Starting with a lead sentence that describes the potential effect of this experimental drug for Alzheimer’s disease as modest, to a basic description of the measurement scale used by the researchers that makes clear that the differences were probably too small to be noticed by patients or family members, this AP story sets an appropriately cautious tone. The story uses independent sources to damp down any unwarranted enthusiasm about the trial results.
Alzheimer’s disease is a debilitating and devastating disease for patients, families and for society in general. No adequate treatment exist to either stem the progressive decline in memory and cognitive function or to treat the symptoms. Reporting on the results of clinical trails must then be done with great care.
The study “results” reported by the manufacturer and the Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study are not from a single well controlled clinical trial. Two randomized clinical trials of solanezumab (Expedition 1 and 2) failed to demonstrate an advantage of the beta amyloid antibody over placebo. These discouraging results were reported late this summer.
A subsequent secondary analysis of data generated by combining the two studies also failed to demonstrate an advantage for the drug in subjects with mild to moderate symptoms of Alzheimer’s. On further examination, the data suggest a modest improvement in the rate of decline in cognitive function and memory in subjects with mild symptoms who received the drug as compared to placebo in these 80 week trials. In fact the differences were very modest.
It is unclear if these results are replicable, will provide meaningful improvements in patient’s lives or are durable. Subsequent studies will be needed.
Even though it is too early in the research process to have a firm price, the story notes that that this sort of drug is likely to be expensive.
This story does a better job of defining the effects seen in these trials than the WebMD story, but readers have to dig down to find the most useful information. The top of the story refer to modestly slowing mental decline and 34 percent less mental decline. The best description comes later in the story when the story specifically describes how patients’ thinking abilities were scored on a 90-point scale, and that while the trials showed a 2-point difference, previous studies suggest that it takes a change of 3 or 4 points to produce noticeable changes, such as a patient’s ability to care for himself or herself.
The story reports that 1% of study participants taking the experimental drug reported chest pain. It also noted that there were a few cases of brain swelling and small brain bleeding. The WebMD story added the rate of chest pain in the placebo group, but didn’t mention the cases of brain swelling or bleeding.
The story describes the basics of the trials, including the duration, number and type of participants. As noted above, this story did a better job than the WebMD story describing what was measured. By contrast, the WebMD story had a better explanation of why presentations at medical meetings should be considered preliminary.
No disease mongering here. The story adequately described the type of person for whom this research might be relevant.
This story includes more than one independent source. It notes that the Alzheimer’s Association (and the expert from that organization) was not involved in this research project.
This story does a better job than the WebMD story of using independent experts to describe the context of this research, characterize the meaning the results and describe what’s next.
In contrast to the WebMD story, this one names some current drugs and notes that existing treatments address symptoms, while this experimental drug is intended to alter the course of the disease.
A good bit of context is provided by an expert who is quoted as saying the results of these trials are “less than what some other once-promising treatments showed.”
The story reports that the drug is still being tested.
This story does a better job than the WebMD story of putting this drug in context, explaining that it is intended to alter the course of Alzheimer’s disease, while existing treatments treat symptoms.
The story does not appear to be based on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Like Michael Corleone of science reporting that @garyschwitzer is (he tries to get out, bullshit disguised as #science #journalism keeps pulling him back in!), he drops this on @nytimes idiocy 🙄 in reporting T1 diabetes "cure"
HT @HealthNewsRevu
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
A great read on this weekend’s NYT claims of a cure for Type 1.
Cure for Type 1 diabetes? We’ve been down this road before with NY Times https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
"But it is the framing and the emphasis of the #journalism by a leading science journalist at a leading newspaper that demands scrutiny. It has an impact on readers and on sick people that may cause harm by promoting false hope about extremely preliminary research"
👍👏💪 truth https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1465399358137024518
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