Blood pressure vaccine maybe on way

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The article says the vaccine developers see them as "potential low-cost" products to control or prevent chronic disease. If this assertion is made in the article it should be explored or challenged. The initial choices for management of hypertension are a thiazide diuretic and a beta blocker.  These drugs are pennies a day.

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

Not Satisfactory

The article reports that three shots over 12 weeks reduced systolic pressure by 5.6 millimeters of mercury, diastolic pressure by 2.8 millimeters.

While it usefully says this is roughly equivalent to the drop produced by a drug in someone with mild hypertension, it fails to report the disease state of the experimental group, whether they had previously taken medication and other essential details. The effectiveness of the vaccine in the long run is unclear as is the ability of this approach to actually reduce events.  We learned from the ALLHAT study that reducing blood pressure may not reduce cardiovascular risk.  The vaccine is a long way off from demonstrating effectiveness in cardiovascular risk reduction.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

The study cited is unpublished, funded and operated by the vaccine maker. It is a stage II trial. The reporter failed to emphasize these limitations.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Not Satisfactory

The opening anecdote describes a man who has difficulty complying with his blood pressure medication regimen. But his circumstances are extraordinary: He needs to take 9 pills in the morning and 9 pills at night. 

The anecdote exaggerates the difficulties of drug compliance–and casts an excessively positive light on the following discussion of antihypertension vaccines. 

Further, the report says "studies show that only about half of people with high blood pressure follow doctors’ orders." It’s not clear what that means. Compliance rates, or success in maintaining targeted blood pressure levels, would be more meaningful statistics.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Not Satisfactory

The article quotes the vaccine developer’s chief scientific officer, the lead researcher who works on behalf of the vaccine developer, one skeptic and one neutral observer who adds an inconsequential comment about the mechanism of morning hypertension.

The article would have been better if it had added comments from one or two independent experts, especially those who could talk about more conventional methods of controlling blood pressure.  

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

Many people with hypertension–especially those with early stage or mild-to-moderate disease, who are considered by the company to be likely targets of this product–can be treated successfully with lifestyle changes. Others are successfully treated with fairly simple generic medications.

The report failed to mention that these nearly free, low-tech treatment options exist and are well documented to be effective–and call into question the need for and value of vaccines for this condition.