A Proposal to Make Biomedical Research into Alzheimer's Disease More Democratic Following an International Survey with Researchers.
Alzheimer’s disease
amyloid-β
dementia prevention
diversity in science
gender
lifestyle factors
lifestyle interventions
pharmaceutical industry
tau protein
women in science
Journal
Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports
ISSN: 2542-4823
Titre abrégé: J Alzheimers Dis Rep
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101705500
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
accepted:
05
07
2021
entrez:
11
10
2021
pubmed:
12
10
2021
medline:
12
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Therapeutic research into Alzheimer's disease (AD) has been dominated by the amyloid cascade hypothesis (ACH) since the 1990s. However, targeting amyloid in AD patients has not yet resulted in highly significant disease-modifying effects. Furthermore, other promising theories of AD etiology exist. We sought to directly investigate whether the ACH still dominates the opinions of researchers working on AD and explore the implications of this question for future directions of research. During 2019, we undertook an international survey promoted with the help of the Alzheimer's Association with questions on theories and treatments of AD. Further efforts to promote a similar study in 2021 did not recruit a significant number of participants. 173 researchers took part in the 2019 survey, 22% of which held "pro-ACH" opinions, tended to have more publications, were more likely to be male, and over 60. Thus, pro-ACH may now be a minority opinion in the field but is nevertheless the hypothesis on which the most clinical trials are based, suggestive of a representation bias. Popular vote of all 173 participants suggested that lifestyle treatments and anti-tau drugs were a source of more therapeutic optimism than anti-amyloid treatments. We propose a more democratic research structure which increases the likelihood that promising theories are published and funded fairly, promotes a broader scientific view of AD, and reduces the larger community's dependence on a fragile economic model.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Therapeutic research into Alzheimer's disease (AD) has been dominated by the amyloid cascade hypothesis (ACH) since the 1990s. However, targeting amyloid in AD patients has not yet resulted in highly significant disease-modifying effects. Furthermore, other promising theories of AD etiology exist.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
We sought to directly investigate whether the ACH still dominates the opinions of researchers working on AD and explore the implications of this question for future directions of research.
METHODS
METHODS
During 2019, we undertook an international survey promoted with the help of the Alzheimer's Association with questions on theories and treatments of AD. Further efforts to promote a similar study in 2021 did not recruit a significant number of participants.
RESULTS
RESULTS
173 researchers took part in the 2019 survey, 22% of which held "pro-ACH" opinions, tended to have more publications, were more likely to be male, and over 60. Thus, pro-ACH may now be a minority opinion in the field but is nevertheless the hypothesis on which the most clinical trials are based, suggestive of a representation bias. Popular vote of all 173 participants suggested that lifestyle treatments and anti-tau drugs were a source of more therapeutic optimism than anti-amyloid treatments.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
We propose a more democratic research structure which increases the likelihood that promising theories are published and funded fairly, promotes a broader scientific view of AD, and reduces the larger community's dependence on a fragile economic model.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34632301
doi: 10.3233/ADR-210030
pii: ADR210030
pmc: PMC8461732
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
637-645Informations de copyright
© 2021 – The authors. Published by IOS Press.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Timothy Daly, Marion Houot, Anouk Barberousse, and Amélie Petit declare no conflicts of interest. Stéphane Epelbaum has received consulting fees from Biogen, Roche, Eisai and GE Healthcare.
Références
Alzheimers Dement. 2021 Jan;17(1):115-124
pubmed: 33075193
Hastings Cent Rep. 2021 Jul;51(4):9-11
pubmed: 34156732
Nat Neurosci. 2015 Jun;18(6):794-9
pubmed: 26007212
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2014 Apr;1313:17-34
pubmed: 24673372
J Intern Med. 2014 Mar;275(3):296-303
pubmed: 24749173
Nature. 2018 Jul;559(7715):S4-S7
pubmed: 30046080
J Alzheimers Dis. 2020;74(4):1309-1317
pubmed: 32250306
Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2019 Aug 23;4:29
pubmed: 31637009
J Alzheimers Dis. 2009;16(3):451-65
pubmed: 19221406
BMJ. 2018 Jan 9;360:k122
pubmed: 29317427
Trends Neurosci. 2002 Jan;25(1):22-6
pubmed: 11801334
Gerontologist. 2020 Jun 25;:
pubmed: 32583858
CNS Neurosci Ther. 2010 Aug;16(4):254-62
pubmed: 20002628
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Jan 13;112(2):360-5
pubmed: 25535380
Nature. 2020 Nov;587(7832):22-25
pubmed: 33149296
Nat Med. 2021 May;27(5):756-758
pubmed: 33846612
Nature. 2016 Nov 23;540(7631):15-16
pubmed: 27905452
Nature. 2012 Dec 6;492(7427):34-6
pubmed: 23222591
J Alzheimers Dis. 2016;51(4):979-84
pubmed: 26967229