How do the new antibody drugs for Alzheimer's disease work?

– What are the medicines?
Donanemab and lecanemab are targeted antibody drugs that slow down the early stages of Alzheimer's.
They represent a huge step forward in research because they target a known cause of the disease, rather than just treating the symptoms.
Both drugs bind to amyloid, a protein which builds up in the brains of people living with Alzheimer's disease.
By binding to amyloid, the drugs are designed to help clear the build-up and slow down cognitive decline.
– How effective are they?
Donanemab has been shown in clinical trials to slow the rate at which memory and thinking get worse by more than 20%.
Evidence suggests that people get the most benefit if they are given the treatment earlier in the disease.
Results show a slowing in the decline of tasks such as managing money (Dominic Lipinski/PA)
Results also suggest the drug leads to a 40% slowing in the decline of everyday activities such as driving, enjoying hobbies and managing money.
Lecanemab has also been shown to successfully remove protein build-up from the brains of people living with early Alzheimer's disease.
For people taking lecanemab, this meant the decline in their thinking and memory skills was slowed down by 27%.
It also slowed down the decline in quality of life by up to 56%.
– How are the drugs given?
Donanemab, developed by the pharmaceutical company Lilly, is given to patients via an intravenous drip once every four weeks.
Lecanemab, developed by Eisai, is also given this way but fortnightly.
– Are there any side-effects?
Side-effects of the drugs can be serious and people undergo monitoring to check for them.
In one clinical trial published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 2023, 24% of people receiving donanemab had side-effects including brain swelling and infusion-related reactions.
Four people died during the trial, with their deaths thought to be related to the drug's side-effects.
Results suggest donanemab leads to a 40% slowing in the decline of everyday activities (Peter Byrne/PA)
Lecanemab resulted in infusion-related reactions in around 26% of people on the trial and followed up, while 14% suffered amyloid-related imaging abnormalities causing brain swelling. Others suffered minor bleeds picked up on scans.
Around one in 10 people suffered headaches, according to updated results published in May 2024.
Overall, four deaths during the follow-up period were thought to be due to treatment.
– How much do the drugs cost?
NHS England published a briefing paper last year suggesting the cost of bringing the drugs to the health service could be £500 million to £1 billion per year.
Around 50%-60% of the total estimated cost relates to the drug price, with remaining cash spent on patient assessment, diagnosis and administering the treatment.
– How many people in England might the drugs have worked for?
NHS England estimated between 50,000 and 280,000 patients could be eligible for the new treatments if they were approved for the NHS.
To get the drugs, patients need a baseline MRI scan and then either a PET-CT scan or lumbar puncture to confirm Alzheimer's.
It is possible that blood tests will be available in the future to diagnose the disease, so NHS England did warn there should be caution about driving a 'massive expansion' in other diagnostics which could become redundant in the longer term.
-What do scientists think?
Scientists and doctors have been divided on whether the drugs represent a real clinical benefit that is noticeable in patients day-to-day.
Some argue the drugs represent a huge advance and people should be given the chance to try them.
But others say the benefits are too small.
Jennifer Keen, associate director of evidence, policy and influencing at the Alzheimer's Society, has said: 'we remain at an important and exciting moment', adding: 'There are currently 182 active clinical trials for Alzheimer's disease… We are on the cusp of major scientific breakthroughs beginning to improve the outlook for those with the disease.'
Professor Rob Howard, from University College London, said: 'Nobody should be surprised that Nice have confirmed their earlier view that the new Alzheimer's disease treatments would not be cost-effective if used within the NHS.
'Well-conducted clinical trials demonstrated that the actual size of benefits experienced by patients were too small to be noticeable, treatment carries risks of side-effects, and the annual cost of the drugs and safety monitoring required would have been close to the cost of a nurse's salary for each treated patient. We need better treatments that can make an appreciable difference to the lives of people with dementia and these can only come from further research and study.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Wales Online

