The story accurately reports that while intravenous immunoglobin therapy (IVIg) has been used in the treatment of autoimmune diseases, it is not yet FDA approved for treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. The story appropriately cites researchers not affiliated with the clinical trials who express caution about off-label use until there is more data on the safety and efficacy of this treatment for Alzheimer’s patients.
The story provides no quantitative evidence from this pilot trial of IVIg therapy in 8 Alzheimer’s patients. We are not told very much about these patients’ cognitive improvement from baseline to the end of the 18-month trial. Additionally, the results described here were presented at a conference and have also not been peer-reviewed in a medical journal. The story does note that larger controlled trials are necessary to further investigate antibody therapy for Alzheimer’s.
Adverse reactions within this small trial are not provided. IVIg is a human blood product that comes from multiple donors, and while it is screened for HIV and Hepatitis B and C, there is still a very small risk of contracting these infections via IVIg therapy. The most common complications of IVIg therapy include headache, skin reactions, nausea and fatigue during and shortly after an infusion. More serious allergic reactions can also occur with IVIg therapy, but the story does not mention any side effects of this treatment.
The story provides the estimated cost of treatment for IVIg therapy for Alzheimer’s patients; however, we are not told if more than one dose is required. The story acknowledges that Baxter International, Inc., a producer of IVIg, is funding early trials of this treatment.
While the story does not overtly engage in disease mongering, it should make clearer to the reader that the connection between diabetes and Alzheimer’s is not yet proven. There may be a link between insulin resistance, inflammation and the development of Alzheimer’s disease, and drugs used to treat type 2 diabetes may subdue brain inflammation contributing to Alzheimer’s disease.
The story provides the estimated cost of treatment for IVIg therapy for Alzheimer’s patients: $300 for a single dose. We are not told if more than one dose is required.
The story provides no quantitative evidence from the pilot trial of IVIg therapy in 8 Alzeimer’s patients.
There is no mention of the safety of IVIg in Alzheimer’s patients. Adverse reactions within this small trial are not provided. IVIg is a human blood product that comes from multiple donors, and while it is screened for HIV and Hepatitis B and C, there is still a very small risk of contracting these infections via IVIg therapy. The most common complications of IVIg therapy include headache, skin reactions, nausea and fatigue during and shortly after an infusion. More serious allergic reactions can also occur with IVIg therapy.
The story describes the results of very small trial of 8 patients; however, the story only provides brief anecdotal evidence of cognitive improvement in these patients. We are not told how much these patients improved from baseline. The results decribed here were presented at a conference and have not been peer-reviewed in a medical journal. The story does note that larger controlled trials are necessary to further investiage antibody therapy for Alzheimer’s.
The story provides prevalence data on Alzheimer’s disease in the U.S. While the story does not overtly engage in disease mongering, it should make clearer to the reader that the link between diabetes and Alzheimer’s is not yet proven.
The story provides sources of information other than the study authors and those affliated with the trial to provide perspective on IVIg therapy to slow the progression of Alzheimer’s. The story acknowledges that producers of IVIg therapy are funding early trials.
The story briefly mentions that there are drugs to help with symptoms of Alzheimer’s. The story also discusses diabetes medications that may help prevent Alzheimer’s in people with type 2 diabetes by reducing brain inflammation.
The story accurately reports that intraveneous immunoglobin therapy (IVIg) is still in clinical trials and not yet approved for treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. The story appropriately cites a researcher who expresses caution about off-label use until there is more data on the safety and efficacy of this treatment.
The story reports that this treatment to halt– and possibly reverse– the progession of Alzheimer’s disease is new and still in clinical trials. IVIg therapy is not new for treating autoimmune diseases, but it is not FDA approved for use in Alzheimer’s patients.
The story does not appear to rely on a press release and there is coorboration with experts in the field of Alzheimer’s research.
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