HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Fighting Alzheimer’s
July 17, 2008
ABC referred to the drug Dimebon as one that might give hope to millions with Alzheimer’s – and as a "A Miracle Drug.”
But their story didn’t establish any justification for calling this a miracle.
Our Review Summary
This felt like a hurried attempt to cover a story appearing in the journal, The Lancet. And journalists should not be rushed when reporting about Alzheimer's Disease. Yet ABC did rush to these conclusions:
- On the air, they referred to the drug Dimebon as "a drug which might, and we stress might, give some hope to the millions of people who suffer from Alzheimer’s Disease."
- On its website they referred to the drug as "A Miracle Drug for Alzheimer's Disease."
Their story:
- Didn't explain how limited the conclusions should be about a drug studied in 120 patients in a Phase 2 trial;
- Didn't interview anyone involved in the research;
- Didn't explain how "significant improvement" was measured;
- Didn't discuss any potential harms.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The story doesn't tell us much about Dimebon - not whether it's already FDA approved for anything else. Not the fact that it's also being studied for use in Huntington's Disease. The accompanying editorial in the Lancet states, "This drug began life as a non-selective antihistamine but was withdrawn when more selective agents became available."
The story doesn't mention anything about costs.
The story doesn't commit any overt disease-mongering.
The story only states that those taking the drug "showed significant improvement in mental tests." What does that mean? Which tests? How reliable are they? The scales used in such studies - and their significance to activities of daily living - always not in synch.
All drugs have side effects; this story mentioned none.
We aren't given any sense of the novelty of this approach. Why might an antihistamine work in Alzheimer's disease? Why didn't the story mention the drug company's parallel Huntington Disease studies? Is there a mechanism worth explaining?
Using the phrase "showed significant improvement in mental tests" does not meet our standard for quantifying benefits. What does this mean?
We can't be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release.
Odd sourcing on this story. We don't hear from any of the investigators. We only hear from Dr. Sam Gandy of the Alzheimer’s Association. A woman with early Alzheimer's Disease is interviewed but we can assume that she was not in the trial.
The story only states, "Medicines on the market now do little more than delay the mental decline." But this study was only a Phase 2 study. It did not compare Dimebon with any of the existing drugs. So no comparison can be made. And that one line was insufficient explanation of what is available and what the harms/benefits of the existing approaches are.
Total Score: 1 of 9 Satisfactory
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is considered the gold standard of preventive health recommendations - including on screening tests. It's a good source for journalists and consumers.
About 70% of the stories reviewed from 2006-9 failed to adequately discuss costs, or to explain how big (or small) are the potential benefits and harms of treatments, tests, products and procedures.
We have documented a disturbing trend of news stories taking an advocacy stance, promoting certain screening tests outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.
Stories on new technologies like Cyberknife, DaVinci robotic surgery systems, and proton beam cancer therapy often fail to scrutinize the evidence and/or to discuss the costs involved.
Rather than suggesting that everyone should be screened for everything, news stories could explain: "All screening tests cause harm; some may do good."
The first 38 network TV network morning health news stories reviewed in 2009 earned an average score of 1.2 stars. 13 of the 38 stories got ZERO stars.
Both TIME magazine and BusinessWeek have published terrific stories explaining the importance of the Number Needed to Treat - or NNT.
Knowing relative risk reduction is like knowing you have a 50% off coupon but not knowing whether it's for a Lexus or a lollipop. Absolute risk reduction tells you what the "coupon" is worth. Read more.
The website NoFreeLunch.org posts "a database of health care professionals who have pledged to accept no gifts from industry and to rely on non-promotional sources of information."
To help journalists cover stories responsibly, we post a list of independent experts who state that they do not have financial ties to drug or medical device manufacturers.
We apply the same ten standardized criteria to the review of every story.
We have about 30 story reviewers. Each story is reviewed by 3 different people.
Gary Schwitzer's seven words you shouldn't use in medical news: cure, miracle, breakthrough, promising, dramatic, hope, victim. Read why.
Our reviewers include two former CNN medical reporters and a former editor of the Washington Post health section.