Too bad we've had like a half-dozen putative Alzheimer's drugs that clear amyloid beta that turn out to do nothing to slow or prevent Alzheimer's.

Actually, I think even by 2016 we already had enough phase 3 drug failures that the amyloid hypothesis was severely called into question?

▲

nikkwong 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's not true. Monoclonal antibodies are on the market right now which slow the progression of the disease (by removing amyloid).

▲

jcranmer 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

AIUI, all such results are because the FDA has given up since aduhelm and said "well, if it clears amyloid, that's as good as slowing Alzheimer's, right?" despite the actual results on Alzheimer's progression being largely negative.

▲

riskassessment 4 hours ago | parent [-]

For what it's worth, early statins were originally cleared based only on the evidence that they lower cholesterol without longer term studies showing a reduction in mortality. Of course there is now plenty of evidence showing statins improve overall endpoints.

	▲	AuryGlenz an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That’s true. Similarly, there were other drugs that lowered cholesterol that didn’t show a significant reduction in coronary events. As we later learned, it’s not nearly as simple as “cholesterol bad.”
	▲	simulator5g an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That doesn't sound like the same thing at all.

▲

Muvasa 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

~~yes by 4 months. If I had AD i wouldn't bother with those treatments.~~ Sorry I missed the context you are right the fact that they slow AD by 4 months is a proof that amyloid plaques are part of the pathogenesis.

	▲	coryrc 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Or they have some other effect...

▲

Retz4o4 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Zunveyl