Drugs aimed at slowing Alzheimer's disease progression "make no meaningful difference to patients" while raising the risk of brain swelling and bleeding, a new review has claimed.
However, charities have swiftly challenged these findings, accusing experts of unfairly combining failed and successful drug trials.
Researchers behind the review stated that the effects of these medicines on individuals with early-stage Alzheimer's and dementia were "either absent or consistently small".
Edo Richard, a professor of neurology at Radboud University Medical Centre in the Netherlands, noted his team observed "results from trials over the last two decades 'are not consistent'".
Charities argue that the review's authors have attempted to "paint an entire class of drugs with the same brush", potentially undermining the benefits of certain treatments. Anti-amyloid medicines work by binding to and clearing protein deposits in the brains of those with Alzheimer's, a process intended to slow cognitive decline.
The treatments were not approved for use on the NHS after the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) deemed their benefits “too small” to justify the cost.
The new Cochrane review looked at 17 studies involving 20,342 patients overall.
The analysis found that the effects of these drugs on cognitive function and dementia severity after 18 months was “trivial”.
According to Prof Richard, the differences made by the treatments were “far below the minimal effect that’s needed to be noticeable at all for patients and caregivers”.
Dr Susan Kohlhaas, executive director of research at Alzheimer’s Research UK, said the charity regularly heard from families impacted by dementia who said that even a delay of several months in their loved one’s decline “could provide valuable, meaningful time” that “shouldn’t be minimised”.
She said: “Crucially, this study is attempting to paint an entire class of drugs with the same brush even though we know different anti-amyloid treatments can act in different ways.
“Anti-amyloid treatments will not be the whole answer to curing Alzheimer’s, and research is already moving towards a wider range of biological targets.
“But it’s not accurate to dismiss their impact as ‘trivial’, especially when the analysis has clear constraints that limit what it can tell us.”
Read full story
Source: The Independent, 16 April 2026