This story attempts to explain some of the on-going research to understand the increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease seen in people with type II diabetes. Utilization of sugar by the brain appears to be altered in Alzheimer’s disease patients, though whether this is a cause or a result of Alzheimer’s disease is not known. The experts quoted in the story think that this problem with sugar utilization in Alzheimer’s disease may be similar to what happens with type II diabetes. They propose that treatment of early Alzheimer’s disease with drugs currently used to improve sugar uptake in type II diabetics will help. This article does not report on results of such study, only the start of a study.
Several people quoted in this story are either directly or indirectly connected to the company that manufactures the medication under study or are currently funded to test this proposed mechanism associating type II diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease. The story could have included the perspective of some expert(s) less directly vested in this work.
Costs are not mentioned. This article paints a disease mongering picture when it says: “It’s a scary scenario: Alzheimer’s already is expected to skyrocket as the population grays, rising from 4.5 million sufferers today to a staggering 14 million by 2050. If the new theory is right, the nation’s current obesity-fueled epidemic of Type 2 diabetes could worsen that toll.”
None of the side effects or potential harms associated with rosiglitazone (Avandia) was mentioned in the article. And the story doesn’t quantify the benefits obtained in the specific subset of patients that showed improvement.
This drug is currently on the market for diabetes so the story could have at least included information about its current cost for its current approved use.
The story doesn’t quantify the benefits obtained in the specific subset of patients with the genotype that showed improvement.
None of the side effects or potential harms associated with rosiglitazone (Avandia) was mentioned in the article.
The evidence comes from an article published in the journal Pharmacogenomics (though not clearly mentioned in the article). The evidence points toward a possible improvement in the subset of mild to moderate Alzheimer’s patients with a particular apolipoprotein E variant in the group given the highest dose of rosiglitazone. It is a preliminary study and additional clinical studies will be required to confirm the results. While this caveat is presented in the abstract of the study, the news story presents the study results as more definitive than the researchers did.
This article paints a disease mongering picture when it says “It’s a scary scenario: Alzheimer’s already is expected to skyrocket as the population grays, rising from 4.5 million sufferers today to a staggering 14 million by 2050. If the new theory is right, the nation’s current obesity-fueled epidemic of Type 2 diabetes could worsen that toll.”
Several people quoted in this story are either directly (Allen Roses) or indirectly (Sam Gandy) connected to the company that manufactures the medication under study or are currently funded (Yadong Huang, Suzanne Craft) to test this proposed mechanism associating type II diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease. The story could have included the perspective of some expert(s) less directly vested in this work.
The story doesn’t mention any other treatments for Alzheimer’s disease. The article did mention a second drug, Actos, used to treat type II diabetes.
Although a researcher at GlaxoSmithKline, makers of rosiglitazone, is quoted as saying “Don’t use Avandia for Alzheimer’s until that question has been settled,” the article does not make clear that rosiglitazone is not FDA approved for the purpose of treating or delaying onset of Alzheimer’s disease.
Rather than an association between type II diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease being “a provocative new theory” – the contention presented in this article – the clinical relation between these two diseases has been discussed for at least 10 years.
We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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