an hour ago

• Wales Online

The new weight loss pill showing significant results within 12 weeks

The new weight loss pill showing significant results within 12 weeks The weight loss pill has showed promise in new trials with some reporting up to 24% weight loss The experimental drug tests have shown up to 24% weight loss (Image: PA ) An early study has found that a new weight loss medication, which can be offered by injection or tablet, can help patients lose a significant amount weight. It has found that people who received higher doses of amycretin as a weekly jab lost 24.3% of their body weight after 36 weeks of treatment. And initial trials assessing a tablet form of the drug also showed promising results, with patients taking daily tablets losing an average of 13.1% of their body weight after 12 weeks. ‌ Weight loss jabs have been hailed as transformative by NHS leaders. ‌ But injections come with additional work for over-stretched health services so tablet forms of medication may offer a new hope for the millions of people looking to lose weight. It has been estimated that around 1.5 million Britons are having weight loss jabs, which have been either prescribed through specialist weight loss services or private prescriptions. GPs will be able to dish out that jabs from next week. Stay informed on the latest health news by signing up to our newsletter here Article continues below Amycretin, made by Novo Nordisk, helps to control blood sugar and appetite by targeting two specific receptors in the body - GLP-1 and the amylin receptor. An early trial in 125 adults testing weekly injections of amycretin, which has been published in The Lancet, found that those taking the highest dosage (60mg) lost 24.3% after 36 weeks of treatment. It also showed signs in improving blood sugar levels. ‌ Side effects included nausea and vomiting and were mostly mild to moderate and resolved by the end of treatment. "These phase 1b/2a data support the potential of once-weekly subcutaneous amycretin as a therapeutic for people living with overweight or obesity," the authors wrote. "Amycretin appeared safe and tolerable, and there were significant reductions in body weight after 36 weeks of treatment." ‌ The second early trial, published in the same journal, assessed amycretin in tablet form in 144 people over 12 weeks. There were mild to moderate side effects including loss of appetite, nausea and vomiting. Researchers found that people taking the highest dose of 100mg per day, lost 13.1% of their body weight over four months. ‌ The authors wrote: "Amycretin effectively lowered body weight and improved metabolic and glycaemic parameters in people with overweight or obesity. "Longer studies with more participants are warranted for evaluation of the safety and efficacy of amycretin in individuals living with obesity and type 2 diabetes, and to optimise the dosing regimen." The studies were also presented at the American Diabetes Association's Scientific Sessions in Chicago, in the US. It comes as a separate study, which was published at the same meeting, examined the effects of weight loss jab Wegovy at higher doses. Article continues below Researchers found that giving patients 7.2mg of Wegovy, also known as semaglutide, once a week led to an average weight loss of 20.7%, with a third of participants losing 25% or more of their body weight after 72 weeks.

Telegraph

10 hours ago

• Telegraph

Labour's plan for the NHS: more money plus vital reform

The commitments that the Government made to our NHS in the Spending Review were made in full recognition of the scale of the challenge we inherited and the bold reforms we're already implementing. While it is correct that NHS productivity has yet to return to pre-pandemic levels, it is wrong to imply that our response has been to throw more money at the problem, without an equal focus on productivity. Let's be clear: after 14 years of mismanagement, we found an NHS in crisis. Not just underfunded, but fundamentally broken in its structures and operations. The waiting list stood at 7.6 million people in September 2024. 10 per cent of patients were waiting more than 12 hours in A&E. Public satisfaction had dropped to record lows. This crisis demands not just investment, but radical reform. That's precisely what we're delivering. Take our decision to abolish NHS England. This isn't an ideological choice – it's a practical one that will cut duplication, remove unnecessary bureaucracy, and crucially, redirect hundreds of millions of pounds straight to frontline services. The bloated administrative structure created under the previous government hasn't delivered better care – it's created waste, confusion, and ultimately contributed to worse outcomes for patients. We are also tackling the scandalous spending on agency staff. Under the last government, one trust paid an agency £5,100 for a shift by a single doctor in 2022/23. We've cut almost £1 billion in agency spending and our ambition is to eliminate agency use entirely in the coming years. Those billions will be reinvested in permanent staff who provide better continuity of care. We've upgraded the NHS App so that it now sends appointment reminders and test results digitally instead of by post, saving £200 million on stamps, envelopes, and printing. We found an NHS drowning in targets – many contradictory, some counterproductive. We've halved the number of targets set for NHS trusts so that they can focus on what matters to patients: waiting times for operations, ambulances, A&E attendance, rebuilding general practice and dentistry, and improving mental health services. As a result, waiting lists are at a two-year low – but we know they need to fall further. Our Plan for Change outlines how 92 per cent of elective patients should wait less than 18 weeks. We're laser-focused on that goal. Similarly, we've halved the targets that GPs are measured on. The previous government even introduced a target measuring GPs' wellbeing, while simultaneously overwhelming them with bureaucracy. We're freeing doctors to focus on patients by bringing back the family doctor model and ending the 8am phone scramble. These are precisely the productivity measures which are needed by our NHS and by Britain. Last week's Spending Review delivered a £29 billion real terms increase for the healthcare system to 2029. But let's be clear – a lot of this money is linked to reform. Every penny we invest comes with expectations of reform and improved outcomes. We're cutting waste, streamlining bureaucracy, and empowering frontline staff to deliver better care. That's why we're developing a 10-Year Health Plan for publication in the coming weeks, built around three fundamental shifts: from hospital to community care, from analogue to digital systems, and from treatment to prevention. The problems in our NHS didn't develop overnight, and they won't be solved overnight either. But unlike our predecessors, we're not afraid of making difficult decisions and driving through the reforms our public services desperately need. Public service productivity does matter – that's why we're reforming the NHS to deliver better care at better value for taxpayers. Our plan combines investment with genuine radical change. After 14 years of decline, that's what real change looks like.

