New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Effect of antiamyloid Alzheimer’s drugs ‘absent or trivial,’ Cochrane review finds

These drugs were hailed by proponents as breakthroughs in the fight to treat Alzheimer’s disease, but a new independent review finds they make “no meaningful difference”

Scientist viewing an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scan of a patient's brain for signs of aging and damage caused by Alzheimer’s disease

TEK IMAGE/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY via Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Drugs that were once hailed as possible breakthroughs in the battle to treat Alzheimer’s have no meaningful clinical effect on the disease’s progression, a new Cochrane review found.

Cochrane reviews have a reputation in the medical and life sciences fields as a gold-standard, independent analysis of the evidence for and against specific health interventions or treatments. The drugs assessed in the new review, published on Thursday, target beta-amyloid proteins, which form plaques that seem to accumulate in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s. Some research suggests they may play a role in the disease. The proteins can be detected before other symptoms appear, so researchers had theorized that drugs designed to eliminate them could slow or prevent the disease, for which there is no cure. Early trials of some of these drugs suggested they might do just that, but further research just hasn’t corroborated those preliminary results.

The drugs not only seem to have no beneficial effect but also increase the risk of brain bleeding and swelling, the review found.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


“Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that these drugs make no meaningful difference to patients,” said the review’s lead author Francesco Nonino, a neurologist and epidemiologist at the IRCCS Institute of Neurological Sciences of Bologna in Italy, in a statement.

The review included 17 clinical trials with a total of 20,342 participants. Nonino and his co-authors argue that future clinical trials of drugs designed to remove amyloid proteins are unlikely to have benefits for patients, and they instead recommend other avenues of research.

One emerging theory is that inflammation associated with lifestyle factors may drive Alzheimer’s disease, and there is a growing body of research suggesting a link between inflammation elsewhere in the body and cognitive decline.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe