Analyzing New Treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease

October 14, 2007

When announcements of a new treatment or a new “breakthrough” appear in the media, readers/listeners must take care to analyze them in order to properly assess the claims being made and to sort the pertinent information from the extraneous verbiage used to catch consumer attention. Several points should be kept in mind to avoid false expectations on the part of patients and family members. First, one must not be misled by headlines that are created to call attention to a story. Words used in headlines are specifically calculated to heighten consumer interest. In the Time magazine article, New Hope for Alzheimer’s Victims, the wording was selected to entice those with any interest in the disease to spend the time to read what this new hope was. More recent articles may not have the sensational wording, but still entice readers to read farther. Estrogen cuts risk of Alzheimer’s disease and a new test, using eye drops, could be a breakthrough put a spin on the headlines and lead paragraph that encourages high and hopeful expectations if the articles are not analyzed with a critical eye.

In both popular articles and scientific reports, readers should take special note of all disclaimers and qualifiers used to describe a “breakthrough” or the new finding being disclosed. The Time article was replete with such disclaimers and qualifiers, for example, the article stated that “Alzheimer’s finally appears to be yielding to treatment”, a new biochemical test may prove to be highly reliable in detecting a collection of molecules found only in patients with the illness, scientists expect to develop a test (to detect Alzheimer’s disease from spinal fluid). Tacrine, a drug that supposedly slows the loss of brain function and could conceivably add one or more productive years to the lives of Alzheimer’s victims. The Newsweek article describing the eye drop test stated that this was the first simple and apparently accurate test for the disease. U.S. News and World Reports stated that aspirin and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, used regularly may reduce in the risk of mental decline in old age by 20 percent.” The importance of such qualifiers is frequently overlooked by Alzheimer sufferers and family members who are grasping for any sign of hope, for some positive information in their search for effective treatment and cure of Alzheimers. Estrogen, according to U.S. News and World Reports, could lower risk of developing Alzheimer’s, but went on to qualify the article by stating that because of possible side effects, researchers still had reservations about the use of estrogen to prevent Alzheimer’s.

In addition to paying close attention to the manner in which a story is worded, readers/listeners should also consider the source of the story. The veracity of the source should be considered: Is the news source known for accurate and competent reporting or does it have a reputation for sensationalizing stories in order to gain attention? Evaluate, if possible, the source of the news article. Is the story from a national news service or the result of local reporting? Is it paraphrased from the original source? Try to determine if the person presenting the results is an expert in the field, with firsthand knowledge of the story, or if the report is a summary of a more detailed paper written by someone else. Analyze whether the reporter specializes in reporting medical news or is someone who reports general topics. Consumers can call or write the news source and ask for more details concerning the reports they choose to analyze.

If possible, find out where the information was reported or originated. Try to determine if it is the result of a controlled study in a major medical center specializing in the particular research area or if it is an isolated report from a small group or from a single investigator. The background of the investigator reporting the results may be significant: Is this person someone who specializes in the area and has done previous work on the subject, or is the researcher new to the field? Ascertain the person’s experience and standing among professional peers. Although some breakthroughs may certainly come from a small medical center recently embarking on research in a particular area, chances are that major findings would come from research centers with a history of competent work that investigates the subject.

Examine the procedure utilized to obtain the results reported. Ask if the particular report discusses an original study or describes a replication of some previous study. Look at the number of patients participating, the length of the study, and whether it was an open study or a blinded one. Consider if the study has been reported in the scientific literature prior to publication in the popular press. If the material has appeared in the scientific literature, ask if the particular publication in which it appeared is “peer reviewed,” that is, whether other competent scientists in the field reviewed and critiqued the material prior to publication.

There may be a delay of many months between the time data are presented at a conference, submitted for publication, and actually published as an article in a scientific journal. During this period, if the information is deemed newsworthy, the popular press may publish a version of the findings. Consider, however, if the findings have been presented to a scientific meeting prior to publication and if the results of the study are available. Frequently the media choose to publicize what they consider to be the most exciting, the most favorable, and the more enthusiastic reports, while ignoring less favorable or negative studies. Enthusiastic reports may make a better story but negative results can be just as important in the study of a particular disease. It is here that the experience and expertise of the reporter may influence the information selected for the news report. The selection of information may determine whether the subsequent report is accurate or results in mistranslating or misunderstanding

of the data actually presented.

The news report may be so worded as to create a false impression of what has been presented. This may be done inadvertently, by leaving out important facts and selectively reporting those that seem to be most exciting, or it may be done in order to catch the listener’s attention. In either instance, a false impression can be created.

Judge the slant given to the news report. Look for comments on the particular study from experts and consider if the various experts have been quoted at length or if the quotes have been severely edited such that the report is given a certain slant or bias making it sound more favorable and thus more exciting as a news report. Uncritical media reports may lead to confusion, they sometimes create a false public impression of what has actually been demonstrated.

When analyzing a report of some scientific finding, it is important to consider personal biases toward the subject. Do readers/listeners want to perceive the report as more favorable than it actually is? Do readers/listeners selectively retain only what is wanted: those bits of information that are positive and perhaps offer more hope than some others? In selectively retaining portions of the material presented, they may create in their own minds false expectations and thereby mis-translate what is in fact said.

Once readers/listeners have analyzed the validity of the report, they must assess the impact of the information. For example, if a new drug treatment is reported, they should look for its availability to the general public. Is the drug still in an experimental stage? Is the report preliminary or a long-term summary? Has the drug been tested long enough to determine its side effects? Determine if the drug is or soon will be available to the public and, if so, how readily available it is. If the treatment is not available, inquire as to whether application for marketing has been made. When such reports reach the popular press, interested persons should ask their doctors about the drug family physicians or internists may have knowledge, and in any case they are good sources of information. Frequently doctors have access to the original report or to relevant data and are able to interpret the results more accurately.

Recently another source of information for Alzheimer research has burst on the scene and the information available multiplies daily. The Internet has become easily accessible to the general public as a source of an immense body of information. The Internet is a vast computer network allowing virtually anyone with a home computer and the proper software to obtain information from anywhere in the world. Not only does one have access to information published in the popular press, but also to scientific publications and reports.

Posted in Medical Aspects