This article reports on an Food and Drug Administration “marketing authorization” for a commercial magnetic pulse delivery device designed to temporarily reduce the symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) by affecting neurochemical transmissions in the brain. The device is worn on the head and, through a coil, delivers noisy, often headache-inducing pulses to part of the brain. Treatments are needed on an ongoing basis in most cases, and are delivered in a clinical setting by health care specialists. This type of device was first approved by the FDA for use in major depression and some migraine conditions.
The text of the story only thinly describes the very limited clinical trial that informed the new FDA decision, and doesn’t go much beyond a news release from the company. The only quote is from an FDA official saying the device has “potential” to help people with OCD who have not responded to conventional therapy. An independent expert source would have likely made this story much stronger.
The underlying cause and reasons why some therapies work for OCD are not well understood; it would be helpful if news articles about novel treatments would include that context. It is also imperative that this reporting is informed by as much detail about the clinical effectiveness as possible.
The article does not say how much this treatment cost nor whether insurance covers the costs. Some estimates of TMS put the cost of four to six week courses of five-day-a-week, 20-minute treatments at between $5,000 to $15,000 and up.
The article does give data on the reduction of symptoms and how that reduction was measured and it does note that people in the intervention and control groups both continued to take OCD medications if they were on them to begin with.
The article uses information from an FDA news release to discuss side effects:
The most common side effect in the clinical trial was headache, which occurred in 37.5% of the treatment group and 35.3% of the sham treatment group. Other possible side effects were mild, and included temporary jaw or face pain, muscle spasms or twitching, and neck pain.
This is enough to rate Satisfactory, but there is certainly more that could be said about side effects. We easily found evidence of short-term memory loss and patient complaints of significant anxiety by doing a quick Google search.
As noted above, the article needed to say more about the design of the clinical trial, the participants’ range of symptoms, the facilities in which they were treated and to what degree the study group represents and reflects most people with OCD. Without that context, it’s hard to know really how valid the outcome data are. It’s not clear what the treatment consisted of in terms of duration and repetition of TMS.
The article is weakened by the absence of expert comment and attribution of claims made by the company and the FDA. Nor does the reader learn anything about whether those who conducted the clinical trial have or had any ties to Brainsway or other conflicts of interest.
Although the article mentions alternative treatments (psychotherapy and medications), it doesn’t compare them to outcomes claimed for TMS.
Readers will understand that the TMS device is now commercially available for OCD, although the article does not offer any information about facilities that offer the treatment.
The story makes it clear that TMS and TMS devices aren’t new, but this is the first time a TMS device can be marketed as an OCD treatment.
However, the story says “there’s no equivalent device already available to patients,” but that doesn’t appear to be accurate. There are several brands of TMS devices. Is there anything unique about this one for OCD, or was Brainsway simply the first to test it on OCD patients?
The story didn’t include anything significant that wasn’t in the FDA or Brainsway news releases. The only thing we spotted that diverged from the news releases was that BuzzFeed used numbers from the NIH on how many people have OCD.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Media coverage of a recent study is generating unwarranted hype about supplemental screening for cancer for women with dense breasts. https://lowninstitute.org/news/blog/media-misleads-on-mri-screening-for-breast-cancer/
Happy to see that my @HealthNewsRevu blog about progression-free survival confusion has been reposted by @kevinmd. https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2019/12/most-new-cancer-treatments-havent-been-proven-to-help-patients-live-longer-or-feel-better.html via @kevinmd
We are all worse off for not having @garyschwitzer's excellent, daily health care reporting, but his story today should sound the alarms and be a warning to anyone who gets health care information from local TV health news (read: much of America) (1/2) https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2019/11/why-hire-a-full-time-health-reporter-when-you-can-buy-news-off-the-shelf/#.Xeank0LWjyA.twitter
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