You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Response
The ethics of disease-modifying drugs targeting Alzheimer disease: response to our commentators
  1. Erik Gustavsson1,2,
  2. Pauline Raaschou3,
  3. Gerd Lärfars4,
  4. Lars Sandman2,
  5. Niklas Juth5
  1. 1 Centre for Applied Ethics, Department of Culture and Society, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
  2. 2 The National Centre for Priorities in Health, Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
  3. 3 Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Clinical Epidemiology Division, Department of Medicine Solna, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
  4. 4 Health and Medical Care Administration, Stockholm, Sweden
  5. 5 Stockholm Centre of Healthcare Ethics, LIME, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
  1. Correspondence to Erik Gustavsson, Department of Culture and Society, Linköping University, Linkoping, Sweden; erik.gustavsson{at}liu.se

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2022-108157

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    In Gustavsson et al,1 we discussed the ethical issues that arise when identifying the relevant population for disease-modifying drugs targeting Alzheimer disease (AD). 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 (with acceptable safety) becomes available.

    Since Aduhelm is the only immunotherapy targeting AD currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration, we use that as a …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors EG drafted the response and collaborated with PR, NJ, GL and LS in its finalisation. All authors authorised the final version before submission.

    • Funding This research was supported by the Stockholm County Council.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Other content recommended for you