This story covers a relatively new area of research into the biology of sleep. The story would have been more valuable had it contained some more pertinent background and context.
It details the early stage development of a drug being studied as a treatment for insomnia that differs from the currently available drugs used as sleep aids.
This story included little evidence other than a brief mention that the drug discussed blocked the receptors in the brain for a protein known as orexin. The story did not accurately present the information in the research paper that it was reporting on. For example, the article suggest that the drug induces sleep when it actually was found to reduce latency to sleep.
The study found that at higher doses, the drug decreased time to sleep as compared to placebo. This was not mentioned in the story.
The story should have made clear that the early-phase studies were done in a total of 70 healthy adults. There has not yet been any examination of whether this drug has any efficacy for people actually suffering with insomnia.
The story mentioned that cataplexy is a potential side effect that may be seen with use of this drug and that the studies to date have not eliminated the chance that it may be a problem. However the story failed to present a sufficiently complete picture of the role of orexin in the human brain for the reader to understand the complexity. Orexins are involved in appetite, regulation of growth hormone and leutinizing hormone as well as sleep. It is a bit simplistic to assume that the blocking of the receptors would only produce sleep. It is also important to note that the study used single doses of the drug in the human subjects.
The story did not give an idea how big the potential harms or benefits may be.
Several experts in the field were quoted. Though clear that this drug acts differently than those currently on the market they were also clear to point out that the potential for this drug must be viewed with some skepticism until the quality of the sleep induced and the extent to which side effects occur can be established.
There was no estimate for the cost of treatment, however as the drug is not available, this should be considered N/A.
There was no quantification of benefits of treatment other than to explain that this drug may promote sleep and may have use for helping people deal with insomnia. But the drug is at an early stage of its testing and so it is premature to assume that since it can promote sleep in a laboratory setting, that it will be a useful treatment for people affected by inadequate sleep.
The story mentioned that cataplexy is a potential side effect that may be seen with use of this drug and that the studies to date have not eliminated the chance that it may be a problem. However the story failed to present a sufficiently complete picture of the role of orexin in the human brain for the reader to understand the complexity. Orexins are involved in appetite, regulation of growth hormone and leutinizing hormone as well as sleep. It is a bit simplistic to assume that the blocking of the receptors would only produce sleep. It is also important to note that the study used single doses of the drug in the human subjects.
This story included little evidence other than a brief mention that the drug discussed blocked the receptors in the brain for a protein known as orexin. The story did not accurately present the information in the research paper that it was reporting on. For example, the article suggest that the drug induces sleep when it actually was found to reduce latency to sleep.
The study found that at higher doses, the drug decreased time to sleep as compared to placebo. This was not mentioned in the story.
Lastly – the story should have made clear that the early-phase studies were done in a total of 70 healthy adults. There has not yet been any examination of whether this drug has any efficacy for people actually suffering with insomnia.
This story did not include elements of disease mongering.
The story quoted two researchers without apparent ties to the company developing the drug or the authors of the paper.
Although this was a story about a potential new approach to managing insomnia, it did not contain information on the data demonstrating how attention to sleep hygiene can reduce insomnia, nor did it mention any available treatments for insomnia – other than to say that the drug discussed in this story differed significantly from other sleep aids that are available.
The story was clear that the drug discussed is only in testing phases. The story was not explicit that the drug does not appear to currently be undergoing clinical evaluation in the US.
There is growing evidence in the medical literature about the utility of blocking the orexin receptor as a means of promoting sleep. This story reported on a drug in development that has shown the potential to act in this fashion. However, rather than being new, the observation that there is a relationship between orexin and sleep has been known for at least five years and this drug is not unique in that there are several orexin blocking compounds that are in similar preclinical testing phases.
Because the story used several sources, some of them injecting some cautionary comments, it does not appear that it relied solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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