Anti-amyloid therapy may keep Alzheimer’s symptoms at bay in certain patients, study suggests

Yahoo! News - Mar 19th, 2025

Scientists have found promising evidence that the biologic drug gantenerumab, which removes beta amyloid plaques from the brain, can delay the onset of Alzheimer's symptoms in people with genetic predispositions to the disease. This study, part of the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer's Network (DIAN), involved a small group of 22 participants who took the drug for an average of eight years. The results indicate a potential halving of risk for developing symptoms, though the findings are complex and not entirely conclusive due to the lack of a placebo-controlled group.

The study, published in Lancet Neurology, highlights both hope and uncertainty. While the findings suggest long-term treatment could delay Alzheimer's onset, the research faces financial challenges. The study's funding is in jeopardy, as the U.S. National Institutes of Health grant review meetings have been postponed, risking the continuation of this critical research. Losing funding could mean participants might no longer have access to the drugs, potentially stalling progress in understanding the disease's treatment. Experts urge that continued research is vital to confirm these early promising results and to explore the full potential of amyloid-lowering therapies.

National Institutes Of Health Alzheimer's Disease Beta Amyloid Plaques Gantenerumab Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer's Network Eric Mc Dade Roche

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.2

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive overview of recent developments in Alzheimer's research, focusing on the potential of amyloid-lowering therapies. It effectively combines scientific findings with personal stories, making the content both informative and engaging. The article's strengths lie in its timely discussion of a critical health issue and its use of credible sources. However, it could improve by offering a more balanced perspective on the limitations and challenges of the therapies discussed. Additionally, greater transparency regarding the study's methodology and potential conflicts of interest would enhance the article's credibility. Overall, the article is a valuable contribution to public discourse on Alzheimer's research, though further exploration of its complexities would provide a more nuanced understanding.

Accuracy

The article provides a generally accurate account of the study on amyloid-lowering therapies for Alzheimer's, citing specific drugs and their effects. It accurately reports on the study's findings about gantenerumab, noting the reduction in risk for a small subset of patients. However, it lacks precision in some areas, such as the statistical significance of the results and the potential biases due to the lack of a placebo control group. The article mentions the FDA approval of similar drugs, lecanemab and donanemab, which aligns with known facts. However, the claim that gantenerumab achieved significant results in a subset of patients needs more verification, as it is based on a non-placebo-controlled study, which raises questions about the validity of the findings.

Balance

The story presents a range of perspectives, including those of researchers involved in the study and external experts who caution against overinterpreting the results. However, the article leans slightly towards optimism about the potential of amyloid-lowering therapies, with quotes from participants who have seen benefits. It could improve by including more critical viewpoints about the limitations and challenges of these therapies. The concerns about funding and access to treatment are mentioned but not deeply explored, which could provide a more balanced view of the situation.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow that guides the reader through the study's background, findings, and implications. The language is accessible, avoiding overly technical jargon, which helps in understanding the complex subject matter. However, some sections, particularly those discussing statistical significance and study biases, could be clearer to ensure that readers fully grasp the nuances of the research findings.

Source quality

The article cites credible sources, including researchers directly involved in the study and external experts in the field of neurology. The inclusion of quotes from Dr. Tara Spires-Jones and Dr. Michael Greicius adds authority and credibility. However, the article could benefit from more diverse sources, such as additional independent experts or patient advocacy groups, to provide a broader perspective on the implications of the study.

Transparency

The article provides a reasonable level of transparency by explaining the study's context, methodology, and potential biases. It mentions the lack of a placebo control group and the small size of the study, which are important factors for readers to consider. However, the article could improve transparency by offering more detailed explanations of the statistical methods used and the criteria for participant selection. Additionally, the potential conflicts of interest, such as funding sources and pharmaceutical involvement, are not fully disclosed.