This story covered the announcement of “positive” early results for an experimental Alzheimer’s drug called BAN2401, an antibody that attacks beta-amyloid clumps, and which appeared to trigger a surge in the stock prices of two companies developing the drug. The story did an exemplary job of tempering positive spin from the get-go, with cautions in the headline and lead about the financial interests at stake, past failures of Alzheimer’s treatments, and need for more data. It also alluded to the huge potential market for any drug that could arrest or cure Alzheimer’s.
Business stories about unproven treatments must explain the news driving investors without creating false hopes for patients. That can be a tall order.
Alzheimer’s — which has no cure or treatment to stop its progression — is a particularly good example of an area where business stories can elevate expectations of vulnerable patients and their families, only to see them dashed when fuller data becomes available.
The story frames the discussion in terms of income to the company, but doesn’t address the costs to patients or society. The story said the estimated market for a drug that could alter the course of Alzheimer’s “could be worth more than $10 billion in yearly sales.”
Some discussion of the cost to society of treating Alzheimer’s would have been a good addition. Or, the story could have explored the cost per patient using the potential revenue estimates to give readers a sense of how much a drug like this might cost.
There was no mention of the size of the benefit observed.
A STAT news story on this same trial noted that the study failed to meet its primary endpoint, which means the trial failed. As in many past Alzheimer’s drug trials, the company found positive results only in a sub-group of patients. As we’ve written previously, in larger subsequent studies, the drugs have all failed.
The story said reported side effects included reactions at the sites of the infusion and swelling around blood vessels observed with brain imaging, and that the companies “said they plan to present the results in detail at [an] academic conference.”
The story could have been clearer on how common these side effects are and how serious they were. According to the companies’ news release, infusion-related reactions “were mostly mild to moderate in severity. Incidence of ARIA-E (edema) was not more than 10% in any of the treatment arms, and less than 15% in patients with … the highest dose per the study protocol safety and reporting procedures.”
These are concerning potential harms for which no one knows the long-term consequences.
Cautions were given early and often about the uncertainty of the evidence.
For example, a secondary headline cautioned it’s “too soon to say drug marks real advance,” while the lead mentioned that “a string of failures shadow the efforts” to develop a treatment for Alzheimer’s.
The second paragraph further tempered expectations:
Alzheimer’s has proved an especially tough drug target. Approved therapies only relieve symptoms temporarily, and one experimental treatment after another promising to stymie the neurodegeneration has ultimately failed to work. Some pharmaceutical companies, after costly failures, pulled out.
Also mentioned high in the story was the data were preliminary and based on “a mid-stage study looking for the right dose.”
Further down readers were informed of uncertainties around outcomes measures and analytical methods and the need for independent review.
There was no disease-mongering. The story offered some perspective on the impact of the the disease: “An estimated 5.7 million Americans live with Alzheimer’s, a figure expected to rise as the population ages, the Alzheimer’s Association says.”
In addition to business analysts, the story quoted Lon S. Schneider, an Alzheimer’s researcher at the University of Southern California’s Keck School of Medicine, who “warned against reading too much” into the announced results.
The story mentioned there are 126 therapies in clinical development, according to the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, with beta amyloid being the most common drug target being tested in human trials. It also mentioned approved therapies that “only relieve symptoms temporarily.”
There is also evidence that a healthy lifestyle can be of benefit to people at risk for Alzheimer’s and those with early symptoms.
The story made clear this drug is still in development.
The story explained that this is one of many attempts to find a treatment for Alzheimer’s.
The story didn’t rely on the companies’ news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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