Learn more about our policy experts.

Media Contacts

Angela Bradbery, Director of Communications
w. (202) 588-7741
c. (202) 503-6768
abradbery@citizen.org, Twitter

Barbara Holzer, Broadcast Manager
w. (202) 588-7716
bholzer@citizen.org

Karilyn Gower, Press Officer
w. (202) 588-7779
kgower@citizen.org

Ben Somberg, Press Officer (regulatory matters)
w. (202) 588-7742
bsomberg@citizen.org, Twitter

Other Important Links

Press Release Database
Citizen Vox blog
Texas Vox blog
Consumer Law and Policy blog
Energy Vox blog
Eyes on Trade blog
Facebook/publiccitizen

Follow us on Twitter

 

May 10, 2011

Public Citizen Exposes Serious Omissions in Published Study of Experimental Procedure for Diagnosing Alzheimer’s Disease

FDA Should Not Approve a Procedure with Unreliable Results, Watchdog Writes in Medical Journal

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a letter published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Public Citizen criticized the authors of a study in the January 19, 2011 issue of the journal who tested the effectiveness of brain scans using an experimental dye for detecting brain abnormalities found in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. The authors withheld critically important data from the Journal when documenting the extent to which interpretation of these scans varies from one physician to another, Public Citizen said.

“The public health implications of these unreliable tests would be two-fold: First, substantial numbers of people could be incorrectly diagnosed as having such brain abnormalities when they really do not, and by the same token, others could be falsely reassured that they do not have such brain abnormalities when they actually do,” said Dr. Michael Carome, deputy director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group. “By withholding important information, the authors misled the journal and its readers to believe that this test for identifying brain abnormalities was more reliable than it actually is.”

Alzheimer’s disease is the leading cause of irreversible dementia in the United States. Currently, there is no definitive test for diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease while a patient is alive, and so the diagnosis typically is made by doing tests to exclude other causes of dementia, such as strokes, certain nutritional deficiencies and hypothyroidism. Prior autopsy studies looking at the brains of Alzheimer’s disease patients have revealed plaques (deposits) of an abnormal protein called beta-amyloid, but not all individuals with beta-amyloid plaques in their brains had dementia. 

 More importantly, there is no treatment that cures or stops the progression of Alzheimer’s disease, and the few drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating such patients have significant risk of adverse events while offering very meager benefits in terms of improving cognitive function.

“Given what is known about Alzheimer’s disease and the lack of effective treatments, any proposed test for diagnosing this disease must be proven to be highly accurate in large, rigorously conducted studies before it is approved by the FDA for marketing,” Carome said. 

In the JAMA study criticized by Public Citizen, researchers tested whether injection of an experimental radioactive dye, called florbetapir F 18, can be used to detect beta-amyloid plaques in the brains of living people using an imaging procedure called a positron emission tomography (PET) scan. The researchers proposed that the injected dye would bind to beta-amyloid plaques in the brain and be visible on a brain PET scan.

For the key part of the study, the researchers performed florbetapir-PET brain scans in 35 elderly, terminally ill subjects (only 17 of whom had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease). After their deaths, the researchers compared those scan results to measurements of beta-amyloid plaques in their brains during autopsy. Importantly, three nuclear medicine physicians, who had undergone extensive training, independently read and scored each florbetapir-PET scan for the amount of beta-amyloid seen in the subject’s brain.

In their JAMA article, the researchers presented only the median score of the three physician readers for the amount of beta-amyloid seen on each florbetapir-PET scan, but withheld critical data on the scores for each individual physician reader – data that Avid Radiopharmaceuticals (Avid), a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly, Inc. and the company that makes florbetapir, had submitted to the FDA on September 17, 2010, four months before the JAMA article was published.

“By only giving the median score, the researchers obscured the variation that actually occurred in the scoring between the three readers,” Carome said. Indeed, even the researchers themselves acknowledged that their procedure of using median score for the three physician readers “is not likely to be replicated in clinical settings.”

FDA analyses of the individual physician reader data showed the substantial variation among the three independent, highly trained physician readers, which led its reviewers to seriously doubt the validity and usefulness of florbetapir-PET scan for detecting beta-amyloid plaques in the brain.

“Given the poor performance of the test at the individual physician reader level in a rigorously controlled setting, the variability and unreliability will only get worse when the test is widely distributed across the country,” Carome said. “As a result, tens of thousands of patients will have either a false-positive test (told they have beta-amyloid deposits when they do not) or a false-negative test (told they don’t have beta-amyloid deposits when they do). This will lead to unnecessary anxiety and treatment in some patients, false reassurance in others and a waste of millions of health-care dollars.” 

It is important to note that the majority of the authors of the JAMA study had a direct financial relationship with Avid, including nine who owned stock or stock options in the company. So while the authors of the original JAMA study were highly motivated to portray these results in the best possible light, they also concluded that “Understanding the appropriate use of florbetapir-PET imaging in the clinical diagnosis of [Alzheimer’s disease] or in the prediction of progression to dementia will require additional studies.” 


###
Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit www.citizen.org.

 

Copyright © 2014 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.


Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation

 

Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.

Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.

You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.

 

To become a member of Public Citizen, click here.
To become a member and make an additional tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen Foundation, click here.