The HealthDay story covers a phase III drug study that was recently published in The Lancet Neurology.
The story highlights the difficulty in deciphering ambiguous medical evidence for the general public. On one hand, the researchers were not able to prove their main hypothesis. But they uncovered benefits in another endpoint that may prove to be promising. The article could have differentiated this evidence and provide a more cautious interpretation of the study’s findings, which could have made for a more thorough and more accurate story.
There is no mention of costs in the story. Although pridopidine is an experimental drug, it may have been useful for the reader to know whether pridopidine could be at least a cheaper alternative to tetrabenazine, the only drug currently approved for Huntington’s disease.
The story did not detail the potential benefits of pridopidine. Specifically, how did the patients improve their motor function? The only number provided was that 70% of patients improved. We need to know how this function was measured and to what degree they improved (it is not clear whether the story was talking about statistical significance or clinical significance).
The story notes, “Side effects among patients taking the drug were similar to the placebo group.” Dr. Alessandro Di Rocco also agrees with this statement, since the “compound is apparently well tolerated without significant side effects.” However, the story could have been more thorough in letting the reader know exactly what those side effects are.
The story makes contradictory statements on the study’s results. At one point, the article reports, “…the drug showed a significant benefit,” while further down in the article, Dr. Alessandro Di Rocco is quoted as saying, “the benefit is modest and limited to the motor symptoms of the disease.” The story could have expanded on Di Rocco’s comment and also could have included some of the study’s limitations. For example, the researchers could not prove their primary hypothesis, for which they wrote in The Lancet: “This study did not provide evidence of efficacy.” The apparent benefits came from the tertiary endpoint, which merits a more cautious interpretation of the results.
There is not any disease mongering, but the article does not provide much background information on Huntington’s disease, regarding its epidemiology, risk factors and treatments. However, the story does mention dopamine and its role in movement and coordination.
Dr. Alessandro Di Rocco from NYU Langone Medical Center is used as an independent source. The story also adds that the study was funded by European pharmaceuticals company NeuroSearch A/S.
The article mentions tetrabenazine – the only drug on the market for Huntington’s disease – and adds that it can “cause serious side effects.”
The story mentions that study results are from a phase III clinical trial, but it does not clearly comment on the availability of pridopidine, or the class of dopidine drugs in general. The story could have simply said that this drug is investigational and is not available yet.
Pridopidine is an experimental drug candidate for Huntington’s disease and has been in clinical trials for the past several years.
The same quotation in the news release is used in the HealthDay story, suggesting that the article was somewhat based off the news release. However, there is some evidence of original reporting, with the inclusion of Dr. Alessandro Di Rocco’s comments.
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