跳到正文
原文
Frontiers in Psychiatry· Alexandra Wicker·· 3 小时前AI 评分38

抗淀粉样蛋白单抗临床转化的伦理挑战：一项范围综述

Ethical challenges in the clinical translation of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies for Alzheimer’s disease: a scoping review

AI 导读

一项范围综述检索2006至2026年3月PubMed、Scopus等数据库，纳入23个国家84篇文献，识别出32个伦理子主题并归纳为7大主题，其中"临床获益不确定"与"伤害风险"各在61篇文献中被讨论。文献以评论、叙述性综述和指南为主，仅12项原创研究和1项系统综述，极少纳入患者、家属与临床医生视角。

正文

Abstract

Background:

The development and evaluation of anti-amyloid beta monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease have been accompanied by extensive ethical debate spanning clinical trials, regulatory processes, prescribing practices, and healthcare delivery. This scoping review examined literature published between 2006 and 2026 to identify and clarify the landscape of ethical considerations surrounding the implementation, prescribing, and delivery of anti-amyloid mAbs across both research and clinical settings.

Methods:

We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Ovid EBM Reviews (including CENTRAL and CDSR) from 2006 to March 2026 using a structured search strategy. Eligible publications focused on ethical issues associated with the clinical translation of anti-amyloid mAbs. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, with duplicate extraction performed on an initial subset of publications. The review was conducted using JBI guidance and reported according to PRISMA-ScR.

Results:

We identified 84 publications from 23 countries published between 2014 and 2026, including 12 original research studies, 1 systematic review, and 71 commentaries, narrative reviews, legal analyses, or practice guidelines. Analysis identified 32 subthemes, which were synthesized into 7 overarching themes: (1) beneficence and nonmaleficence, (2) respect for persons, (3) equity and accessibility, (4) evidence and trial integrity, (5) governance and stewardship, (6) relational and social impacts, and (7) health system readiness and sustainability. Among the 32 subthemes, uncertain clinical benefit and risk of harm (both within the beneficence and nonmaleficence theme) were discussed most frequently within the literature, each appearing in 61 publications.

Conclusions:

The biomedical literature documents a broad range of ethical considerations relating to anti-amyloid mAbs. Despite this growing literature, it is primarily based on commentary, with few empirical studies, and even fewer incorporating the perspectives of patients, families, and clinicians. Doing so may add further context and nuance to ethical discussion about mAbs in the years ahead.

Introduction

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that significantly impairs cognitive and functional abilities. Although its etiology is not entirely understood, AD is in part related to the accumulation of amyloid beta (Aβ) plaques and tau neurofibrillary tangles within the brain (). Among the many proposed theories of AD pathogenesis, the amyloid cascade hypothesis has been particularly influential, positioning Aβ as a central therapeutic target (). Consequently, several iterations of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been developed over the last two decades in pursuit of an effective disease-modifying therapy for AD (). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved three anti-amyloid mAbs to date, including aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab, marking a major shift in the therapeutic landscape for AD. Unlike symptomatic treatments, these therapies seek to modify the underlying disease process, offering new possibilities for slowing cognitive decline.

Nevertheless, the search for a disease-modifying therapy for AD has long been accompanied by ethical debate. Previous reviews have synthesized ethical issues related to AD and dementia research more broadly, particularly regarding the enrollment of cognitively impaired individuals in clinical trials and concerns surrounding informed consent, vulnerability, decision-making capacity, exposure to harm, and social value (–). However, the development of anti-amyloid therapies has introduced additional ethical considerations beyond research participation. These therapies require monitoring for amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), necessitating serial magnetic resonance imaging (–). Moreover, because carrying one or two copies of the APOE ϵ4 allele is associated with an increased risk of ARIA, genetic testing is recommended before beginning treatment, raising downstream implications for counseling and family members (–). Although subcutaneous formulations are emerging, including a subcutaneous formulation of lecanemab approved by the FDA in July 2026, drug delivery has historically relied on specialized infusion infrastructure. Taken together, these features require careful weighing of what many deem modest clinical benefits against potential inequities, burdens, and added risks.

Ethical scrutiny intensified following the FDA’s approval of aducanumab in 2021 despite contradictory trial results and opposition from members of the Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee, several of whom subsequently resigned (, ). The approval generated substantial discourse regarding clinical benefit, patient safety, and healthcare resource allocation, with discussions of evidentiary standards and regulatory reform circulating more broadly. Although aducanumab’s FDA approval was formally withdrawn in November 2024 following Biogen’s decision to discontinue its commercial development, the ethical questions raised during its approval have persisted. Subsequent approvals of lecanemab and donanemab have shifted attention toward the responsible implementation of anti-amyloid therapies in routine clinical practice, raising questions surrounding clinician obligations and health system readiness.

To our knowledge, no systematic summary of the ethical issues associated with anti-amyloid mAbs exists in the biomedical literature. Consequently, existing scholarship remains dispersed across empirical studies, policy papers, normative analyses, and clinical guidelines, making it difficult to map the range of published ethical considerations surrounding these therapies. We sought to identify the major ethical issues discussed in the biomedical literature and highlight areas requiring further ethical analysis as anti-amyloid mAbs continue to be developed and implemented in clinical practice.

Methods

This scoping review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) (). An a priori review protocol was developed before study commencement in consultation with a research librarian and was used to guide the search strategy, eligibility criteria, and data extraction procedures. The protocol was not formally registered as registration is not a required component of scoping review methodology, and it was maintained as an internal working document throughout the study.

Research questions and PCC framework

The overarching aim of this review was to synthesize the available literature on the ethics of anti-amyloid mAbs for Alzheimer’s disease. To ensure methodological clarity, the review was conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual for Evidence Synthesis and structured using the PCC (Population, Concept, Context) framework (, ). The population (P) comprised individuals with Alzheimer’s disease in any stage, including those with preclinical disease. The concept (C) was defined as ethical considerations surrounding the translation, prescription, and administration of anti-amyloid mAbs within the context (C) of clinical practice and biomedical research. Ethical considerations were broadly defined as discussions involving ethical principles, values, norms, obligations, trade-offs, or implications.

Information sources and search strategy

We conducted a comprehensive literature search across five electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and the Ovid EBM Reviews platform (including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL] and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [CDSR]), covering publications from 2006 through 3 March 2026. This timeframe was selected because the first anti-amyloid mAb, bapineuzumab, was developed in the early 2000s and entered Phase III trials in 2007 (). The search strategy was developed in consultation with an institutional research librarian and employed both Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and free-text terms. The general search string applied across all databases was:

  • (“ethic” OR “ethics” OR “moral*” OR “justice” OR “benefit*” OR “harm*”) AND (“Alzheimer” OR “Alzheimer’s” OR “dementia”) AND (“anti-amyloid” OR “amyloid-related” OR “recently approved” OR “lecanemab” OR “donanemab” OR “aducanumab” OR “monoclonal antibod*” OR “passive immunotherapy” OR “biologic therapy”).

Full search strategies as well as the number of records identified for each database are provided in Supplementary Appendix A. The formal search was supplemented with articles manually identified through the reference lists of included publications.

Eligibility criteria and publication selection

Title and abstract screening, full-text review, and data extraction were conducted in May 2026. Eligible publications included empirical and non-empirical peer-reviewed research focusing on ethical issues associated with the clinical translation of anti-amyloid mAbs. Sources were included if they: (i) discussed ethical considerations related to the translation, prescription, or administration of anti-amyloid mAbs; (ii) focused on individuals with Alzheimer’s disease in any stage; (iii) were published in English between 2006 and 3 March 2026; and (iv) had an available full text. Publications were restricted to English due to the language capabilities of the review team and the lack of resources for translation and screening of non-English publications. Publications focused exclusively on regulatory or reimbursement processes were excluded when they did not address ethical implications for healthcare delivery, clinical decision-making, or research. Publications examining regulatory issues such as accelerated approval pathways, surrogate endpoints, or evidentiary standards were included when these issues were considered in relation to healthcare or research ethics. No restrictions were placed on geographical setting or study design.

All retrieved records were first imported into EndNote and then Covidence, which were used to support duplicate detection and screening management, respectively. Title, abstract, and full-text screening were conducted independently by two reviewers (AW and ACL), with disagreements resolved through discussion until consensus was reached.

