This felt like a hurried attempt to cover a story appearing in the journal, The Lancet. And journalists should not be rushed when reporting about Alzheimer’s Disease. Yet ABC did rush to these conclusions:
Their story:
Therefore, ABC didn’t establish any justification for calling this a miracle.
The story doesn’t mention anything about costs.
Using the phrase “showed significant improvement in mental tests” does not meet our standard for quantifying benefits. What does this mean?
All drugs have side effects; this story mentioned none.
The story only states that those taking the drug “showed significant improvement in mental tests.” What does that mean? Which tests? How reliable are they? The scales used in such studies – and their significance to activities of daily living – always not in synch.
The story doesn’t commit any overt disease-mongering.
Odd sourcing on this story. We don’t hear from any of the investigators. We only hear from Dr. Sam Gandy of the Alzheimer’s Association. A woman with early Alzheimer’s Disease is interviewed but we can assume that she was not in the trial.
The story only states, “Medicines on the market now do little more than delay the mental decline.” But this study was only a Phase 2 study. It did not compare Dimebon with any of the existing drugs. So no comparison can be made. And that one line was insufficient explanation of what is available and what the harms/benefits of the existing approaches are.
The story doesn’t tell us much about Dimebon – not whether it’s already FDA approved for anything else. Not the fact that it’s also being studied for use in Huntington’s Disease. The accompanying editorial in the Lancet states, “This drug began life as a non-selective antihistamine but was withdrawn when more selective agents became available.”
We aren’t given any sense of the novelty of this approach. Why might an antihistamine work in Alzheimer’s disease? Why didn’t the story mention the drug company’s parallel Huntington Disease studies? Is there a mechanism worth explaining?
We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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