阿尔茨海默病前景:争议与未来方向

Giovanni B Frisoni, Emil Aho, Carol Brayne, Olga Ciccarelli, Bruno Dubois, Nick C Fox, Kristian S Frederiksen, Cem Gabay, Valentina Garibotto, Thomas Hofmarcher, Clifford R Jack, Miia Kivipelto, Ronald C Petersen, Federica Ribaldi, Christopher C Rowe, Sebastian Walsh, Henrik Zetterberg, Oskar Hansson
{"title":"阿尔茨海默病前景:争议与未来方向","authors":"Giovanni B Frisoni, Emil Aho, Carol Brayne, Olga Ciccarelli, Bruno Dubois, Nick C Fox, Kristian S Frederiksen, Cem Gabay, Valentina Garibotto, Thomas Hofmarcher, Clifford R Jack, Miia Kivipelto, Ronald C Petersen, Federica Ribaldi, Christopher C Rowe, Sebastian Walsh, Henrik Zetterberg, Oskar Hansson","doi":"10.1016/s0140-6736(25)01389-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For the first time, reductions in cerebral β-amyloid pathology load and rate of cognitive and functional decline have been achieved in Alzheimer's disease, through pharmacological intervention in randomised controlled trials. However, the results from phase 3 randomised controlled trials of anti-β amyloid monoclonal antibodies are interpreted in different ways, with some experts supporting a clinically meaningful disease-modifying effect, and others judging insufficient benefit-to-risk ratio and opposing market authorisation. In the final paper of this Series, we discuss these contrasting views, all of which wish to contribute to improvements in the quality of life of people with, or at risk of, Alzheimer's disease. We contrast the efficacy, societal costs, and generalisability of monoclonal antibodies for Alzheimer's disease to biologics for other conditions (eg, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis) and set this debate in the larger context of modern personalised medicine. We discuss current practice implications, future developments directed to β-amyloid and non-amyloid targets that might have more clinical efficacy and less adverse effects for those with the disease, and large-scale prevention interventions for those at risk.","PeriodicalId":22898,"journal":{"name":"The Lancet","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Alzheimer's disease outlook: controversies and future directions\",\"authors\":\"Giovanni B Frisoni, Emil Aho, Carol Brayne, Olga Ciccarelli, Bruno Dubois, Nick C Fox, Kristian S Frederiksen, Cem Gabay, Valentina Garibotto, Thomas Hofmarcher, Clifford R Jack, Miia Kivipelto, Ronald C Petersen, Federica Ribaldi, Christopher C Rowe, Sebastian Walsh, Henrik Zetterberg, Oskar Hansson\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/s0140-6736(25)01389-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"For the first time, reductions in cerebral β-amyloid pathology load and rate of cognitive and functional decline have been achieved in Alzheimer's disease, through pharmacological intervention in randomised controlled trials. However, the results from phase 3 randomised controlled trials of anti-β amyloid monoclonal antibodies are interpreted in different ways, with some experts supporting a clinically meaningful disease-modifying effect, and others judging insufficient benefit-to-risk ratio and opposing market authorisation. In the final paper of this Series, we discuss these contrasting views, all of which wish to contribute to improvements in the quality of life of people with, or at risk of, Alzheimer's disease. We contrast the efficacy, societal costs, and generalisability of monoclonal antibodies for Alzheimer's disease to biologics for other conditions (eg, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis) and set this debate in the larger context of modern personalised medicine. We discuss current practice implications, future developments directed to β-amyloid and non-amyloid targets that might have more clinical efficacy and less adverse effects for those with the disease, and large-scale prevention interventions for those at risk.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22898,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Lancet\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Lancet\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(25)01389-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Lancet","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(25)01389-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

通过随机对照试验中的药物干预,首次在阿尔茨海默病中实现了大脑β-淀粉样蛋白病理负荷和认知和功能下降率的降低。然而,抗β淀粉样蛋白单克隆抗体的3期随机对照试验结果有不同的解释,一些专家支持具有临床意义的疾病改善效果,而另一些专家则认为收益风险比不足,反对市场授权。在本系列的最后一篇文章中,我们讨论了这些不同的观点,所有这些观点都希望有助于改善阿尔茨海默病患者或有患阿尔茨海默病风险的人的生活质量。我们对比了治疗阿尔茨海默病的单克隆抗体与治疗其他疾病(如癌症、多发性硬化症和类风湿性关节炎)的生物制剂的疗效、社会成本和普遍性,并将这一争论置于现代个性化医疗的更大背景下。我们讨论了目前的实践意义,未来针对β-淀粉样蛋白和非淀粉样蛋白靶点的发展,这些靶点可能对患者有更多的临床疗效和更少的不良反应,以及对高危人群的大规模预防干预。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Alzheimer's disease outlook: controversies and future directions
For the first time, reductions in cerebral β-amyloid pathology load and rate of cognitive and functional decline have been achieved in Alzheimer's disease, through pharmacological intervention in randomised controlled trials. However, the results from phase 3 randomised controlled trials of anti-β amyloid monoclonal antibodies are interpreted in different ways, with some experts supporting a clinically meaningful disease-modifying effect, and others judging insufficient benefit-to-risk ratio and opposing market authorisation. In the final paper of this Series, we discuss these contrasting views, all of which wish to contribute to improvements in the quality of life of people with, or at risk of, Alzheimer's disease. We contrast the efficacy, societal costs, and generalisability of monoclonal antibodies for Alzheimer's disease to biologics for other conditions (eg, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis) and set this debate in the larger context of modern personalised medicine. We discuss current practice implications, future developments directed to β-amyloid and non-amyloid targets that might have more clinical efficacy and less adverse effects for those with the disease, and large-scale prevention interventions for those at risk.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信