Data extraction and synthesis

Data extraction was conducted using a template created in Covidence. Data extraction for an initial subsample of 16 publications was performed independently by two reviewers (AW and ACL) working in parallel. Extracted variables included publication year, country of first author, study design, context, depth of ethical reasoning, ethical frameworks, principal findings, and ethical themes. Depth of ethical reasoning was categorized according to the extent to which ethical arguments were developed and classified as either implicit discussion of ethical issues or explicit engagement with ethical theories, principles, frameworks, or normative analysis; this is denoted in Supplementary Appendix B. Ethical frameworks were identified based on either explicit reference by source authors or reviewer-assessed implicit ethical reasoning reflected in the publication. When an article drew upon more than one ethical framework, all applicable frameworks were recorded; therefore, framework categories were not mutually exclusive, and individual articles could be assigned to multiple categories. Framework classifications were assigned using the operational definitions provided in Supplementary Appendix C. Ethical subthemes and themes were compiled inductively and refined iteratively throughout the extraction process. Themes were coded at the publication level, such that a publication was considered to discuss a theme when it included at least one substantive discussion of that theme. Themes were not treated as mutually exclusive, and publications could be assigned to multiple themes when applicable. Extracted data were compared across reviewers for the first 16 articles, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Once clarity and consistency of extraction fields had been achieved, one reviewer (AW) extracted and coded the remaining publications, with consultation from a second reviewer (ACL) when uncertainties arose.

Consistent with JBI guidance for scoping reviews, formal methodological quality appraisal of included sources was not undertaken because the objective was to map and characterize the existing literature rather than assess study quality.

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval was not required for this study as no primary data were collected and no human participants were involved.

Results

The screening and study selection process is presented in Figure 1. In total, 84 publications fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the review (, , –99). A full list of the selected publications and their characteristics is available in the Supplementary Appendix.

Figure 1

Characteristics of included publications

Publications spanned 2014-2026, showing a marked increase in recent years. The majority (n = 62) were published from 2023 onward, with the highest annual frequency recorded in 2025 (n = 22), followed by 2024 (n = 18) and 2023 (n = 16). Publications were sparse prior to 2020, with only 2 publications in 2016 and single publications in 2014 and 2017.

The first authors of included publications were affiliated with institutions in 23 countries, with the United States accounting for 46.4% of the sample, followed by France/Argentina (6%), Italy (4%), and the United Kingdom (4%). Overall, the geographical distribution of first-author affiliations was heavily concentrated in North America and Western Europe.

Commentaries comprised the majority of publications (54.8%), followed by reviews (15.5%), original research studies (14.3%) and guidelines/consensus statements (14.3%). Only one publication was classified as a policy or legal analysis. Reviews were predominantly narrative in nature, while original research most commonly employed cross-sectional surveys or interviews.

Principal-based reasoning was the most frequently identified ethical framework (44.0%) followed by consequentialist and pragmatic/policy-oriented reasoning (33.3% each). Care ethics was also represented in a substantial minority of publications (20.2%). In contrast, deontological (7.1%), rights-based (3.6%), and virtue ethics (3.6%) frameworks appeared infrequently. Because many publications drew on more than one ethical framework, categories were not mutually exclusive. Explicit mention of ethics-based reasoning was observed in 29 (34.5%) publications, while the remainder employed ethical reasoning implicitly.

Data extraction identified 32 subthemes, which were subsequently organized into 7 overarching themes to enhance conceptual clarity: (1) beneficence and nonmaleficence, (2) respect for persons, (3) equity and accessibility, (4) evidence and trial integrity, (5) governance and stewardship, (6) relational and social impacts, and (7) health system readiness and sustainability (Table 1). The frequencies reported in Table 1 represent the number of included publications in which each theme was identified.

