We especially enjoyed the comments of the independent expert quoted in the story, who identified important reasons to be cautious about the study and described himself as “hopeful but skeptical” about the new therapy. This strikes as a good perspective for everyone to have when it comes to unproven new treatment approaches.
The story would have been stronger with a more thorough discussion of potential harms and a more realistic appraisal of the likely cost of the possible treatment.
Excessive alcohol use is associated with many health problems, including liver disease and cancer. It’s also a major cause of preventable death from violence and motor vehicle accidents. We might be able to reduce this toll by helping those drinking about healthy limits to drink less.
Even though more severe alcoholism is associated with worse consequences for the individual and family affected by the disease, heavy drinking, because it is so much more prevalent, may cause worse harm and costs to society more generally.
The reader is likely to come away confused on this point. The story states that currently available kudzu supplements cost about $6 for 3 weeks of treatment, but it didn’t clearly explain that these are not the same as the standardized extract tested in the study, which is not yet on the market and will likely cost much more if and when it is approved for sale.
Nice job here. Instead of just telling us that the participants “drank less” while taking the supplement, they quantified the reduction: about one beer less, on average, during the experimental drinking sessions (2.4 vs. 3.5 beers), and about half a beer less per day during the week they were taking the supplement compared with placebo (3 vs. 3.4 beers).
The story states that there were “no serious side effects” in the study, but one week of treatment in 10 people isn’t going to provide an adequate picture of the potential harms — a shortcoming the story should have alerted readers to. In addition, we were a little concerned by the notion that this supplement “may deliver alcohol to the brain’s reward center faster. So you get an effect sooner; therefore, you don’t drink as much.” Getting people drunker faster may well cut down on the amount of alcohol they consume in a night, but it might also result in unintended consequences like an increase in impaired driving or other risky behaviors. We think the story was too quick to give a free pass on safety without exploring some of these concerns.
The nature of a daily habit like drinking demands long-term treatment, thus increasing the time that side effect incidence could accumulate.
The story does not yield to the impulse, so common in coverage of promising early studies, to overhype the findings. An independent expert is particularly skillful at pointing out the study’s limitations, including:
The description of the study’s methodology was also nicely detailed and easy to follow.
The article would have been strengthened by clarifying/emphasizing that this was a study of heavy drinkers who were not “alcoholic” and about whose desire to drink we know nothing. There is an inappropriate implication that this may be a treatment for alcoholism as the investigator is quoted saying: “The medications approved for treating alcohol abuse and dependence don’t work for everyone.”
There was no disease-mongering. The story pointed out that there is disagreement about what constitutes binge drinking, so it is not entirely clear who would be a candidate for treatment with this supplement.
The story points out the extensive links between the manufacturer of the supplement and the study authors. It consults an independent expert who injects an important note of skepticism into the coverage.
The story mentions that there are other medications approved for treating alcohol abuse and dependence, but they don’t work for everyone. Some additional detail about these medications wouldn’t have been out of place, but we’ll call it good enough for a satisfactory.
We wish the story had been clearer about the difference between the standardized kudzu extract that was tested in the study, which apparently is not yet approved for sale, and the other kudzu supplements that are widely available. Why is it ok to sell some kudzu root preparations as dietary supplements, while other extracts need approval from the FDA as though they were drugs? The story never tells us.
This confusion notwithstanding, the info needed to fulfill the criterion was presented in the article for those willing to puzzle it out, so we’ll award a grudging satisfactory.
The story mentions that kudzu is already touted as a hangover remedy and that studies of its effects have produced mixed findings.
This story wasn’t based 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