HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
'Miracle drug' called junk science
May 21, 2009
Thorough reporting, providing a valuable service by warning readers of the shaky basis and likely harms of Lupron treatment of children with autism. They weighed the claims and explained the evidence.
Our Review Summary
This example of thorough reporting provides a valuable service by warning readers of the shaky basis and likely harms of Lupron treatment of children with autism. Part of a series by the Chicago Tribune.
Stories on similar contentious topics too often settle into “he said, she said” duels that stick readers with the task of trying to decide whom to believe. By contrast, this story highlights the fact that not all medical journal articles are equal: there are solidly-based reviews of the evidence and then there are reports that proclaim bold conclusions despite questionable methods and spotty data. These reporters thoughtfully weighed the claims and clearly point out which side has the strong preponderance of evidence.
As one quote underscores, autism “has become a cottage industry of false hope, and false hope is no gift to parents." Without faulting this piece of solid reporting, it is worth noting that false hope is not spread only by a few “bad apples.” Though it is an issue beyond the scope of this story, the more common threat comes from those in the mainstream who push medical interventions beyond the evidence base... and weak reporting that fails to challenge those claims.
One hopes the effect of this report will be to raise the level of healthy skepticism of “breakthroughs” and “cures” of all varieties. On the other hand, readers might conclude merely that they need to keep an eye out for a few renegades; that would be the wrong lesson.
Nowhere is “Buyer Beware” a more essential credo than in health care. This story equips readers to be wary of providers who have professional credentials and authorship of medical journal articles, yet lack evidence to justify the interventions they impose on their patients.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The article notes that Lupron is approved to treat precocious puberty and is also used to treat some cases of prostate cancer, endometriosis and to chemically castrate sex offenders.
The story says that the providers charge $12,000 for tests and then Lupron treatments costs about $5,000 to $6,000 per month. It also points out that insurance companies may balk at covering the treatments.
Though this story was not about autism per se, it offers a valuable reminder about the vulnerability of patients and families who are struggling with difficult health challenges.
Both sides of this debate can point to journal articles. The reporters properly distinguished between high-quality reviews that take a broad look at the available evidence and articles that base conclusions on questionable methods and data.
The story notes the pain of injections and lists harmful effects of Lupron treatment including delayed puberty, interfering with bone development, heart health, and other effects on sexual development and health.
The story notes the treatment is based on an unproven hypothesis, has limited availability and the drug is not approved for this use.
The story appropriately questions whether Lupron offers these children any benefits.
The reporters interviewed the proponents of Lupron therapy as well as several independent experts critical of the practice.
The story did quote several independent experts and referred to prominent reviews of the evidence related to autism, heavy metal exposure and hormonal treatment. It spelled out the business model of the providers: their chain of clinics and “franchising” arrangements with some providers.
The story points out that there is no cure for autism and that therapy for behavior and communication issues is commonly recommended.
Total Score: 10 of 10 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.