The headline of this story (which was the same in other media that picked up the AP story) paints a somewhat unrealistic expectation.
The story did not explain that the study was a retrospective analysis of data on patients who were prescribed statins for specific indications, not a prospective study comparing the effects on longevity of statins on two matched groups of individuals. There are inherent weaknesses in such "observational" studies which the story didn't explain.
While the results from this single research study that showed that for those elderly at higher cardiovascular risk, the use of statins was associated with longer survival – surprise about these results was expressed by the study's first author. This should help temper premature extrapolation of these findings to individual patients for those who read beyond the headline.
The story reported that "those at greater risk of death received the greatest benefit of being on the drugs" and that "statin users actually lived an average two years longer despite the patients having more health risk factors and being older than non-statin users." But the reader is given no basis for comparison. How much greater was the initial risk compared to other groups? Neither the baseline risk nor the benefit were adequately quantified.
The story didn't discuss any potential harms from statin use, nor did it discuss the cost of statin drugs.
The story admits that the quote from the principal investigator came from a news release, not from a direct interview. Since no other source is quoted, and since key points from the study as it appeared in the journal article were missed, it appears that this story relied solely or largely on a news release.
There was no mention of costs.
The story reported that "those at greater risk of death received the greatest benefit of being on the drugs" and that "statin users actually lived an average two years longer despite the patients having more health risk factors and being older than non-statin users." But the reader is given no basis for comparison. How much greater was the initial risk compared to other groups? Neither the baseline risk nor the benefit were adequately quantified.
There was no mention of any harms or side effects that are associated with the use of statin medications.
It is not clear from this story that the study on which is it based followed data not patients. This was an observational study, not an experimental trial. As such, the people prescribed statins may be different than those not prescribed statins. This point was not discussed in the article.
Although the study purported to examine data on ~ 1.5 million patients, in the second to last paragraph, it clarifies that to indicate that data on only 325,930 patients was included in the study. In addition, the group for which statins were not prescribed included individuals who died at younger ages than the statin group which may have influenced the results calculator. And the group not taking statins likely included individuals with serious health problems other than cardiovascular disease.
The story did not explain that the study was a retrospective analysis of data on patients who were prescribed statins for specific indications, not a prospective study comparing the effects on longevity of statins on two matched groups of individuals. There are inherent weaknesses in such "observational" studies which the story didn't explain.
This story only contained a comment from one of the authors of the study. (And that quote came from a news release, not directly from the researcher!) It did not include comments from any independent sources of information.
The story stated that "Doctors typically prescribe statins to elderly patients with a history of coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes, and smoking." which is not accurate. Doctors typically prescribe statins for high cholesterol levels. And there was no discussion of other treatment options.
It's clear from the story that statins are wide available.
This story accurately represented that the use of statins is common. The new observation reported was that statin use in elderly patients who smoke and who had a history of coronary artery disease, diabetes, hypertension appeared to help them live longer.
The story discloses that the quote from the principal investigator came from a news release, not from a direct interview.
Since no other source is quoted, and since key points from the study as it appeared in the journal article were missed, it appears that this story relied solely or largely on a news 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