Effect of antiamyloid Alzheimer’s drugs ‘absent or trivial,’ Cochrane review finds

April 16, 2026

2 min read

Add Us On GoogleAdd SciAm

Effect of antiamyloid Alzheimer’s drugs ‘absent or trivial,’ Cochrane review finds

These drugs were hailed by proponents as breakthroughs in the fight to treat Alzheimer’s disease, but a new independent review finds they make “no meaningful difference”

By Claire Cameron edited by Jeanna Bryner

TEK IMAGE/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY via Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Sign Up for Our Free Daily NewsletterEnter your email

I agree my information will be processed in accordance with the Scientific American and Springer Nature Limited Privacy Policy. We leverage third party services to both verify and deliver email. By providing your email address, you also consent to having the email address shared with third parties for those purposes.

Sign Up

Drugs that were once hailed as possible breakthroughs in the battle to treat Alzheimer’s have no meaningful clinical effect on the disease’s progression, a new Cochrane review found.

Cochrane reviews have a reputation in the medical and life sciences fields as a gold-standard, independent analysis of the evidence for and against specific health interventions or treatments. The drugs assessed in the new review, published on Thursday, target beta-amyloid proteins, which form plaques that seem to accumulate in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s. Some research suggests they may play a role in the disease. The proteins can be detected before other symptoms appear, so researchers had theorized that drugs designed to eliminate them could slow or prevent the disease, for which there is no cure. Early trials of some of these drugs suggested they might do just that, but further research just hasn’t corroborated those preliminary results.

The drugs not only seem to have no beneficial effect but also increase the risk of brain bleeding and swelling, the review found.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

“Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that these drugs make no meaningful difference to patients,” said the review’s lead author Francesco Nonino, a neurologist and epidemiologist at the IRCCS Institute of Neurological Sciences of Bologna in Italy, in a statement.

The review included 17 clinical trials with a total of 20,342 participants. Nonino and his co-authors argue that future clinical trials of drugs designed to remove amyloid proteins are unlikely to have benefits for patients, and they instead recommend other avenues of research.

One emerging theory is that inflammation associated with lifestyle factors may drive Alzheimer’s disease, and there is a growing body of research suggesting a link between inflammation elsewhere in the body and cognitive decline.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe