NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine -

The media are influential…on everyone else, say Alzheimer’s specialists

Nice catch by my colleague Andrew Holtz (one of our story reviewers on as he combed the literature and settled on a paper in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease entitled, “Dementia Specialists and Early Adoption of Amyloid Imaging.”  With Andrew’s permission, I am reposting his piece in its entirety.

A new survey of dementia specialists caught my eye for two reasons.

One, most said they intend to use a newly-approved $3000 test for amyloid deposits in the brain, even though they concede the results can be misleading (for instance, while a lack of amyloid found on this test means a person probably doesn’t have Alzheimer’s, many people have the deposits, but not Alzheimer’s, so the meaning of a positive result is unclear).

Two, half of them “felt media coverage of testing would in?uence whether amyloid imaging became commonly used in clinical practice.” But not a single respondent (0 of 135) “felt their decision to use amyloid imaging would be in?uenced by media coverage.”

Let’s take that second point first. It’s very human. Most people believe they are above-average drivers, when that simply can’t be true. It’s also consistent with other studies of physician attitudes and behavior. Studies consistently link conflicts of interest with differences in how physicians give advice, reach conclusions, and practice… but they tend to say such conflicts don’t affect them. (Browse the work of Lisa Bero and colleagues.)

There’s also a lesson here for journalists. We have to be careful about how we report on tests and treatments, because our stories likely influence even professionals who should know better.

And that brings me back to the first point… that dementia specialists intend to use this test, if they can find someone to foot the bill. (The study authors calculate that screening just a quarter of Americans 75 and older would cost $16 billion a year.) The survey report said most of the specialists who intend to use the test say it would help make them more confident about their diagnosis. That’s nice, but what will it do for patients and families.

Does being more confident about an Alzheimer’s diagnosis change treatment? Probably not. To begin with, there isn’t any treatment that can change the course of the disease. The available drugs can help some people function a bit better for a period of time, but the effects are individual. The official diagnosis isn’t the final word. That means trying a drug to see how it works in an individual patient… for good or ill (and there can be serious side effects, including disabling falls caused by balance problems).

Someday there may be effective treatments for Alzheimer’s disease. But until then, I’m wary of diverting money to testing, mostly so that doctors can check off a box with more confidence.


Addendum on January 31, 2013:  See MedPage Today story, “Medicare Panel Pans Alzheimer’s Test.”


Follow us on Facebook, and on Twitter:

You might also like


Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.

Charles Hodges MD

January 21, 2013 at 9:45 am

The connection for all of this may be that the test that has been approved to identify “early” alzheimers is also made by a company that is trying to gain approval for a drug that “may” work in “early” alzheimers but seems 2b worthless for moderate or advanced. The key is to identify a population to which a marginally effective drug could be marketed. Just sayin…Follow the money.