Researchers find hint at how to delay Alzheimer's symptoms

ABC News - Mar 19th, 2025

An experimental treatment has shown promising results in delaying Alzheimer’s symptoms in individuals genetically predisposed to develop the disease in their 40s or 50s. The findings, published in Lancet Neurology, highlight the success of amyloid-removing drugs in delaying symptom onset by up to half in a subset of 22 participants. The research, led by Washington University in St. Louis, faces potential disruption due to funding delays related to the Trump administration's policies, raising concerns among study participants who fear losing access to this potential life-extending treatment.

The study's significance lies in its challenge to the existing understanding of Alzheimer’s treatment, suggesting that early intervention targeting amyloid buildup may prevent the onset of symptoms. However, the future of the research is uncertain as funding from the National Institutes of Health is stalled, and the agency's focus may shift under its new leadership. The implications of this research are profound, not only for families with specific genetic mutations but also for broader Alzheimer’s research, as it could redefine treatment strategies. Participants and scientists alike are urging for depoliticized and consistent funding to ensure continued progress in Alzheimer’s research.

National Institutes Of Health Alzheimer's Disease Experimental Treatment Amyloid Removing Drugs Washington University Randall Bateman Dr. Jay Bhattacharya Lancet Neurology Jake Heinrichs

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.6

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a timely and relevant exploration of an experimental Alzheimer's treatment, highlighting the potential benefits and challenges faced by researchers. It draws on credible sources and effectively communicates the significance of the findings. However, the article could benefit from greater balance by including alternative perspectives and more transparency regarding the study's methodology and funding issues. While the story is generally clear and engaging, simplifying complex scientific concepts would enhance readability. The article's potential impact on public opinion and policy discussions is notable, but further exploration of controversial elements could increase its engagement and impact.

Accuracy

The article presents several key claims about an experimental Alzheimer's treatment, suggesting it delays symptoms in genetically predisposed individuals. It accurately reports on the study's publication in *Lancet Neurology* and the involvement of Washington University in St. Louis. However, the article lacks detailed evidence on the study's methodology and specific findings, such as the exact reduction in symptom onset risk. The mention of funding delays due to NIH restrictions is plausible but requires verification. The article correctly notes the existing scientific debate over the amyloid hypothesis, aligning with broader research trends.

Balance

The article primarily focuses on the experimental treatment's potential and the challenges posed by funding delays. While it provides perspectives from researchers and participants, it lacks viewpoints from critics or alternative hypotheses in Alzheimer's research. The mention of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya's comments hints at a broader debate but doesn't explore opposing viewpoints in depth, which could provide a more balanced perspective on the scientific and funding issues.

Clarity

The article is generally clear, with a logical structure and straightforward language. It effectively communicates the significance of the research and the challenges faced by the study. However, some complex scientific concepts, such as the role of amyloid and tau proteins in Alzheimer's, could be explained more clearly for a general audience. Simplifying these explanations would improve comprehension.

Source quality

The story cites credible sources, including a study published in *Lancet Neurology* and comments from neuroscientists and study participants. Washington University in St. Louis and the National Institutes of Health are reputable institutions, lending credibility to the article. However, the article would benefit from more diverse sources, such as independent experts or critics, to strengthen its reliability further.

Transparency

The article provides some transparency by naming key individuals and institutions involved in the research. However, it lacks detailed explanations of the study's methodology, participant selection, and specific results. The potential conflict of interest related to NIH funding and political implications is mentioned but not explored in depth. Greater transparency about these factors would enhance the article's credibility.