Alzheimer’s is a neurodegenerative disease characterised by brain shrinkage and the loss of brain cells. Currently, we have the highest number of Alzheimer’s patients in human history, with 55 million global cases. Additionally, we have seen the youngest neurodegenerative age group, with symptoms starting as early as 40 years old. It is not an understatement to say that brain disease is a worrying issue. Not only does it wreak havoc on familial relationships, but it has also cost the NHS £42 billion so far in 2024.

Last summer, a breakthrough new drug to treat brain diseases like Alzheimer’s underwent clinical trials. This new intravenously administered monoclonal antibody targets amyloid-beta plaques, the protein that abnormally accumulates in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients. When it binds with this plaque, the drug, called donanemab, helps the immune system clear it from the brain, slowing the progression of the disease.

Clinical trials were a huge success. There was significant evidence that donanemab can slow Alzheimer’s disease by between 27 and 35 per cent. This drug underwent many randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, and multi-centre studies, involving almost 1,000 patients. In every single phase, symptomatic Alzheimer’s patients demonstrated significant plaque reduction, suggesting that donanemab can be used as a disease-modifying therapy. However, as of 23 October 2024, the most effective Alzheimer’s drug in history will be blocked by the NHS.

Despite regulators declaring the new treatment safe, the NHS has ruled that the drug is too expensive for NHS patients, a decision likely to disappoint and upset many.

As with every other palliative drug (symptom management), researchers are concerned about the expense, especially given the lack of a solution. Although the drug can clear amyloid plaque from the brain, patients will not recover from Alzheimer’s; it will only slow its progression.

But this is not the whole story. Similarly, in August, another breakthrough treatment for Alzheimer’s called Lecanemab passed all its clinical trials. However, NICE decided not to fund the drug for NHS use, meaning it can only be accessed through private clinics.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Some may believe that the drug is too expensive. For reference, donanemab costs £60,000 per patient, and lecanemab £20,000. However, this is a conversion based on US prices, which we all know includes far more than just the drug administration.

The issue I have with the decision to not allow the NHS to use Alzheimer’s regressive drug treatment stems from our Labour Government’s decision to allow weight-loss drugs such as Ozempic to be prescribed and administered to non-diabetic obese patients. Sir Keir Starmer has stated that he does not know how much this could cost, but, based on US prices, it is about £9200 per patient per year.

For as long as I can remember, which isn’t too long ago, there has been a huge debate on healthcare funding and its allocations. Some believe that the whole system needs a fundamental reset; others suggest a more privatised approach would benefit the British people, and I’ve even heard that doctors should ignore the Hippocratic Oath for those who “caused the issue themselves”.

However, to me, the idea that we should just let people neurologically regress, while administering a weight-loss injection or pill that has numerous lifelong side effects, is not what the people want.

To me, this reflects a serious flaw in our healthcare approach. By prioritising high-visibility, self-inflicted treatments over conditions that are not necessarily the result of lifestyle, it suggests our government is, yet again, out of touch with the true needs and desires of the people they represent. A government is meant to act in line with the wishes of its citizens; allowing progressive diseases to go untreated while funding lifestyle-related disorders is not misguided – it is objectively immoral.