Table 1

ThemeSubthemesNumber of publicationsLiterature
Beneficence and nonmaleficenceUncertain clinical benefit61(, , –, –, , –, , –, –40, 45–55, 57–59, 61, 62, 65–69, 71, 73–77, 80, 82–84)
Risk of harm61(, –, , –, , , , , , –, –41, 43, 47, 48, 50–59, 61, 64, 66, 67, 69–71, 73–77, 80, 83, 84)
False hope12(, , , , , 43, 46, 56, 60, 77, 79, 82)
Meaningful benefit20(, , , , , , 38, 40, 50, 53–55, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69, 75, 77)
Quality of life10(, , , , , 40, 52, 62, 69, 71)
Medical need23(, , , , , , , , 39, 41, 45, 54, 59, 62, 65, 67, 70, 72, 78–80, 83, 84)
Therapeutic optimism20(, , , , , , , , 38, 40, 46, 49, 52–54, 58, 60, 65, 67, 74)
Respect for personsInformed consent32(, , , , –, , , –, , , , –, 41, 46, 49, 50, 53, 56, 58, 60, 62, 63, 70, 76, 81)
Capacity to consent9(, , , , 40, 55, 57, 75, 76)
Shared decision-making28(, –, , , , –, 40, 45, 46, 52–58, 60, 62, 63, 65, 75, 76, 80)
Autonomy28(, , , , –, , , , , 45, 49, 52, 53, 58, 60, 63, 65, 67, 75–77, 80, 84)
Clinician obligations22(, , , , , , , , , , , 41, 46, 58, 62, 63, 65, 69, 71, 76, 78, 84)
Health literacy9(, , 40, 41, 49, 56, 60, 64, 81)
Equity and accessibilityTrial representativeness23(–, , , , , , , , , 39, 41, 48, 50, 51, 55, 57, 61, 68, 69, 80, 83)
Eligibility restrictions27(–, , , , , , , 41, 42, 53, 55, 57, 62, 64, 72–74, 78, 80, 81, 83)
Racial/ethnic disparities20(, , , , , , , , , , 41, 48, 50, 51, 54, 57, 61, 69, 73, 83)
Cultural acceptability3(, , 41)
Cost and affordability37(, , –, , , , , , , 38, 39, 44, 47, 49, 52, 54–56, 59, 62, 64, 65, 69, 71, 73, 74, 77–79, 81, 82, 84)
Insurance13(, , , , 45, 64, 65, 72, 73, 77, 78, 82, 84)
Geographic accessibility12(, , , , , , 41, 55, 57, 71, 74, 81)
Access to follow-up20(, , , , , , , 38, 41, 42, 56, 57, 62, 64, 67, 73, 74, 77, 78, 81)
Evidence and trial integrityAmyloid bias9(, , , , , , 39, 51, 79)
Surrogate endpoints12(, , , , , 43, 54, 61, 66, 79, 80, 82)
Scientific integrity16(, –, , , 39, 43, 61, 66, 68, 79, 80, 84)
Governance and stewardshipFDA approval concerns12(, , , , , , , , 58, 66, 79, 82)
Industry influence9(, , , , , 43, 68, 79, 82)
Physician/clinic conflicts of interest3(, 43, 82)
Relational and social impactsCaregiver burden10(, , , , 38, 40, 50, 69, 71, 77)
Caregiver well-being8(, , , , 38, 44, 50, 71)
Health system readiness and sustainabilityHealth system is unprepared20(, –, , , , , , , 41, 42, 52, 62, 67, 71, 74, 76, 78, 81)
Health system burden21(, , , , , , , , , 41, 55, 59, 61, 64, 65, 69, 73, 77, 78, 80, 81)
Misuse of resources15(, , , , , , , 47, 49, 68, 71, 75, 78, 79, 82)

Organization of literature by ethical themes and subthemes.

Beneficence and nonmaleficence

Ethical discussions of beneficence and nonmaleficence were largely characterized by tension between the therapeutic promise of a disease-modifying therapy and uncertainty regarding its clinical value. Although authors acknowledged that mAbs may address a substantial unmet need in AD, uncertain clinical benefit and the potential for serious harm were the most frequently discussed subthemes identified across the literature (n = 61 each). Many of these authors questioned whether the modest clinical effects observed in trials justified the risks associated with treatment, including ARIA and other adverse effects. Beyond direct clinical risks and benefits, authors also raised concerns regarding how expected treatment outcomes are communicated; while therapeutic optimism was viewed by some as a potential benefit (n = 20), others (n = 12) cautioned that overstating likely outcomes could foster false hope and contribute to harm (60, 93). Consequently, the principle of nonmaleficence was given significant weight when balancing these competing factors.

Respect for persons

Respect for persons was most commonly discussed through the lens of patient autonomy and informed decision-making. Many authors (n = 22) argued that clinicians have an ethical obligation to inform patients about mAbs as a potential treatment option regardless of their personal views regarding the therapy’s value. At the same time, clinicians were viewed as responsible for ensuring that patients and their families are adequately informed about the associated risks and uncertainties of treatment through a process of shared decision-making. Some articles (n = 2) also presented supported decision-making as a complementary framework, emphasizing that individuals with cognitive impairment should retain ultimate decision-making authority whenever possible (, 52). Nevertheless, cognitive impairment was recognized as a barrier to informed decision-making alongside the complexity of communicating uncertain benefits and serious risks and varying levels of health literacy among patients (, 55, 56, 64, 71, 89). Overall, authors framed respect for persons as requiring both patient choice and meaningful support to ensure that treatment decisions are informed and understood.

Equity and accessibility

Justice and equity concerns across the literature focused on the extent to which patients could realistically access mAbs and the infrastructure required to safely deliver them, including MRI monitoring. Limitations to access were most commonly identified as geographic, structural and financial barriers, with the latter appearing most frequently (n = 37). Authors also expressed concerns that restrictive eligibility criteria (n = 27) and underrepresentation of diverse populations in clinical trials (n = 23) could exacerbate existing health disparities. Disparities encountered by racial and ethnic minority populations and older adults were most prevalent, while three articles also examined the implications of excluding individuals with Down syndrome from trials and treatment (, 40, 72). Questions regarding the cultural acceptability of mAbs in different healthcare settings were also raised, suggesting that implementation may be challenging in some global contexts (, 46, 56). Access to mAbs was primarily framed as a matter of distributive justice, emphasizing that equitable use requires more than treatment availability alone.

Evidence and trial integrity

In research contexts, the strength of the evidence supporting mAbs was frequently debated. Several authors (n = 12) argued that using amyloid removal was an insufficient surrogate endpoint for approval, with some (n = 9) questioning the validity of the amyloid cascade hypothesis as its scientific basis. Others raised concerns regarding the methodological rigor and integrity of pivotal trials, citing issues such as selection and attrition biases, premature trial termination, and inadequate replication (54, 58, 98, 99). Authors also questioned the reporting and interpretation of trial findings, including incomplete outcome reporting, statistical overinterpretation, and claims of meaningful benefit that are not clearly supported by trial data (38, 39, 48). These concerns were framed as ethical issues because they called into question principles emphasized in the Declaration of Helsinki, particularly the requirements for scientifically valid research and transparency (100).

Governance and stewardship

Similar to the previous theme, authors questioned whether regulatory, reimbursement, and clinical decision-making processes sufficiently protected public interest. In particular, attention was given to the FDA approval process, with several authors arguing that aducanumab’s controversial approval (n = 12) and subsequent concerns regarding advisory board relationships (n = 9) created the appearance that industry influence may have been prioritized over evidentiary standards. A smaller number of publications (n = 3) extended these concerns to the clinical level, suggesting that physician and institutional financial incentives may also bias treatment recommendations in favor of mAbs (, 58, 96).

Relational and social impacts

This was the least frequently discussed theme in the included publications. Despite its limited representation, it reflects principles of care ethics, which emphasize the importance of relationships and responsibilities of care. Discussions emphasized that the ethical implications of mAbs extend beyond individual patients to those involved in their care. Throughout the literature, perspectives were mixed on how these relational considerations apply to mAbs. Some (n = 8) argued that mAbs may improve caregiver well-being by preserving patient independence and extending the time they are able to engage meaningfully with loved ones. Others (n = 10) cautioned that treatment may introduce additional burdens for caregivers, including the logistical demands of frequent appointments. These views were not mutually exclusive (, 53).

Health system readiness and sustainability

Many authors (n = 20) pointed out that health systems are unprepared to support the widespread introduction of mAbs and that implementation would likely place additional strain on existing infrastructure and services (n = 21). Others (n = 15) took a utilitarian approach, arguing that the substantial resources required to develop and maintain mAb-related infrastructure may be better allocated to interventions capable of benefiting a larger proportion of society, such as social support programs or home-based care coverage (49, 65). These concerns were often framed as issues of distributive justice and responsible resource stewardship, particularly in discussions of the feasibility of implementing mAbs in resource-constrained settings, such as parts of South America () or Asia (, 46, 56, 88).

Collectively, the identified themes and their publication-level frequencies suggest that ethical discussions surrounding mAbs extend well beyond questions of clinical benefit and harm. While patient-level concerns—such as safety and informed consent—dominated the included literature, many publications also examined broader issues related to equity and health system preparedness, reflecting an increasingly systems-oriented approach to the ethical evaluation of AD therapies.

Discussion

This scoping review highlights broad ethical considerations regarding the implementation, prescription, and delivery of anti-amyloid mAbs for AD. The majority of included literature was published within the last five years, demonstrating that the ethical discourse surrounding mAbs has expanded rapidly following the regulatory approval of aducanumab and in parallel with the growing clinical adoption of its successors, shifting from concerns about regulatory and evidentiary uncertainty to challenges of real-world implementation (, 42, 70, 81). While discussions of concerns frequently aligned with the four bioethical principles (autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice), the literature further examined broader questions of trial integrity, governance, and health system preparedness, suggesting that a comprehensive evaluation of mAbs must simultaneously consider both patient-centered and system-oriented ethical perspectives.

