The headline on this story from STAT promises to highlight a “new era” in allergy treatment built around the idea of preventing histamine and other immunologic explosions in our bodies’ mast cells and basophils before they start.
What it delivers is something less–updates on efforts at immunologic therapies that are way short of popping up at the pharmacy anytime soon–and more: an eye-opening look at how Big Pharma and Big Science are investing Big Money in a potentially huge worldwide market for treatments that probably won’t do much better than antihistamines, epinephrine and allergen-avoidance.
Parents curious about these forthcoming treatments–including very pricey immunotherapies–are likely already wondering if they’ll be affordable, yet the story skirts any discussion of pricing. But readers who stick with the piece to the end will learn something about the intentions and operations of the medical/pharmaceutical industrial complex, and that’s a good thing.
Stories that describe new allergy treatments are likely to have mass audiences, including parents who are hopeful they can ease their child’s severe food allergies. But will any of these treatments pan out, and one day be widely available and/or affordable to the masses? It’s too early to say, and the story may raise some false hopes for not reining in some of the excitement with more about the realities of drug development.
Although the story cites the hundreds of millions of dollars of investment made by drug companies and research institutions, it doesn’t address the potential costs of some newly developed commercial products, including one in stage 3 clinical trials that (literally) encapsulates bits of peanut protein designed to offer desensitization to peanut allergy. The approach has long depended on what the article calls the “home brews” of food allergy “concoctions” and injections that have been compounded and prescribed by allergists for decades. Nor does it mention the cost of a biologic made by Genentech that already is on the market for a form of asthma and is likely much more expensive than antihistamines and even the notorious Epi-Pens that would compete for an expanded market. The story also mentions Xolair, but does not mention the cost of this drug, which is quite prohibitive.
Although the article finally does get to the point that biologics, immunologics, and quicker ways to achieve desensitization may not — for many patients — work better than golden oldies like antihistamines, the story could have, but didn’t, make any attempt to pin down what kinds of patients and how many of them might need or want the newer drugs, which are at best mostly years from being available.
Particularly for the new-style food-desensitization therapies under development, the article explains potential (and even deadly) risks associated with them and it alludes to some of the downsides of immunotherapies (“allergy shots,” for instance) that can take months or years to work. But it says essentially nothing about the potential or actual adverse effects of a DNA vaccine under development, noting only that it “hypothetically decreases the risk for adverse events.”
The article does a fairly good job of describing some of the hypotheses involved in the development of new or updated treatments, but it doesn’t offer enough information about the research underway. For example, we’re given no information about the status of the research on using the immunotherapy drug Xolair for food allergies combined with allergy desensitization therapy.
No mongering: the prevalence of allergies is high and, according to some sources, rising rapidly in the developing world as well as in the U.S.
The article casts a pretty wide net of sources, including interviews with allergy researchers at Stanford and at Mass General Hospital in Boston, as well as investigators with drug companies.
There is acknowledgment of the possibility that the new treatments may not work any better than older ones for many patients. The story would have been stronger if it had done more head-to-head comparisons of effectiveness.
The article, admirably, makes clear that movement through the new drug pipeline is likely to be slow for most of the newly envisioned therapies.
The article makes clear that the some of the proposed “new era” treatment are actually old wine in new bottles–commercial versions of things allergists have been hand-tailoring to their patients for years. And it does examine some novel twists in describing the development of a DNA vaccine, and the expanded use of a relatively new “biologic” drug that exploits the immune system’s weaknesses and strengths. However, it could have been stronger at pointing out that nothing here is really brand new.
The article was certainly not based on a single news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
There's pervasive media bias toward hyping treatment benefits while neglecting negative results & harms.
Big part of this is reliance on experts with financial &/or intellectual conflicts of interest.
Att'n journalists: Use this list 100 independent experts to correct imbalance https://t.co/Twzc1Sp8Vw
Even when stories get the facts right, they often fail to provide crucial context and caveats that would help audiences make sense of the news — or lack thereof, says @garyschwitzer of @HealthNewsRevu https://t.co/b7YO2fYt0a
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