The story allows both the enthusiasm and the reservations to be perfectly clear to the reader. Nice job.
The story estimates that more than 7 million Americans have hypertension that is resistant to drug therapy. That resistance may be the result of inadequate drug dosing, incorrect drug combination, poor compliance and adherence or underlying physiology. A new approach for patients with truly resistant hypertension is clearly needed. Renal denervation is not new or novel as the story notes. A new device that reduces the risks of the original procedure may bring the approach to many more patients if it truly works, is durable and is not associated with kidney damage. While preliminary studies appear to be promising, the true test of multiyear durability has yet to be demonstrated.
The story noted, “In Europe, Medtronic’s hypertension procedure costs about $14,000, sticker shock compared with the generic prices of standard hypertension medications and another reason for careful study to prove its effects.”
The story explained, “In small Medtronic studies, those treated saw the key top number of a blood pressure reading drop an average of 33 points, although they still needed their medications. Medtronic reported in March that the improvements were lasting up to three years.”
The story reported, “Although pilot studies show few side effects, potential risks include bleeding, an injured blood vessel, immediate blood pressure or heartbeat problems, or complications from medications used in the procedure. ”
Also: “But “what we don’t know is the long-term effect” of nerve zapping, Tomaselli cautioned. “It’s going to take a little bit of time to make sure there are not adverse effects two years, three years, 10 years down the line.”
One thing the story didn’t discuss: A major concern with this type of procedure is damage to kidney function. The clinical trials to date, have excluded people with already damaged kidneys for their high blood pressure or diabetes. There is evidence from early trials that kidney function is reduced in patients who have undergone the procedure so it remains to be seen if the approach is safe in people with preexisting kidney dysfunction.
The story explained that small studies have been done so far, and that “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration required a more rigorous study, now enrolling more than 500 people, that includes an unusual step to prove if it really works. Some patients receive the real procedure and some get a fake — just the catheter, no zapping. Patel describes patients wearing a blindfold and earphones while lying sedated on the treatment table, to ensure they don’t know which they’re getting.”
No disease mongering of hard-to-treat hypertension.
The story didn’t mention that Dr. Oparil is a paid consultant for Medtronic. But since a number of independent sources were quoted, we’ll give this a satisfactory score.
There was no mention of ongoing efforts to use deep brain stimulation to reduce blood pressure in this same patient population.
The story explained the investigational nature of the approach and “more than 60 medical centers around the country studying Medtronic Inc.’s nerve-zapping procedure. “
The story explained that “More than five dozen companies are pursuing devices for hypertension, from catheters similar to Medtronic’s to permanent implants left in arteries to regulate blood pressure. “
It’s clear the story did not rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
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/
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