South Wales Guardian

12 hours ago

• South Wales Guardian

Assisted dying law closer but MPs' support narrows in historic vote

Kim Leadbeater described backing for her Bill in the Commons as 'a convincing majority', after the number was slashed from 55 in November to 23 on Friday. The Labour MP declared 'thank goodness' after the result, but hospices are among those warning of the 'seismic change' for end-of-life care. Staunch supporter Dame Esther Rantzen, who is terminally ill but has said a new law is unlikely to come in time for her, thanked MPs for doing their bit to protect terminally ill people from a 'bad death'. She told the PA news agency: 'This will make a huge positive difference, protecting millions of terminally ill patients and their families from the agony and loss of dignity created by a bad death. 'Thank you, Parliament.' While 314 MPs voted for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at third reading, 291 voted against. Some 14 MPs switched from voting in favour to against, while only one MP – Labour's Jack Abbott – switched from voting no to voting yes. The proposed legislation will now move to the House of Lords for further debate and votes, although one peer has already urged her colleagues they 'must oppose a law that puts the vulnerable at risk'. Bishop of London Dame Sarah Mullally, a former chief nursing officer for England, said instead work is needed to better fund access to 'desperately needed palliative care services'. Her sentiment was echoed by a range of end-of-life care organisations including Marie Curie, which said legalising assisted dying will make it 'more crucial than ever' for governments across the UK 'ensure that there is palliative care available for anyone who needs it'. Ahead of the vote, MPs approved a change to the Bill, which will require ministers to assess within a year of any new law coming into effect the quality and distribution of palliative care services currently available and the impact of an assisted dying service on them. The charity said while it welcomed the change, 'this will not on its own make the improvements needed to guarantee everyone is able to access the palliative care they need'. Ms Leadbeater said the vote result was one that 'so many people need', insisting her Bill has enough safeguards and will 'give dying people choice'. Asked about the narrower gap between supporters and opponents, Ms Leadbeater said she knew there would be 'some movement both ways' but insisted the vote showed a 'convincing majority'. She told reporters: 'The will of the House (of Commons) will now be respected by the Lords, and the Bill will go through to its next stage.' Acknowledging those who remain opposed to the Bill, she said she is 'happy to work with them to provide any reassurance or if they've got any questions about the Bill that they want to talk through with me, my door has always been open and remains open'. Conservative MP Danny Kruger, who opposes the Bill, said support 'is ebbing away very fast', telling of his disappointment the Bill passed but adding: 'The fact is, their majority's been cut in half.' Campaigners wept, jumped and hugged each other outside Parliament as the vote result was announced, while some MPs appeared visibly emotional as they left the chamber. Others lined up to shake hands with Ms Leadbeater, the Bill's sponsor through the Commons, with some, including Home Office minister Jess Phillips, stopping to hug the Spen Valley MP. Before a Bill can be signed into law, both the Lords and the Commons must agree the final text. Thanks to the four-year implementation period, it could be 2029 – potentially coinciding with the end of this Government's parliament – before assisted dying is offered. Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer remained supportive of the Bill, voting yes on Friday as he had done last year. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who had urged MPs to vote against the legislation, describing it as 'a bad Bill' despite being 'previously supportive of assisted suicide', voted no. During an hours-long date on Friday, MPs on both sides of the issue recalled personal stories of loved ones who had died. Conservative former minister Sir James Cleverly, who led the opposition to the Bill in the Commons, spoke of a close friend who died 'painfully' from cancer. He said he comes at the divisive issue 'not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance', and was driven in his opposition by 'concerns about the practicalities' of the Bill. MPs had a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decided according to their conscience rather than along party lines. The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.