This NPR story discusses early studies on an experimental amyloid-reducing drug that researchers hope may prevent Alzheimer’s disease. It does a good job of balancing the promise of the drug with realistic assessments about the early stage of the research and the fact that there are potential downsides to this treatment.
Importantly, and in contrast to many stories we’ve seen that report on experimental Alzheimer’s drugs, the story doesn’t equate amyloid reduction with reduced risk of disease. It acknowledges that we don’t know whether amyloid is actually the cause of the Alzheimer’s or a by-product of some process that begins elsewhere. That’s important context. Still, the story would’ve been better with a more precise description of the benefits seen in early studies and with perspective from a truly independent source. It also should have explained why some of these same results, reported last year, were generally greeted with disappointment.
That being said, we were glad to see that this story avoided the hype that so many other outlets chose to stoke with headlines like these:
Many stories suggest that reducing amyloid deposits in the brain is the same thing as reducing Alzheimer’s risk. But that’s never been proven, and some studies suggest that reducing amyloid may not have any effect on the disease symptoms that people care about. It’s important to explain this uncertainty to readers. Journalists shouldn’t suggest that a drug is a home run when it’s still standing on second base. This story took a measured approach that we wish we saw more often.
The story doesn’t mention costs. However, the piece is clear that this is early-stage research that might not pan out, so we think it’s acceptable that there’s no cost discussion.
The story suggests that treatment with aducanumab results in “striking,” “dramatic” and “remarkable” reductions in amyloid plaques in the brain. But it doesn’t quantify what that means. How many patients saw their plaque levels go down? By how much? Is the reduction bigger than what has been seen with other experimental Alzheimer’s drugs? These details would’ve been helpful.
The story is clear that the drug’s effects on amyloid plaque are accompanied by potential harms:
But there’s a downside. The process of removing plaque sometimes causes fluid to build up in the brain. In rare cases, it can also cause bleeding. These side effects are known as amyloid-related imaging abnormalities, or ARIA.
We’re also told that about 20 participants dropped out of because of adverse effects.
The story cautions that these results are from small, early studies and that plaque reduction is a proxy for outcomes that really matter to patients.
But it will take much larger studies to show for sure whether aducanumab really does slow down Alzheimer’s disease, Reiman says.
And unlike many stories we’ve seen that discuss therapies to reduce amyloid, this piece acknowledges that we don’t whether amyloid is actually a cause of Alzheimer’s symptoms or perhaps an effect of the disease.
If aducanumab works in larger studies, it could help settle a long-running debate about whether amyloid is really the root cause of Alzheimer’s. This idea is known as the amyloid hypothesis.
And large studies showing that removing amyloid can preserve memory and thinking “would go a long way toward validating the amyloid hypothesis,” Sandrock says.
We do wish the story had noted that about one third of patients in all groups dropped out before completion of the study, which could impact the quality of the overall findings.
The story doesn’t disease monger, but it also doesn’t explain what Alzheimer’s is or give any sense as to the impact of the disease. We’ll rate this Not Applicable.
The story quotes an official from Biogen (which makes the experimental drug) and the author of an accompanying editorial. But we don’t hear from any truly independent sources in the story. The editorialist, Dr. Eric Reiman, is said to be the executive director of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute in Phoenix. It doesn’t explain that the Banner Institute is leading Alzheimer’s Prevention Initiative, an effort to postpone and prevent the disease before it starts. The initiative partners with a number of drug companies, including Roche, Amgen, Genentech, Novartis, on its studies. These relationships merited a mention in the story.
The story is clear that there are no drugs that treat the underlying cause of Alzheimer’s. It links to a story about a competing amyloid-reducing drug that failed to produce any benefit in a large clinical trial.
We did want to know: Are there any older drugs that have been tried for this? Were they equally optimistic when they were first introduced? Putting them into perspective would help as it seems there were prior drugs that were hyped to prevent or slow the progression of AD–but subsequently didn’t pan out.
The story calls the drug experimental and says that it will take several years for larger studies to report results. It’s apparent that the drug won’t be available outside of a research study any time soon.
The story establishes what appears to be novel about this drug compared with others that reduce amyloid plaques.
One is that the drug appears to ignore benign forms of amyloid protein while attacking the toxic forms thought to damage brain cells. Another is that aducanumab seems to enhance the ability of existing immune cells in the brain to devour toxins, including amyloid.
But while the story is clear that the new paper is presenting details of research first reported last year, it doesn’t explain why the results are now “remarkable” whereas last year they were considered “disappointing,” “mixed” and a “setback.”
We’ll rate this a borderline Satisfactory.
The story includes original reporting and clearly goes beyond any news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
“Not everything published in a medical journal is newsworthy, proven, or even important.” https://t.co/J37btponS6
@chrishendel @HealthNewsRevu I believe that "What Would Gary Think?" should be a kneejerk response to any 'junk food causes blindness'-type single case.... 🥴
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