This news release reports on a study that found a component of scorpion venom — called iberiotoxin — reduced the severity of rheumatoid arthritis in rats without producing adverse effects associated a with a similar treatment. The study was published in the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. The release’s strong suits were its descriptions of why the research is novel and how the substance works by blocking a potassium channel on cells associated with the disease. The news release would have been stronger with more information on the limitations of the research and potential harms, as well as a less misleading headline. The release at a minimum should have added ‘…in rats’ to the headline.
Rheumatoid arthritis affects about 1.3 million people in the U.S., according to data cited by the American College of Rheumatology. It causes pain, swelling, stiffness and loss of joint function.
Better treatment options would be important news. Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics and steroids are available to arrest rheumatoid arthritis and help protect joints but they come with significant side effects and risk of infection. Anti-inflammatory medication, physical and occupational therapy, and exercise are also used to relieve symptoms.
The irony of potentially harnessing a natural poison to treat disease makes an enticing headline, but news releases should not exaggerate the state of the evidence. It also helps readers when news releases give some indication of the stage of the research.
There’s no discussion of how much a product like this might cost or how the cost might compare with other treatments. Peptides International (funders of the study) lists iberiotoxin at $295 per 0.1 ml vial on its website. However, we’re never told how much toxin is used when applied as a treatment so it’s impossible to estimate what costs for a patient might run.
The news release says treatment with iberiotoxin “stopped the progression of the disease. In some cases they reversed the signs of established disease, meaning that the animals had better joint mobility and less inflammation in their joints.”
There’s no data to quantify the amount of improvement that was observed. The abstract of the study also lacked any information about the degree of the improvement in rheumatoid arthritis symptoms.
The main point readers should keep in mind is that this is an early animal study and it would be inappropriate to make projections about its usefulness in humans.
The news release reported that treatment of rats with iberiotoxin “did not induce side effects, such as tremors and incontinence, observed when treating with another channel blocker called paxilline.
That’s not quite right. The study itself says it only examined tremors and incontinence, and other adverse effects couldn’t be ruled out.
Also, just because a particular adverse effect wasn’t observed in rats doesn’t mean it is safe for humans.
The news release offers this researcher’s quote: “Although these results are promising, much more research needs to be conducted before we can use scorpion venom components to treat rheumatoid arthritis.”
That’s important, but the news release would have been stronger with more specifics on the size and length of the trial, and a strong caution about the fact that animal studies rarely translate into successful human treatments.
Also, the study said that the treated rats still “exhibited a significant amount of paw inflammation,” suggesting that a potential treatment, if developed, might have to be used in tandem with another treatment for inflammation.
There’s no disease-mongering but the news release cuts corners when offering context about the impact of rheumatoid arthritis. It mentions “1.3 million people with rheumatoid arthritis,” but doesn’t say where that number comes from or whether it’s a U.S. or worldwide figure.
The news release reports that the study was supported by Peptide International, makers of the peptide iberiotoxin, the Arthritis Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. We didn’t find any undisclosed conflicts of interest.
The news release does the bare minimum here, stating, “Current treatments target the immune cells involved in the disease and none are specific for FLS.”
The news release makes it clear that scorpion venom isn’t available yet as a treatment with this researcher’s quote: “We think that this venom component, iberiotoxin, can become the basis for developing a new treatment for rheumatoid arthritis in the future.” But since the drug is available through Peptide International it is possible that some people may try to get it from the company and try it.
The news release does a good job here, stating in the first paragraph that “one of the hundreds of components in scorpion venom can reduce the severity of the disease in animal models, without inducing side effects associated with similar treatments.”
The headline overreaches when it wrongly declares that scorpion venom “can reduce severity of rheumatoid arthritis” without alluding to the lack of testing in humans. It would have been better if it included “in rats” in the title.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like