Too much company perspective, accompanied by no independent expert perspective makes this a one-sided story.
Based on the company’s press release, the study was a post marketing, open label study with no comparator arm. So the device was not compared directly with angioplasty or angioplasty and stent. According to the principal investigator, the results were comparable to those obtained in other studies using angioplasty and stent. But, there was no direct comparison made in the study and comparing results from two different studies is speculative at best. So, while there is an impression made that the Covidien device is “as good” as angioplasty and stent, that impression is not backed up by data. We are told that there is “no metal left behind” but the importance of that fact is left to the reader’s imagination.
Comparative cost of treatment, comparative harms and long term results are needed to determine if the device is going to live up to expectations.
A local story about a product from a local company (or one that has a “significant presence” locally) should still provide context on comparative costs, tradeoffs between benefits and harms, comparisons with other approaches, and independent perspectives. These were all lacking in this story.
No mention of costs of atherectomy nor of the tool in question.
No data were provided – only superlatives from the local company:
A company news release did provide more details on potential benefits.
No discussion of potential harms from the approach.
Any newly introduced device used in an interventional procedure has inherent risks both from the device itself and from the operator. The procedural complication rate is an important consideration especially since the new device is said to be as good as existing treatmemts.
No independent evaluation of the evidence. A study that the company cleverly named DEFINITIVE demands scrutiny to show how definitive it may or may not be.
No disease mongering of peripheral artery disease.
There were comments from the principal investigator – but they only addressed business prospects – not clinical efficacy questions And there was a stock analyst’s perspective.
But we expect more: independent clinical experts’ perspectives on what the data on harms and benefits mean for patients – especially when the headline claims “tools shown effective against PAD.”
There were company comments about qualitative differences among alternative approaches, but no real substantive discussion about comparative outcomes.
The story never established if the device is approved by the FDA, and, if so, how widely it is used and available. There’s a quote from the principal investigator that atherectomy is “only used in about 15-20% of PAD cases” but that he expects that to change with these results. But not all atherectomy is done with these tools. We actually aren’t told how many are done with these tools.
Following up on the point just made, there is no explanation of what makes this company’s tools different or novel in comparison with other atherectomy tools/approaches.
Although the story is filled with company perspectives, there’s no evidence it relied solely or largely on a news release. It did, though, appear to lift one paragraph from a company news release.
Story:
According to the American Heart Association, about 10 million people in the U.S. are affected by PAD, which can lead to heart attack, stroke, amputation and death. It occurs when arteries in the legs become narrowed or blocked by plaque. Blockages can result in severe pain, limited mobility and nonhealing leg ulcers.
According to the American Heart Association, approximately 10 million people in the U.S. are affected by PAD, which is one of the most common vascular diseases and can lead to heart attack, stroke, amputation and death. It occurs when arteries in the legs become narrowed or blocked by plaque; these blockages can result in severe pain for patients, limited physical mobility and non-healing leg ulcers.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
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.