This was a story originally published in The (Nashville) Tennessean newspaper and, for some reason, republished on the USA Today website. The story did not provide any semblance of balance in its reporting of the device.
Depression is a chronic condition that waxes and wanes in its intensity. Although clinicians have a myriad of drugs available and newer approaches to the treatment of resistant depression, new treatments are welcomed. Transcranial magnetic stimulation is a novel and FDA-approved approach that is likely to benefit a segment of the population with depression. We think that stories on new medical devices need to be balanced and need to provide the reader with the correct context in which the device might be useful.
The story provides the reader with information on the cost so it meets the criterion. We would have liked a bit more information. For example, how durable is the response and will patients need repeated treatments? Based on the literature to date, patients may need to undergo treatment every 2-3 months. We are told that each treatment costs about $400 and the total cost is $8-12,000. That means each patients receives 20-30 treatments. There are ancillary costs associated with each trip that we would have liked to have included. Nonetheless, we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt.
The story describes a single patient anecdote and does provide us with some information about the NIMH sponsored clinical trial: “Both Cochran and West cite high patient response rates. A clinical trial funded by the National Institutes of Health revealed a “significant effect of treatment” when patients received TMS treatment. It compared outcomes of patients who actually received the magnetic pulses against patients in a “sham” group, who sat down in the treatment chair for fake sessions.”
Here is what the lead author of the NIMH funded study said about the results (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/science-news/2010/magnetic-stimulation-scores-modest-success-as-antidepressant.shtml) performed in 190 patients with depression who failed standard drug therapy::
Hardly the results suggested by the story
The story doesn’t provide any specifics about potential harms of the treatment, We are told, “…treatments are more effective than medications with far fewer side effects,” “…but for the most part, it is safer in general than taking a medicine. You’ve got less seizure risk than taking a medicine. You’ve got less side effects than taking a medicine.” Exactly what are the risks and how often do they occur? Here is a listing of side effects from the NIMH website:(http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/brain-stimulation-therapies/brain-stimulation-therapies.shtml )
“Sometimes a person may have discomfort at the site on the head where the magnet is placed. The muscles of the scalp, jaw or face may contract or tingle during the procedure. Mild headache or brief lightheadedness may result. It is also possible that the procedure could cause a seizure, although documented incidences of this are uncommon. A recent large-scale study on the safety of rTMS found that most side effects, such as headaches or scalp discomfort, were mild or moderate, and no seizures occurred. Because the treatment is new, however, long-term side effects are unknown.”
We are not provided with any details supporting the physician advocate’s comments. As we noted previously, the NIMH study is briefly described but in rather glowing remarks that can give the reader an inflated view of the success of the device.
Besides the glowing comments by a psychiatrist who uses the device and the originator, we do have a comment from a spokesperson from an insurance company who does not as yet provide coverage. Given the controversy in this 15 year old technology, we would have liked to have seen comments from an expert in the field.
The story does provide some insight into the alternative approaches including drug therapy and electroconvulsive therapy. No useful information is provided about ECT, Vagal nerve stimulation or magnetic seizure therapy. The comparisons however are provided by devotees of the technology and no references are provided.
The story makes it clear that the device and thus the treatment is available. The story does provide some insight into insurance coverage as well.
The story makes it clear that the device approved in 2008 is novel as is the underlying approach to treating depression
The story does not rely on a press release
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
Comments (1)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Jeff Nedelman
December 10, 2012 at 10:56 amI have had Depression all my life and began seeking treatment as an adult. Every MD, I see tells me I am a tough case. Only recently have things began to change – a blood test revealed issues with thyroid and testosterone, a new psychiatrist (I moved) wants to get me off the benzos and then came the neurostar recommendation. Although approved by FDA most insurance companies don’t cover it and the out of pocket expenses for five sessions for five weeks is $12,000 with a 25% discount if you pay cash upfront. I am thinking about it.
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