Allergies to common food stuffs, that elicit severe reaction can be life threatening and are a serious problem. This story presented some very preliminary results that suggest a means of making these situations more manageable for the affected individual.
The story, while generally fairly complete in its description of the research, was a bit imbalanced in its assessment of the effectiveness and applicability of the treatment described. Letting the lead researcher get away with saying that there would be a treatment for kids with food allergy in 5 years is complete conjecture and may offer false hope for a timetable. From the results available at this time, it is not clear whether this treatment will be beneficial to individuals older than pre-school, whether its effectiveness might diminish over time or whether there are some undesireable side effects that might accompany this treatment.
The story did provide ample caveats about the small, pilot nature of the studies and the fact that larger, randomized studies were needed to improve the evidence. But including the prediction from the lead researcher and the quote from the parent of a child in the study – "Our whole worry level is really gone." – introduces an imbalance that is not backed up by evidence at this time. This is very preliminary research, done in small numbers of children. That should be an important take-home message for consumers.
There was no estimate for the costs of such treatment.
The benefits of the treatment were defined as increasing the number of peanuts, for example, that a treated individual might be able to consume without difficulty. The more difficult to quantify benefit of enabling a child, allergic to common foods, to withstand exposure to those problematic foods without need of epinephrine treatment was also presented.
The story did include a quote from an expert at the National Institutes of Health who commented that "you don't go into this kind of a study lightly" because of the risks; however the nature of the risks was not defined.
The story mentioned that it was not clear how long lasting the induced tolerance might be if the children were to stop receiving their small exposure. Actually, even if they continue to receive the regular exposure, there is no data to inform us on whether the tolerance will last.
There was no discussion of whether there were any specific harms observed with the treatment.
The story discussed results from two small pilot studies – one published, one unpublished. It included an important caveat about the unpublished study. It emphasized that the next step would be a randomized study, "seeking better evidence for the treatment." Perhaps there could have been stronger caveats about intepreting results from the second study pilot study because the work has not yet been peer reviewed or published. But we'll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.
This story did not engage in overt disease mongering.
The story included comments from a scientist at the National Institutes of Health who is tracking the studies discussed. It also included quotes from a parent of an allergic child and one scientist involved in the research.
The story mentioned the use of an epi-pen in passing as well as establishing "peanut free zones."
Readers are cautioned not to try this treatment on their own and explains that the children in the study are closely monitored. The story also explained that results come from two pilot studies on very small numbers of children. It did let the lead researcher get away with predicting a treatment within five years. But we'll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.
The story described a type of treatment that has been used with other allergens previously but not with allergies resulting in anaphylaxis and so is a novel approach to the management of such allergies.
Does not appear to rely on a press 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