In Gustavsson et al,1 we discussed the ethical issues that arise when identifying the relevant population for disease-modifying drugs targeting Alzheimer disease. More specifically, we focused on novel immunotherapies aimed at amyloid β and tau, two relevant biomarkers. The commentaries to our paper2 3 acknowledge our conclusion: screening for AD involve ethical costs that cannot be justified unless a drug with clinically relevant effect becomes available. Since Aduhelm is the only immunotherapy targeting AD currently approved by the Food and Drug (...) Administration, we use that as a …. (shrink)

The article by Gustavsson et al 1 addresses the important question how to handle new medications with focus on drug candidates that reduce Aβ or tau in the brain, for individuals with Alzheimer’s disease, where the need for a disease-modifying drug is enormous. There are several ethical issues to deal with. The challenges and ethical implications associated with whom should be eligible for treatment are thoroughly discussed in the article. Should treatment only be available to those with mild symptoms and/or (...) to those with no symptoms but with risk for AD? Where do we draw the line between who will be eligible for treatment and who will not? Who will be responsible for the prioritisation? There are many ethical problems with both population screening and screening of those with high risk well discussed in the article. Indeed, the first immunotherapy drug Aducanumab was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in …. (shrink)

It is a tale of two Pfizers. In 2018 they abandoned research into the leading cause of dementia, Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) (Hawkes 2018). In 2021, they developed the first vaccine for Covid-19 to re...