This news story hyped lab findings as evidence that a potential “cure” for baldness could be on the horizon. Researchers at the University of Manchester in the U.K. found that a substance called Cyclosporine A (CsA), which has been used to treat immune disorders and transplant rejection, affected a protein that stunts the development of hair follicles. They then identified an osteoporosis drug called WAY-316606 that has a similar effect on hair follicles in the lab, but could potentially have fewer side effects than CsA.
The story didn’t say anything about the quality of the study and misleads readers about the implications and timeline.
Hair loss is extremely common and can be distressing, but it’s not harmful. News stories that trumpet early findings on this topic should explain up front that potential advances are years away, if they come at all. The headline and early paragraphs may create false hope.
Arguably it’s too early to know anything about how much this treatment might cost. But, if it’s not too soon to speculate about a “cure,” it also could be argued that it’s not too soon to address cost impacts. This was a tough call, but we went with N/A because of how early the research is.
Since WAY-316606 hasn’t apparently been tested on actual human heads, there are no benefits to quantify, but that didn’t stop the story from suggesting benefits, stating the drug “could hold the key to the cure for baldness.”
The story stated that CsA “changed how the follicles expressed a protein called SFRP1, which stunts the development and growth of hair follicles and other tissue in the body,” and that WAY-316606 “has a similar effect” and “could therefore be used to treat baldness.”
The story had no data on the size of the effect this drug had on hair follicles in the lab.
The need to study the safety of WAY-316606 was mentioned, but should have been higher in the story. The story would have been stronger if it had mentioned whether the drug’s safety has been studied previously, and what the results if any showed. It was a missed opportunity to highlight known harms of a drug already on market.
The story doesn’t say anything about the quality of the study and misleads readers about the implications and timeline (even “still some way to go” seems like an understatement).
We take issue with the use of the word “cure” because it implies that hair loss is a lethal or seriously disabling medical disease that needs to be remedied. While hair loss can be distressing, it is not a disease.
The story had an independent source — a “statement” from the British Association of Dermatologists. However, the story didn’t explain that the study was sponsored by Giuliani SpA, an Italian pharmaceutical company that makes dermatology products.
An independent source knowledgeable about research and drug development–rather than a professional association’s spokesperson statement–would have helped here.
The story said current treatments for hair loss “are limited to two FDA-approved drugs, mioxidil and finasteride, which have mixed results. The other option is minimally invasive hair transplant surgery.”
The story made it clear that this is early research and human testing hasn’t even begun yet.
The story quoted the lead researcher saying WAY-316606 “had never even been considered in a hair-loss context.”
The story didn’t rely solely on a news release. (It did cite it, though.)
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