From the headline to the text, this story is problematic–readers don’t learn the actual results of the study, which identified and measured the size and shape of inflamed and unstable fat cells in the arteries of people undergoing bypass surgery, and compared them in some fashion to people having angiograms to assess the presence of heart disease.
The story also seems to confuse two separate issues. One issue is gradual narrowing of arteries over many years, which is what this new test seems to be looking at. The second issue is a sudden heart attack that occurs in seconds, which is not the same thing.
Most confusing is that the study is designed to assess the possibility of using inflammation to predict risk in people long before they have atherosclerotic buildup that can been seen with angiograms or heart CT scans; or before there are heart disease symptoms. But the study was performed on people having bypass surgery or angiograms, presumably because they already have heart disease or symptoms. That’s a big limitation to this research that’s never discussed in the news story. The article also makes some claims about the value of statins as anti-inflammatories that need context.
Heart disease remains the number one killer of Americans, and while the use of statins, other drugs, better heart imaging and lifestyle changes (diet, exercise, smoking cessation) have seriously lowered the risk of some heart attacks and strokes, having a tool that could more accurately predict who needs statins and other interventions sooner would be most welcome.
This article attempts to describe a study designed to validate arterial tissue inflammation as a sensitive marker for heart attack risk, but stories about diagnostic advances need to make very clear what was measured, what the study’s endpoints were, i.e. what question was asked and answered; and why the investigators think their advance is worth pursuing.
The article doesn’t discuss what the study authors new “way” of assessment might add in the way of costs.
The story didn’t provide any data to give a sense of the potential benefit of the new approach. No numbers were given to explain how well it worked.
Because there is so little information about the imaging technique and what it requires, it’s hard to say what the harms or benefits might be, but certainly the story might have mentioned the potential risk of drug intervention (or non-intervention) if the inflammatory cell “marker” is valid as a predictor of heart attack risk.
Also, it would have been worth discussing if the new imaging technique exposes patients to radiation, which has been shown to increase the risk of cancer if used repeatedly.
The story does not adequately establish the quality of the evidence, except to indicate that more research is needed, implying that this is preliminary work.
From the journal article itself: “The main limitation of this study is the lack of data demonstrating a predictive value of these imaging markers for clinical outcomes, which falls beyond the scope of this current work.” There was no such caveat in the news story. Rather, the headline trumpets that it “May Predict Heart Attacks.”
No disease mongering here. The story stated that “about 750,000 Americans have a heart attack every year.”
The article appears to quote only those who conducted the study.
The article does describe current means of assessing heart attack risk, as well as some interventions (surgical and medical) to address those risks.
However, the article doesn’t mention how this new technique would stack up against standard tests like stress tests or nuclear perfusion scans. There also is the option of simply treating people with risk factors and not utilizing imaging tests.
The story explains that more research is needed before the technology might be available to everyone.
The story focuses on the use of inflammatory heart tissue as having potentially better predictive value than current risk assessment tools for heart attack. But it’s a reluctant satisfactory, because the narrative is confusing and no numbers were given to estimate the scope of the potential benefit–how well the new approach worked.
We could not locate a release from the University of Oxford or Science Translational Medicine.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
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
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