Breakthrough £90,000 Alzheimer's drugs unlikely to benefit patients, report suggests

According to an influential review, Alzheimer's drugs, which have been breakthrough Alzheimer's treatments, are unlikely to benefit patients.

According to the researchers, the effect was well below what was required to make a difference to dementia patients' lives.

However, their study has sparked a scathing critique from similarly respected scientists who also see it as fundamentally flawed.

Around the world, the drugs have been licensed. However, the NHS in the United Kingdom would not pay for them, and an 18-month course would set you back a hefty £90,000 per month. For the majority, they'd be prohibitively costly, so even if you had the money, is it worth paying for?

The medications use a sticky gunk, beta amyloid, that builds up in Alzheimer's disease's brain cells.

Falling short

Antibodies have been programmed to detect the amyloid and clear it from the brain, similar to those that the body uses to fight viruses or bacteria. For years, the tactic failed, but research showed that donanemab and lecanemaB, two new drugs, might have slowed cognitive decline. This was a historic moment, as it was the first time any drug slowed the degeneration of the brain in Alzheimer's disease.

The Cochrane Collaboration, a research group that rigorously and independently analyses medical records, looked at 17 studies involving 20,342 volunteers that sought to remove amyloid from the brain. Overall, they found that the strategy does slow Alzheimer's disease, but not enough to make a difference to patients. At the same time, the drugs were associated with a risk of brain swelling and bleeding.

They must also be able to be delivered every two to four weeks, at a high price. Prof Edo Richard, a neurology professor at Radboud University Medical Centre in the Netherlands, sees dementia patients in his clinic. When I asked him what he would say to his patients, he said no.

I would tell them, I think you will not profit from these medications and they are both expensive for you and your family.

I think it's extremely important that we're upfront with our patients about what they should expect, but I'm also wary of giving people false hope. Other strategies for treating Alzheimer's disease, such as targeting inflammation in the brain, must be investigated, according to Mr.

Other methods for treating dementia include Alzheimer''s dementia. The report's findings were backed by long-serving anti-drug campaigners. Prof Robert Howard, a professor at University College London (UCL), said it was

unfortunate and unfair

to families affected by dementia that these medications have been promoted in a way that has

not supported by robust science and would have boosted false expectations. However, the way the study was conducted has sparked heated debate. All the drugs they reviewed, according to the research team, remove amyloid from the brain, so their report shows you if that strategy works.

However, some experts agree that differences in the way each drug is used are important and that it's unfair to group older experimental drugs with newer ones that have been tested to work. The study, according to Prof. Bart De Strooper of the United Kingdom Dementia Research Institute, does not clarify the facts; it blurs them, and she said the flaw in this analysis is fundamental. Many early programmes failed, he said, but newer antibodies have yielded modest yet meaningful clinical benefit.

It's vital that we interpret this report with nuance and avoid using a sledgehammer to decades of pioneering scientific research,

Alzheimer's Society researcher Richard Oakley said. "The only way to obtain these drugs in the United Kingdom is to buy them online, effectively excluding most people from buying them. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence, which makes the decisions on the medications the NHS will buy, has rejected them in the past, but the government is re-examining the evidence to account for the hardship placed on unpaid carers.