Guardian leaves out a key potential conflict of interest in story on statin study

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

Costs were not discussed. However, statins cost between roughly $313 (generic) to $1,428 (name-brand) per patient per year in the US, according to a 2012 study in Pharmacoptherapy. The costs are much less in the UK: $164 (generic) and $509 (name-brand) per patient per year.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The story only told readers the relative risk improvements for taking a statin. It did not present the terms in absolute numbers. By the relative measure, taking statins seems very effective: 28% fewer men died from heart disease when taking statins compared to a placebo.

But the absolute risk is more sober and should always be presented along with relative numbers. Of the group taking statins, 6.69% of people with very high LDL died from cardiovascular heart disease within 20 years. Of the group taking a placebo (and it’s not immediately clear to us what their LDL status was), 9.03% died from heart disease.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

No side effects of statins are mentioned, but they’re significant. Taken over many years, let alone decades, those risks become even more significant considerations. The most common side effect — 29% of people on statins report experience it — is damage to muscles and muscle pain (e.g. soreness, tiredness, and weakness), according to the Mayo Clinic. However, those on placebo report a similar rate of muscle pain and damage. Other, less common side effects (for which there’s also less evidence that statins may be responsible) include liver damage, increased blood sugar or type 2 diabetes, and memory loss/confusion.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

The story lays out the basic results and methods (e.g. a randomized trial on 2,560 men with high cholesterol), though it doesn’t go much beyond that. What were the limitations?

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

The story doesn’t note how the study was funded through Sanofi, a company that makes, markets, and sells statins, Furthermore, most of the authors disclosed that they have accepted either grant money or fees from major pharmaceutical companies. In fact, five out of the the eight authors had or have a financial relationship with Sanofi.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

This is not adequately explained. While a 20-year study sounds impressive, we’re not told about other similar treatments and lifestyle changes.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Not Satisfactory

Quotes in this story directly match those from an Imperial College news release about the study, but there is no attribution given to the news release.