New test could help diagnose Alzheimer’s disease in live patients
Rating
New test could help diagnose Alzheimer’s disease in live patients
Criteria
Satisfactory
The story reports, “Lack of coverage for the $3,000 test is the biggest barrier.”
Satisfactory
The story did a nice job outlining the potential benefit of the test and the number of limitations
Satisfactory
The story reports:
- “The test is costly and possibly confusing.”
- It tells the anecdote of a patient coming to a medical appointment waving a news story about the test and revealing that if had a positive test, he would commit suicide.
- It reported that the the presence of amyloid doesn’t present patients with a clear picture of what it means or what to do.
- It reported that drugs to target amyloid have been disappointing so far
Satisfactory
The story reported: “Recent studies involving Amyvid, which is made by Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, an Eli Lilly & Co. subsidiary, have shown that a surprising number of patients thought to have Alzheimer’s didn’t. A paper in the October issue of Annals of Neurology noted that 12 of 53 patients diagnosed with Alzheimer’s by expert physicians had negative PET scans for amyloid.”
But the story’s narrative displayed healthy skepticism and a concern for evidence throughout:
- 5th paragraph: “The test is costly and possibly confusing.”
- But next came one of the most important sections of the story:
- “Claudia Kawas, a geriatric neurologist at the University of California, Irvine, said a patient strode into her office soon after the FDA approved the procedure and asked for the “Alzheimer’s test.” In one hand, he held an article about the approval of Amyvid. In the other, he had a document from a right-to-die group. If the test was positive, he told her, he would get his affairs in order and kill himself within 60 days.Although she thinks the test can be useful, she was glad her center didn’t have it. She says she wouldn’t have it done on herself, though she’s noticing some memory changes. “The information, I think, wouldn’t help me in any way,” she said.”
That section, as well as any we’ve seen in many recent news stories, showed an appreciation for the value of accurate, balanced and complete news stories on sensitive subjects like Alzheimer’s testing. We will point to this part of the story with praise for some time to come.
KUDOS to the reporter and to the paper!
Satisfactory
No disease-mongering in this story.
Satisfactory
As already noted, the quote from the California geriatric neurologist was crucial. But other independent experts were quoted as well. Excellent sourcing.
Satisfactory
The story did a solid job of reporting on some of the landscape of research into other tests and other biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease.
Satisfactory
The story tells us that the PET scan/radioactive tracer approach was approved by the FDA months ago. It also explains some of the limitations on availability:
“Rajan Agarwal, an Abington Memorial Hospital radiologist, did the country’s first three commercial Amyvid scans in June and has had no referrals since. Adler also has done three. Though doctors think the test can be a blockbuster, PETNET, a Siemens subsidiary that distributes the tracer, said it had made 100 commercial doses for this region since June.
The tracer is made individually for each patient on test day at 15 sites around the country, then delivered within a 2½-hour radius. …
Lack of coverage for the $3,000 test is the biggest barrier to it here. Medicare’s decision on coverage, which often sets the standard for private insurers, is due by July.”
Satisfactory
The relative novelty of this approach is clear from the story.
Satisfactory
Clearly, this was not press-release-driven journalism. Rather, it was a fine piece of entrepeneurial health care journalism.
Total Score: 10 of 10 Satisfactory
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.
Dan Keller
January 3, 2013 at 12:04 amThe story used independent sources but did not mention any potential conflicts of interest. Is it really necessary to “check off” every criterion for every story? If it is, then I believe this article missed the one about comparing the new approach with existing alternatives. There was a quick mention of looking for other biomarkers, which if any mention suffices, then that criterion has been satisfied. But fleshing out that point a bit more would have given better context about where the field stands. Finally, the reader may assume from the article that the test is available through Dr. Agarwal and Dr. Adler, but it may be more informative to say whether they are the only ones in the area providing it or if there are other facilities at which it is available. While the PET scanner hardware probably exists in many local hospitals, reading and interpreting the results require special training from the test manufacturer (available online to physicians).
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