Anatomy of the Publication Strategy

“Fewer than 30% of cardiologists surveyed recognized FH when shown a National Lipid Association (NLA) case example.” ~ Dr. JoAnne Foody, with editorial assistance. The 2011 survey cited was funded by Sanofi, Regeneron partner.

If an alarm sounds and everyone sees only one exit, where will they go?

Selective publishing of a Selection Bias:

  1. The default use of clinical scoring systems (for example, DLCN) is not sufficient to determine FH …
  2. … and the majority of passing scores are false positives …
  3. … and these clinical scoring systems filter out the majority of genuine mutation carriers.
  4. All the while, the authors nonetheless declare that these clinical scoring systems are recommended and common practice …
  5. … and in the next breath use genetic studies to prod the medical community with the urgency of “underdiagnosis!” …
  6. … through the only available door … clinical scoring systems.

Here is a press release by Regeneron Genetics Center, and others, announcing the article: “Geisinger and Regeneron study finds life-threatening genetic disorder is substantially underdiagnosed[1] And in the report itself, “A diagnosis of FH can be made with a validated set of criteria, such as those established by the Dutch Lipid Clinic Network (DLCN).

The FH publication strategy:  FH Clinical scoring systems in practice=higher profit



[1] Dec. 22, 2016 https://www.geisinger.org/about-geisinger/news-and-media/news-releases/2017/03/24/18/37/geisinger-and-regeneron-study-finds-life-threatening#sthash.EIz71tFP.dpuf