Our Review Summary
Readers should care that this report just briefly summarizes one experiment using the active ingredient in Viagra to treat heart problems in mice that were genetically modified to have a condition similar to Duchenne muscular dystrophy… without interviewing either the researchers or independent experts… and also failing to note that the drug is already being tested in people that have the actual disease.
We also note a relatively minor point, but still worth noting for anyone who wants to look up the source of the story’s claims.
There’s an oft-quoted saying about publicity: "I don’t care what the newspapers say about me as long as they spell my name right." This story fails that test by misspelling the name of the only researcher it identifies. (The story refers to
Joseph Beavoa. The PNAS and the University of Washington both spell his name as Beavo.
http://depts.washington.edu/phcol/faculty/beavo.php)
Why This Matters
Animal experiments may be an important early step for learning more about basic biomedical problems, but they are of limited relevance to people.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
Even though this line of research is preliminary, the story should have noted that typical treatment for pulmonary hypertension patients who use the Revatio brand of sildenafil costs more than $15,000 a year and that since the drug does not cure the disease, this sort of treatment might well continue indefinitely.
Not Satisfactory
The story has just a vague reference to treating heart symptoms. It does not offer any specific data, not even about the mice in this trial.
Not Satisfactory
The story fails to mention any of harms of sildenafil, which include:
* sudden severe loss of vision (see below for more information)
* blurred vision
* sudden decrease or loss of hearing
* ringing in ears
* erection that is painful or lasts longer than 4 hours
* dizziness or lightheadedness
* fainting
* chest pain
* worsening shortness of breath
* itching or burning during urination
* rash
Sildenafil may also interact with other prescription drugs.
What’s more, the story failed to note that the continual administration of sildenafil over many months used in this study (and the sort of life-long daily treatment that would be envisioned in human patients) is more like the way the drug is used in patients with pulmonary hypertension and completely different from the occasional doses of the Viagra brand form of the drug used by men to treat erectile dysfunction.
Not Satisfactory
This story included some caveats, such as the fact that researchers don’t understand how the drug works in the lab animals and that the mice used in the experiment have “a condition similar to Duchenne muscular dystrophy,” not the actual disease. However, any story reporting the results of animal experiments should alert readers to the fact that very few treatments that emerge out of animal testing ultimately pass human testing.
Satisfactory
The story points out that Duchenne muscular dystrophy affects about one in 3,500 males.
Not Satisfactory
The story gets credit for reporting that the study was funded by the NIH and non-profit groups. But it does not appear that anyone was interviewed for this story, neither researchers nor independent experts. The quotes are excerpts from the journal article.
Not Satisfactory
The story does not tell readers about how the heart problems of patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy are currently managed, nor does it offer any explanation of how sildenafil treatment might compare to standard therapy.
Satisfactory
The story reports that sildenafil is the drug in Viagra, used to treat erectile dysfunction, and also Revatio, which is used to treat pulmonary hypertension. The story would have been better if it referred to the active ingredient in Viagra, rather than Viagra itself, and had pointed out that to treat heart problems, the drug would be given continually (as it is for pulmonary hypertension) and not just occasionally as it is when used to treat erectile dysfunction.
Not Satisfactory
The story reports the new finding of this study in its next-to-last sentence, while leading with old news. The researchers wrote that to their knowledge “this is the first report of rapid reversal by a drug treatment of the functional symptoms seen in the established cardiac dysfunction that occurs in mdx mice.” But the story lead is that the drug “might help treat heart symptoms of muscular dystrophy”… something that has been reported previously not only in mice, but is already being tested in people. This story does not appear to put this latest study in the proper context of other experiments.
Reference:
Revatio for Heart Disease in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (REVERSE-DMD)
http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01168908
Satisfactory
The story quotes the journal article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It does not appear to rely only on a news release.
Total Score: 3 of 10 Satisfactory
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