The story uses numbers willy-nilly without context or clarification. But because the numbers are big (164%…doubled), they may imply significance – significance that the story never determines.
This story exemplifies how easy it is to simply get it wrong when reporting on study results presented at annual meetings. The story is incomplete, over emphasizes surrogate endpoints and over-interprets their implications.
It’s America’s leading killer. And the story misleads and hypes. That’s why it matters.
No discussion of cost. Can’t you give us some ballpark of what it costs to offer “IV infusion of ‘good’ cholesterol”?
We appreciate the fact that CSL 112 is in an early stage of development and that costs are not known at the moment. But shouldn’t some attention be given to the potential impact of a drug that requires IV infusions?
In the second sentence, the story states that “The goal of the new treatment is to reduce the high risk of a second heart attack in people who have had a heart attack.” But it never addressed whether that goal was addressed by the findings reported.
What does it mean for cholesterol removal from the cells of health volunteers to rise 164%? That sounds whopping. But what does it mean?
What does it mean for levels of ApoA-1 to double? Again, sounds impressive. But does this translate to any clinical benefit?
Come on! This was a study in 57 healthy volunteers who received a single infusion of CSL 112 and were followed for a short period of time. Suggesting any benefit is pure speculation
It is ludicrous to simply report “There were no serious side effects” when the only data you’ve reported is two hours of observation of healthy volunteers!
First, were there ANY side effects? If so, what?
Second, how many people with diseased arteries (not healthy volunteers) would have to be treated and followed for how long in order to be able to say ANYTHING meaningful about side effects?
While the story included the boilerplate language at the end about this being based on a talk at a conference (which we appreciate), it missed the bigger point and never included any caveat about drawing conclusions from such a tiny, short-term study in healthy volunteers.
One independent expert provided the only balance and the only caveat in the story.
Barely satisfactory, as the story at least nodded in the direction of other HDL-boosting drugs.
Significant omission. How does one get IV infusions of “good” HDL cholesterol? Where does one go for this? Is it only the experimental setting? You can’t assume that readers know and understand this.
There was not a word about whether this is the first such research attempt to use IV infusion of HDL cholesterol.
It does not appear that the story relied solely or largely on a news release.
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.
You might also like