dailymail.co.uk
£60,000 Alzheimer's Drug Faces Criticism Over Limited Benefits and High Risks
A new £60,000-a-year Alzheimer's drug, Donanemab, offered privately in London, is criticized for minimal benefits and risks like brain swelling and bleeding, despite UK regulator approval; NHS rejected it due to cost-ineffectiveness.
- What are the immediate consequences of the high cost and limited effectiveness of Donanemab for Alzheimer's patients and the healthcare system?
- Donanemab, a new Alzheimer's drug, costs £60,000 annually and is available privately in London. Despite initial optimism, experts criticize its minimal benefits and significant risks, including brain swelling and bleeding affecting up to 40 percent of patients, with potentially fatal consequences in 1 percent.
- What are the long-term implications of the high price of Donanemab for the future of Alzheimer's drug development and accessibility, considering the increasing prevalence of dementia?
- The controversy surrounding donanemab underscores the need for further research focusing on identifying patient subgroups who may truly benefit, and developing more affordable and effective treatments for Alzheimer's disease. The current high price disproportionately impacts patients and the healthcare system, demanding a more cost-effective approach.
- How does the risk-benefit profile of Donanemab, considering its side effects and modest therapeutic gains, influence healthcare policy decisions regarding its funding and accessibility?
- The high cost and limited effectiveness of donanemab raise concerns about equitable access to Alzheimer's treatments. While the drug offers a slight delay in disease progression, the risk-benefit profile and price make it unsuitable for widespread NHS use, highlighting a crucial challenge in balancing cost-effectiveness with patient care.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction immediately frame Donanemab negatively, using terms like "rip off" and "deadly risks." This sets a negative tone and preemptively biases the reader against the drug. The article prioritizes expert opinions critical of the drug, giving less weight to the potential benefits described by the clinic offering the treatment. The inclusion of statistics on rising dementia costs might subtly suggest that a high-priced treatment is justified, despite the experts' negative views, thus creating a somewhat conflicted framing.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language to describe the drug, such as "eye-watering sum," "tiny benefits," and "deadly risks." These terms evoke strong negative emotions. More neutral alternatives could include "high cost," "modest benefits," and "significant risks." The repeated emphasis on the negative opinions of experts also creates a biased tone.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the negative opinions of experts regarding the cost and risks of Donanemab, potentially omitting perspectives from patients who might benefit from the drug or researchers who highlight its potential. It also omits discussion of the potential long-term cost savings that could result from slowing disease progression, even if the immediate costs are high. The article mentions NICE's rejection but doesn't detail their full reasoning or explore alternative solutions for making the drug more accessible.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the debate solely around the high cost versus minimal benefits. It neglects the potential long-term societal benefits of slowing Alzheimer's progression, such as reduced care costs and increased quality of life for patients. The focus on immediate cost-benefit analysis ignores the complexities of valuing a life-extending treatment.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses Donanemab, a new drug for Alzheimer's disease. While the drug's high cost and potential side effects are noted, its availability represents a potential advancement in treating this debilitating disease, thus positively impacting the goal of ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all at all ages (SDG 3). The drug aims to slow the progression of Alzheimer's, improving the quality of life for patients, although the modest benefits need to be weighed against the risks and cost.