While attempting to update readers on a new experimental approach for heart disease, this article did not clearly explain that the use of autologous bone marrow stem cells in the treatment of ischemic heart disease was, indeed, an experimental approach currently being evaluated for safety and effectiveness. The results of some recent studies suggest that this approach may hold some promise for some patients. But it should have been emphasized, as in the New England Journal of Medicine editorials, that the effects were clinically marginal, even if statistically significant. It should have been emphasized that the studies were not all positive. The cheaper and well established alternative therapies are relevant but were not discussed in this story. Only about half of patients who have previously had a heart attack are taking the cheap medications we already know could be helping them prolong their lives.
There was no mention of any risks associated with the experimental approach, which is delivered as an intracoronary infusion, nor was there any discussion of short term vs. long term benefit that may be come from this approach. There was also no discussion of what this approach might cost.
There were no estimates for the cost of this experimental approach.
While it was interesting to see the results presented in terms of percent improvement, the article ought to have included some information regarding the statistical and clinical significance of these results. The editorialists in the New England Journal of Medicine emphasize that the findings may be statistically significant but not clinically significant. The author of the news article should be commended for mentioning both absolute benefit (2.9%) as well as relative benefit (7%). But missing the points raised in the editorial is a problem.
There was no mention of any harms associated with the experimental approach. The article mentioned that patients received an infusion of stem cells. It did not mention that the infusion was intracoronary. Readers should be told the details of the process and the potential risks.
The evidence for this article comes from three studies presented in a single recent issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. The author fails to put the most positive study into context with the other two. One of the three studies showed no benefit, and this should be emphasized at the outset. The article was less clear than it ought to be about the nature of the studies.
The article did provide estimates for the number of heart attacks and the number of lethal heart attacks per year. But it failed to indicate what proportion of the group having heart attacks might benefit from the experimental approach described. Are we to believe that this is for all “weakened hearts”? The subheadline reads “Even patients who suffered an episode decades ago can benefit.”
In addition to the information gleaned from the New England Journal of Medicine publications, this article contained additional quotes from clinicians in the field. One of experts quoted in the article is a senior author of one study. An accompanying editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine points out that after the research article was accepted for publication, this researcher formed a commercial venture using this stem-cell technique. The reader should know of the biases of the “experts.”
Midway though the article it mentioned that the patients in the study “were already receiving state-of-the-art drug treatments for their heart disease, including use of beta blockers and cholesterol-lowering statins”. Beyond this statement, there were no other details about treatments for ischemic heart disease.
The article failed to mention that the use of bone marrow stem cells in the treatment of ischemia is an experiment. In fact, it confuses the reader when it says “the researchers are uncertain why the therapy works.” It’s not a therapy yet; it’s an experiment, which the story goes on to admit when it says “stem cells may be gradually moving from the laboratory into viable human therapies.” Furthermore, the editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine accompanying the reports clearly recommends that this approach be limited to controlled experiments with willing subjects. But that editorial isn’t mentioned in the story.
This article reported on recent study results that were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. They represent the latest study results on the use of bone marrow stem cells as an experimental approach for ischemic heart disease. The article does not say what standard treatment is after a heart attack or for chronic congestive heart failure. While indeed stem cell infusion is novel, the reader of the article will not know why.
This article does not appear to rely exclusively on a press 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