Read Original Release

No need to pump up these newsworthy, important findings on Alzheimer’s disease (but this release couldn’t resist)

Anti-rejection medications for transplant recipients protect against Alzheimer's disease

Our Review Summary

Alzheimer'sThis release points to a novel strategy for targeting some of the pathology associated with Alzheimer’s disease that is newsworthy and deserves attention. The study that it describes shows that certain drugs may inhibit a key enzyme that contributes to Alzheimer’s plaque buildup in the brain — and that patients who took these drugs to prevent transplanted organ rejection had lower rates of Alzheimer’s disease compared with people who didn’t take these drugs. But the release’s overly enthusiastic tone may generate more than attention — it could engender false hope. The findings are interesting but preliminary, and the study’s retrospective, observational design has a number of limitations that deserved comment.


Why This Matters

Alzheimer’s disease and associated dementias are terrible diseases with no adequate treatments and no clear preventive strategies. As a result, people with the diseases and their families are appropriately interested in new treatments and preventive measures. That’s why it’s so important to get the information to the public in a balanced manner.



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

Not Satisfactory

The economic and clinical toll taken by Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia is staggering, so a treatment that could reduce the likelihood of developing the disease would have large consequences.  Identifying who should receive the treatment is important since not everyone will develop dementia.  That makes the cost of the intervention an issue from the economic perspective. These are difficult issues to explore in a new release, but the release could have at least signaled the importance of the discussion by mentioning the cost of these drugs. The medications are currently available for use by transplant patients — so pricing should not be hard to find.

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


We’ll reward the news release here for providing data taken from the published study that quantities the benefits. It helpfully gives the absolute rates of dementia in those taking the drugs and in the general population. That makes the numbers easy to understand and gives an accurate sense of the size of the effect. Having said that, however, the language used in the title and the comments from the senior author go beyond what the study is capable of determining. We’ll discuss that shortcoming below under the “Evidence” criterion.

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

Not Satisfactory

The news release does point out that preventive treatment with anti-rejection drugs suppresses the immune system.  But exactly what does that mean?  What are the implications of this effect? The release does not provide any description of the potential problems that could occur. And that is not the only issue with these drugs. Both tacrolimus and cyclosporine have an extensive its of side effects.

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

Not Satisfactory

On the plus side, the news release does provide a good discussion of the important aspects of the study noting the previous animal studies, the underlying theory of why these drugs might work and the nature of the study design and actual data.  However, the news release does not point out the obvious limitations of a retrospective observational study. And the language used in the headline and by the investigators implies a strength to the findings that isn’t appropriate: “Anti-rejection medications for transplant recipients protect against Alzheimer’s disease”. Based on that headline, readers will clearly infer that this is a cause-and-effect relationship, when the design of this study can’t support such a conclusion. These drugs are “associated with reduced risk,” but it’s too soon to tell if they “protect.”

Does the news release commit disease-mongering?


No disease mongering here.

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


The funding sources are clearly identified.  The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest in the paper, a fact which the news release could also have shared with readers.

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

Not Satisfactory

The Alzheimer’s association lists a host of strategies that may lower risk of developing dementia.  These include exercise, socialization, blood pressure control and the like. In addition, there is an ongoing randomized clinical trial of anti-amyloid drugs in high risk patients.

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


Although not explicitly stated, it is clear that the drugs in question are available. That raises a possible concern, as their availability and the news release’s enthusiasm may result in patient demand for access to this as-yet unproven strategy.

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


The story described previous animal research leading up to the current study in humans. And the findings from the study are interesting and novel. Given that these drugs have been used for decades, at least in the case of cyclosporine, it’s surprising that this effect hasn’t been noted before — all the more reason the finding needs replicating and examination with a stronger study design.

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

Not Satisfactory

The news release is a bit too enthusiastic about the results of this retrospective observational study. One of the authors says the data “support, for the first time in human subjects, our notion that calcineurin inhibition has a protective effect on the development and possible progression and even reversal of Alzheimer’s disease.” Certainly “reversal” is beyond the pale. The release’s repeated claims that these drugs “protect” against Alzheimer’s is also not justified based on the evidence.

Total Score: 5 of 10 Satisfactory


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