
But the story didn’t go far enough in providing available context. The coronary stents are well known to have problems with clotting – generating a new generation of more expensive “coated” stents and the need for prolonged treatment with expensive oral medications to prevent clotting. The story could have addressed this – extrapolating that coronary artery complications could occur in penile arteries is not unreasonable. However, the trade-offs of stent risks – protecting the heart vs. protecting erectile dysfunction are quite different (and implicitly equating them smacks of another element of disease-mongering).
There was no critical evaluation of the evidence – and of how limited are the conclusions that can be drawn from an initial feasibility study in 30 men.
There was no critical evaluation or explanation of what it means to improve by 4 points on the 30-point index of erectile dysfunction scale.
What difference does such an improvement mean in men’s lives?
We think there’s an element of disease-mongering at play here.
No source was cited for the estimates of 30 million US men and 300 million worldwide with erectile dysfunction. For example, it took us just seconds to find one citation:
Second, the story could have noted that erectile dysfunction comes in many forms – some as the result of illness, some from treatment of another problem. And many of these baseline problems – such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes – are preventable. And the estimates take into account ALL degrees of erectile dysfunction – not all equate to a total inability to achieve an erection.
Third, the vascular causes might not be safely amenable to stenting. We don’t know the inclusion/exclusion criteria for the study.
So, even in a business story, the “market” of “a real unmet clinical need” for a surgical procedure may have been inflated in this story.
No independent source was quoted – the company-sponsored investigator was the only source quoted.
Some comparison was made with drug therapy for erectile dysfunction. But there was no mention of a very safe and often effective alternative – the penile vacuum pump. Penile implants are also effective, though require surgical procedures. It would have required only an additional line to give this backgrounding context. Even business story readers and investors would want this reminder.
The story was clear that “it could be several years before Medtronic undertakes a much larger late-stage trial” and that “this is still investigational.”
The story includes a quote that “this is the incepton of an entirely new way of treating ED that has never been seen before.”
We don’t question the investigator’s comment. We only question the editorial decision-making. We easily found news stories from at least two years ago that talked about Medtronic’s development of this approach. How many “inception” stories will we get before there is actually some meaningful, longterm experience to report in large numbers of men?
If it was “new” two years ago, is it still new today? Is there still anything meaningful to report?
Not applicable. We can’t be sure of the extent to which the story relied on a news release. We do know that the company-sponsored investigator was the only source quoted.
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Gopi Nair
January 31, 2012 at 10:35 amWhat about people who have several coronary stents (10) after bypass and on Plavix & aspirin, but still very active (1 hour walk) diabetic for 30 years. Can’t take viagra.
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