New Alzheimer’s Drugs’ £90,000 Price Tag May Not Deliver Expected Benefits, Study Finds
A prominent analysis suggests that recent “breakthrough” Alzheimer’s treatments might not offer substantial advantages for patients. Experts noted the effect was “significantly lower” than necessary to meaningfully improve the lives of those with dementia. Despite this, the report has sparked fierce disagreement from respected researchers who argue its conclusions are not well-founded.
The National Health Service (NHS) currently does not cover these medications, leaving an 18-month course to cost upwards of £90,000 privately. With such high prices, affordability remains a challenge, raising questions about their value for patients. The drugs target beta amyloid, a protein that accumulates between brain cells in Alzheimer’s, using antibodies similar to those the body produces to combat infections.
For years, efforts to eliminate amyloid through drugs were met with limited success. However, trials of two novel therapies—donanemab and lecanemab—showed a slowing of cognitive decline, marking a major development. This was the first time any medication had demonstrated a measurable effect on brain degeneration in the disease. The Cochrane Collaboration, renowned for independent medical evaluations, scrutinized 17 studies involving 20,342 participants to assess the efficacy of amyloid-clearing drugs.
While the review confirmed the approach does slow Alzheimer’s progression, the improvement was deemed insufficient to justify widespread use. Additional risks, such as brain swelling and bleeding, were also highlighted. Patients require regular infusions every two to four weeks, further adding to the financial burden. Prof Edo Richard, a neurology expert at Radboud University Medical Centre, shared his perspective on the findings.
“I would tell patients they may not gain significant benefit from these drugs, and they could be a strain on both the individual and their caregivers,” he said. “It’s vital we’re clear about what these treatments can actually achieve. I’m cautious to prevent misleading expectations.”
Prof Richard also emphasized the need to explore alternative methods, like targeting brain inflammation. His views align with long-time skeptics of the drugs, including Prof Robert Howard from University College London (UCL), who criticized the hype around these treatments as “not supported by solid scientific evidence” and said it has “created unnecessary hope” for families.
The analysis has ignited debate, with some experts questioning the grouping of early, less effective drugs with newer ones that show promise. Prof Bart De Strooper from the UK Dementia Research Institute at UCL called the review “fundamentally flawed,” stating it “muddies the evidence” rather than clarifying it. He noted that while older trials failed, recent antibodies have provided “modest yet real” clinical benefits.
Dr. Richard Oakley of the Alzheimer’s Society urged careful interpretation of the report, stressing the importance of recognizing “years of pioneering research” without dismissing their contributions. In the UK, access to these drugs is currently limited to private payment, making them unaffordable for most. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is reassessing the evidence, taking into account the strain on unpaid carers.
