This CNN News story describes a new treatment for kids with peanut allergy called AR101, which could help protect against severe reactions to small amounts of peanut ingestion. It’s one of two stories we reviewed about this important and newsworthy study. The other is from Fox News.
This report is appropriately cautious, emphasizing that the treatment is not a cure but reduces the threat from accidental exposure. In addition, the story details the commitment that treatment requires and the side effects that can occur. However, it could have done a better job by addressing the cost of this drug and giving the dropout rate of those on the treatment.
Peanut allergy is one of the most common food allergies. It typically presents early in life, is known for severe reactions, and is rarely outgrown. There currently are no treatments for peanut allergy, besides emergency care in the event of a reaction. So a treatment with the potential to make reactions from accidental exposures less severe is certainly of interest.
The story does not mention costs — particularly important since the treatment might have to be taken for life. It’s reportedly due to come on the market next year.
The story reports that two-thirds of people who underwent months of treatment were able at the end of the study to tolerate the equivalent of two peanuts.
Unlike the Fox News story, CNN reports on how the control group fared, saying that 53% of those subjects required rescue epinephrine with the final peanut challenge test compared to 11% of subjects in the treatment group.
The story describes harms through the profile of one patient: “Ellis experienced stomach cramps and vomiting multiple times during the study,” and once she had an anaphylactic reaction which required medical attention. And this was a successful patient story.
The story also reports that 11% of participants dropped out of the study as a result of side effects.
However, it left out important issues such as the higher dropout rate — around 20%, mainly due to adverse events — among those who received the treatment, and unknown long-term effects.
The story reports the size of the study. It also emphasizes, repeatedly, the limitations of the protection against peanut exposure — not all those treated were protected, and even the positive outcomes were laced with allergic reactions along the way.
The story appropriately characterizes peanut allergy as a “potentially life-threatening” condition, with peanut ingestion. It also says peanut and tree nut allergies affect “an estimated 3 million Americans or more,” although it’s not clear what number of those would benefit from this treatment.
The story includes several expert sources, including a doctor who was not involved in the study and who does not appear to be funded by potential treatment-makers.
The story makes clear that there is currently no approved treatment for peanut allergy.
In addition, the profiled patient is described as having to eat her school lunch at a peanut-free table, showing reader the practice of avoiding exposure — currently the only way to manage a peanut allergy.
However, the story doesn’t mention that AR101 is among at least four peanut immunotherapy products potentially entering the market.
The story makes clear that the treatment is not yet FDA-approved, and is not currently commercially available.
The story says that the treatment would be a new one, making clear that no other approved product exists for treating peanut allergy.
It doesn’t explain that immunotherapy — which attempts to desensitize people with food allergies by giving them tiny doses of the food they’re allergic to over time — is an old idea.
The story goes well beyond the information provided in a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
NO! NO! NO! @TheHeartOrg - This study was on rabbits, and is at least 2 yrs away from human trials. THAT should be the headline, not "breakthrough". Journalists, pls check this @HealthNewsRevu toolkit when writing about animal studies. https://t.co/QFznfsn4ag https://t.co/L1WIStfV8G
2
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