Note to our followers: Due to a lack of sufficient funding, HealthNewsReview.org will cease daily publication of new content at the end of 2018. Publisher Gary Schwitzer and other contributors may post new articles periodically. If you wish to donate, your gift might help keep the site available to the public for a few more years, by defraying costs of web hosting and maintenance. All of our 6,000+ published articles contain lessons to help people improve their critical thinking about health care. Read more about our change in status. And here's how to make a donation.
Read Original Release

Announcement on a new ‘pathway’ for multiple sclerosis treatment doesn’t lead far

Researchers find potential path to repair MS-damaged nerves

Our Review Summary

A small UCLA study in an animal model of multiple sclerosis showed some improvement in the mice’s walking ability after the researchers gave them a drug that changed gene expression of  cells in the brain and spinal cord called astrocytes.

The study is interesting from a basic science perspective and from the perspective of a new idea for a therapy — improving cholesterol synthesis, which cells need to repair their membranes damaged by the disease. But there’s no immediate application for human patients.

The release would have been improved with some discussion of benefits, harms and how this study fits into the bigger picture of MS treatment. On the plus side, the release lists funding sources and gives us some idea of what is novel about the research.

 

Why This Matters

Estimates are that 400,000 people in the United States have a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. This short release may create false hope by burying the information that a very preliminary pilot study was done on mice. The study points the way to more research, but does not offer anything tangible to any existing patients. The headline promises “repair of damaged nerves” but stops just short of being entirely false by saying there is a “potential pathway” and not a genuine study in human patients with results we can read. The release is a “pathway” to information that doesn’t lead far.

Criteria

Does the news release adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The news release does not discuss potential costs.

Does the news release adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The release doesn’t delve into benefits. This sentence came closest to addressing a benefit:

“For multiple sclerosis, specifically, increasing cholesterol synthesis gene expression in astrocytes of the spinal cord can be a pathway to repair nerves that affect walking.”

The research was done in mice, not humans. The astrocytes were from mice. The “gene expression” can be described with quantities, but the release does not give the reader any details. How much did gene expression change? How much improvement did the mice show? Was there a control group of mice?

Does the news release adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The release does not explain whether there are any harms from changing the gene expression in the mice, let alone what the potential harms might be in humans.

Does the news release seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

The release doesn’t inform readers from the outset that this study was in animals and not humans. Ideally, that information would be included in the headline and opening sentence. Further, the release never mentions the limited implications of such research for humans.

Does the news release commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

There was no disease mongering.

Does the news release identify funding sources & disclose conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

The release lists the funding sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest in the published study.

Does the news release compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The release does not explain the ways that human patients with multiple sclerosis are treated currently, nor does it explain the existing research context clearly. If the small study is showing a new path for research, we need the context that says “up until now, all the research was done in X way.” We aren’t given that here.

Does the news release establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Applicable

This experimental treatment on mice is clearly not available to humans yet.

Does the news release establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The release claims that this small animal study points the way to “a more precise, neuroprotective approach than traditional treatments.” It also states that this strategy is “tailored to repair damage for each disability, one at a time, in contrast to a “one size fits all” treatment approach.”

We take this to mean that the “precision” comes from measuring outcomes on specific functions such as walking and eyesight that are affected by the disease, rather than traditional global measures such as number of lesions on an MRI scan or overall functioning.

Does the news release include unjustifiable, sensational language, including in the quotes of researchers?

Satisfactory

The headline skirts the edges, by appearing to promise a way to repair nerves in humans when this study is only in mice. But the headline clings to accuracy by using the phrase “potential path.”

Total Score: 4 of 9 Satisfactory

Comments

We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.