Room for improvement:
Medication can be very effective for reducing the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease, especially in the first few years after onset. However, Parkinson’s is a progressive disorder that can eventually cause significant disability in a significant number of sufferers. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has been used for almost two decades for people who no longer benefit from drug therapy. Although DBS provides relief of symptoms for many, it is not a panacea. The kind of experimental gene therapy discussed in this story could eventually provide another option to help patients manage their symptoms.
We would have liked to have seen some mention of costs. While the gene therapy is in the early stages of development and a price is not likely available at the moment, the cost of other non-drug treatments could have been included. For example, deep brain stimulation costs approximately $30,000 per side of the brain affected as is covered by many insurers. This information would provide readers with some perspective on costs.
The story relays the primary outcome in appropriate statistical terms when it says, “After six months, those who got the gene therapy scored 23 percent better on a standard test to measure motor skills while those who got the sham operation did about 13 percent better.” However, the story gets carried away in the last paragraph when it describes the anecdotal benefit of a single patient who goes from being nearly frozen to playing jazz music. Although the treatment was “like a miracle” for this patient, the magnitude of the benefit seen in the study was clinically quite small and not consistent with this description. There was also no reporting on the secondary outcomes, which included measures that assess quality of life and how well a patient is able to function. The treatment seemed to improve some of these measures, but not others.
Any discussion of an experimental procedure deserves comments on the potential and actual harms of the treatment. This is perhaps especially true for viral vector gene therapies that requires burring a hole in the skull and injecting precisely into the brain. To its credit, the story says that we don’t know if there might be any long-term damage from introducing viruses into the brain. However, it also should have mentioned that the treated patients in this study had more headaches and nausea than the sham surgery group (although these problems were described as mild to moderate and had resolved by the end of the study).
This was a carefully conducted study and the story’s coverage of it was fairly detailed considering the relatively short length. The description of the sham surgery was particularly good. Nevertheless, there were some critical gaps and the reporting was not entirely accurate. The story states, “Kaplitt and colleagues tested the gene therapy on 16 people while 21 others received a sham surgery.” That is actually not the case. A total of 22 patients were enrolled to receive the gene treatment and 16 were evaluable at the 6 month time period. This compares to 23 enrolled in the sham procedure with 21 evaluable. That’s a 27% drop out rate for the gene therapy group compared with only 9% for the sham surgery. And while the story notes that one of the limitations is a lack of longer-term data on how these patients fare, it doesn’t comment on the difficulty of generalizing results from such a small study to the larger population of Parkinson’s patients. Lastly, given the issues of observer and subject bias, we think that some comment on the blinding of the study would have been appropriate.
The story quotes an independent expert with a research and advocacy group. The story also discloses that the study was paid for by the drug’s developer, Neurologix, and that the researchers have financial ties to the company and other pharmaceutical companies.
The story noted that it is unclear whether the new treatment is as effective as another surgical technique, deep brain stimulation.
The lead sentence called the new treatment “experimental” and the study a “mid-stage test,” so we think readers will understand that this surgery is not currently available to the average patient. Given the early stage of the research, the story is probably a tad overoptimistic when it quotes one researcher saying, “We are getting much closer to a reality where this treatment can be offered to patients.” While this is true, the treatment still has many hurdles to clear before it can be widely used.
The story says that this is the first time a gene therapy for Parkinson’s disease has shown positive results in a placebo-controlled study. This is accurate, and the therapy does seem to be quite novel. It would have been informative to note that other gene therapies have been shown to be beneficial in open label trials and failed in randomized trials as compared to placebo. A previous attempt to demonstrate the value of another gene therapy for Parkinson’s failed in large measure due to problems with the study design.
This story was not based on a news release
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