October 10, 2017 Read Original Story

AP makes it clear that gene therapy has uncertain future for treating ALD

Reviewed By

Rating

Gene therapy helps boys with 'Lorenzo's Oil' disease

Our Review Summary

This story is one of two that we are reviewing (the other is from the New York Times) that focuses on a recent paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine. At issue is a novel gene therapy used to limit or eliminate symptoms related to the disease adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD).

The AP story does a good job of making clear that the treatment is not yet available for widespread clinical use and does a fair job of describing the study and its results. However, the story appears to mischaracterize current treatment options for the disease, and overlooked the potential harms.

Why This Matters

Left untreated, ALD often leads to death within 1-10 years of diagnosis. And there are precious few treatment options available. What’s more, the primary treatment, bone marrow transplantation, relies on the availability of a donor — and poses significant health risks of its own. All this makes new treatment options incredibly important for ALD patients and their loved ones. However, the fact that we are talking about the life and well-being of patients — usually children — also makes it incredibly important to place the work in context. Limitations, availability and unanswered questions are always key points worth making, and especially so when many parents are eager for information about something that may affect the health and well-being of their children. The story does a decent job here. But the story also appears to provide an unnecessarily limited view of potential treatment options. ALD is already a daunting diagnosis with limited treatment options available. Characterizing those options as being even more limited than they already are is problematic.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The story does not discuss cost, but it does at least acknowledge that cost may be an issue. As the story notes: “The main questions are how long the benefits will last, how much the treatment will cost if it wins approval, and whether it will replace stem cell transplants from donors, he wrote” (emphasis added). The New York Times was stronger on this point, disclosing the risk that costs might be “absolutely crazy.”

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

The story notes that, two years after treatment, 15 of the 17 patients who received the gene therapy treatment for ALD “were neurologically stable.” That’s sufficient to earn a satisfactory rating here. However, it would have been better if it had clarified what “stable” means in this context. Did patients not display any additional symptoms of ALD after the beginning of treatment? Did the condition worsen and then improve? Or did the condition plateau at a certain point after treatment began?

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

Potential adverse effects were not addressed at all. According to a supplement of the journal article, side effects ranged from fever and seizures to gastroenteritis. The side effects listed in the supplement also included those for one patient (2018), whose ALD symptoms worsened significantly after treatment began. The story does note that one of the 17 patients did die from a worsening of the disease. It’s not clear what effect, if any, the treatment had on the relevant patient. However, the story does not note the side effects experienced by any of the 15 patients who became neurologically stable. Would most parents accept these side effects as acceptable risks, given the severity of ALD? Probably. But they need to be mentioned.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Satisfactory

The release does a fair job of describing the study. It’s worth noting that this story also makes clear that it remains unclear how long the relevant benefits observed here may last. That’s an important point, and one that’s also missing from the New York Times story.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

No disease mongering here.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

The story discloses that Bluebird Bio, the company that hopes to market this gene therapy, paid for the study. The story also notes that “some researchers work or consult for the company.” That’s enough to earn it the Satisfactory rating.

However, the story also quotes one of those researchers directly, but does not note that this specific researcher (David Williams) has conflicts of interest. According to an appendix of the journal article, Bluebird Bio also funds other projects by Williams. The company has also licensed one of Williams’ patents. That doesn’t necessarily mean that anything in the study is shady, but conflicts of interest should be acknowledged — and this story would have been stronger if it had made note of Williams’ conflicts of interest specifically.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The story states that “The only effective treatment [for ADL] is a stem cell transplant from a matched sibling.” That’s not accurate. Bone marrow transplants have to come from matched donors, but those donors are not necessarily siblings. In addition, some patients are also able to receive stem cell implants coming from cord blood. It can be difficult to find a matched donor for transplant treatment, and the treatments can pose significant risks. There’s no need to make something that’s already difficult seem more difficult.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

The story would be stronger if it explicitly stated that there is no clear timetable for this treatment to become clinically available, if ever. That’s particularly true given language in the opening paragraph that calls this treatment “another win” for gene therapy. However, the story does provide enough information that readers can figure out the treatment isn’t available yet. Specifically, the story notes that “The main questions are how long the benefits will last, how much the treatment will cost if it wins approval, and whether it will replace stem cell transplants from donors….The U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires gene therapy participants to be monitored for 15 years, so these patients will continue to be studied, Williams said. Eight more patients are being added to the study as part of Bluebird’s plans to seek approval of the therapy in the U.S. and Europe” (emphasis added).

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

The story is sufficiently clear on this point to earn it a satisfactory rating. However, the New York Times story offers a deeper understanding of how this work developed over time and how it fits into the broader fields of gene therapy and ALD treatment.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Satisfactory

The release incorporates information not found in the news release.

Total Score: 7 of 10 Satisfactory

Comments

We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.

COMMENTS button We welcome comments, which users can leave at the end of any of our systematic story reviews or at the end of any of our blog posts.

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:

“Shed light, not just heat. Facts, challenges, disagreements, corrections — those are all fine. Attacking the person, instead of the idea or the interpretation, is neither acceptable nor helpful.”

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.