This AP story was strong overall, and did a great job discussing the drugs’ side effects and putting these new trials into perspective with older studies. However, the story was also shorter than the competing New York Times article and, consequently, left a few important details out, like a discussion of the likely costs of these drugs. A statement about risk reduction that exaggerates the size of the benefit (an issue we discuss in a related blog post) did not help matters. While patients on the drugs did technically have “half the risk of dying or suffering a heart problem,” that risk went from about 2% to 1% — a benefit that’s smaller than the story’s language implies. It would have been better to lead with the cautionary quotes from Drs. Neil Stone and Daniel Lloyd-Jones, whose comments were placed near the end of the article.
Lipid-lowering drugs, such as statins, are used to help people lower their cholesterol levels, which doctors believe may reduce the risk for heart attacks and strokes. But some people may not get their cholesterol into the recommended range with statins alone, and others are unable to tolerate a lifelong regimen of statins. If an experimental class of cholesterol drugs is shown to reduce cardiovascular risks and improve patient outcomes, then these may prove to be alternatives or adjuncts to the slew of cholesterol-lowering medications already out on the market. On the other hand, the safety of these new drugs must first be ascertained before they become widely available to consumers.
Unlike the competing article in The New York Times, the AP story did not attempt to estimate costs for this class of drugs.
Like The New York Times story, the AP story mentioned benefits in relative terms: “People taking one of these drugs had half the risk of dying or suffering a heart problem compared to others who were given usual care.” By describing this in terms of relative risk reduction, the numbers seem more impressive — misleadingly so — than if they were explained in absolute terms.
Unlike The New York Times story, however, the AP story did not also report the absolute percentages of people who had cardiovascular problems in each study, which would have helped clarify the size of the benefit.
For that reason, we’re rating the story Not Satisfactory.
The AP story did a more thorough job addressing the harms associated with the experimental drugs than The New York Times article. The AP story went more in-depth into the side effects – especially on thinking, confusion and memory – and pointed out that the Food and Drug Administration had even voiced concerns.
An independent expert, Dr. Anthony DeMaria, explained that the neurological side effects were more common with people taking one of the new drugs and added that this would have to be closely monitored.
Another expert source, Dr. Eric Topol, also raised concerns about the drugs’ safety, saying more side effects typically turn up once a drug is approved and used in a wider population.
This story was not quite as extensive in its discussion of limitations as the competing New York Times story. However, it did enough to merit a satisfactory rating.
Examples from the text:
“They are fresh analyses from older studies designed to look at how much the drugs lower cholesterol, so they can only suggest that the drugs also lower heart problems, not prove that point. Definitive studies will take about two more years, so the federal Food and Drug Administration will be deciding the drugs’ fates with only results like this in hand.”
“Lloyd-Jones of Northwestern University in Chicago – wrote in the medical journal that ‘it would be premature to endorse these drugs for widespread use’ until the definitive studies are done in a couple of years. Other drugs that initially seemed good failed when put to the most rigorous test, they wrote.
An important fact that was not mentioned was that these trials were funded by the drug manufacturers themselves – alirocumab by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and evolocumab by Amgen. Many readers will likely recognize that fact, but some probably will not.
But the article quoted four experts who were not associated with the study, as well as the two authors from The New England Journal of Medicine editorial. Two of the independent experts shed some light on the trials’ safety concerns and explained how many people were affected by the drugs’ side effects. The story clears the bar here.
This story did a good job in bringing up “usual care,” which is normally one of the stain drugs like Lipitor or Zocor. But many people cannot tolerate statins or get enough help from them, it said.
The article made it clear in the first paragraph that these drugs are not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. “The government will decide this summer whether to allow two of these drugs on the market,” it stated.
The story accurately establishes novelty. It pointed out that these studies were “fresh analyses from older studies,” designed to measure the extent these drugs lower cholesterol. “So they can only suggest that the drugs also lower heart problems, not prove the point,” it said.
We think that’s an excellent way to put these trials into perspective.
The article did not seem to be based on this press release or this one. The independent experts quoted in this story are evidence of original reporting.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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