The large number of publications discussing beneficence and nonmaleficence is unsurprising given the controversial evidence base underpinning currently available mAbs, intersecting closely with concerns regarding evidence and trial integrity (39, 54). In this respect, ethical debates surrounding mAbs differ from those around many established therapies because judgments regarding benefit and harm remain inseparable from ongoing scientific disagreements about the validity of amyloid reduction as a surrogate endpoint and how we define clinical meaningfulness (, , 81). Ethical concerns were by no means driven by disagreement about the importance of treating AD, but rather by uncertainty whether modest clinical benefits justified the risks, burdens, and costs associated with treatment. Importantly, the potential harms and benefits of mAbs extend beyond the individual patient to include caregivers, family members, and health systems, underscoring the need to consider the broader consequences of treatment alongside its effects on patients.

Discussions of respect for persons frequently emphasized the influence of informed and shared decision-making on patient autonomy. Autonomy in the context of mAbs is particularly challenging because it is difficult to engage in or even define what constitutes appropriate informed decision-making or consent when there exist many unknowns regarding both benefits and harms (84). Thus, classifying a patient as “informed” requires not merely the disclosure of information but transparency regarding a lack of information, leading to sometimes subjective interpretation of complex and evolving evidence. This places clinicians in the position of supporting autonomous choices while also exercising professional judgment in communicating and contextualizing evolving evidence. Such communication must also preserve space for therapeutic hope without creating overly optimistic expectations that could undermine informed decision-making. The presence of cognitive impairment in AD further complicates decision-making and explains the emphasis on supported decision-making models identified in the literature (, 52).

Concerns regarding equity suggest that ethical access involves substantially more than regulatory approval or treatment availability. Included publications consistently recognized that financial barriers, MRI requirements, specialist workforce shortages, and restrictive eligibility criteria may disproportionately affect already underserved populations (66, 83). These findings reinforce longstanding concerns that innovations in dementia care risk exacerbating existing health inequities if implementation strategies fail to address structural barriers. Additionally, the frequent discussion of underrepresentation in clinical trials indicates that justice concerns begin at the evidence-generation stage and extend through real-world implementation (, 44, 63).

An important tension identified across themes was the balance between individual and collective ethical considerations. From the individual perspective, patients and their carers may reasonably value even modest slowing of disease progression (53, 55, 68). However, from a societal perspective, the substantial costs and infrastructure requirements associated with mAbs, in combination with strict eligibility requirements and unrepresentative clinical trials, raise concerns regarding distributive justice and responsible stewardship of healthcare resources. From a utilitarian perspective, many authors argued that limited healthcare resources should be allocated toward interventions capable of generating greater population-level benefit than mAbs (49, 65).

Although ethical concerns were discussed extensively throughout the literature, it is important to note that only one-third of publications explicitly mentioned that ethical frameworks were informing their analyses. This suggests that much of the ethical discourse surrounding mAbs remains implicit, with authors frequently invoking concepts such as autonomy, justice, or beneficence without clearly situating their arguments within established ethical traditions. Greater theoretical transparency may strengthen future scholarship and facilitate more systematic comparison of ethical arguments.

Whether explicit or implicit, the ethical analysis of anti-amyloid mAbs was dominated by principle-based, consequentialist, and policy-oriented frameworks that emphasize risk-benefit assessment, evidence generation, and resource allocation. Care ethics was also represented in a substantial minority of publications, whereas rights-based, deontological, and virtue ethics frameworks were comparatively uncommon. Although this distribution reflects the issues that have received the greatest attention to date, it may leave certain dimensions of treatment underexamined. Anti-amyloid mAb therapy often extends beyond the individual patient to involve caregivers, family members, and multidisciplinary clinical teams through management of treatment-related burdens, shared decision-making, and ongoing monitoring. As a framework that emphasizes relationships, interdependence, and responsibilities of care, care ethics may offer valuable insights into these aspects of treatment that are less visible within traditional risk-benefit analyses (101). Greater engagement with care ethics could therefore complement existing ethical analyses and enrich understanding of how treatment affects those involved in patient care. Similarly, intentional use of rights-based, deontological, and virtue ethics frameworks may broaden ethical analysis by drawing attention to patient entitlements, professional obligations, and the moral qualities that characterize good clinical practice.

Limitations and future directions

The literature was dominated by commentaries and narrative analyses, with relatively few empirical studies examining stakeholder perspectives or real-world implementation experiences. This highlights the emerging nature of the field and suggests that current ethical discourse remains largely conceptual. Additionally, multiple publications originated from recurring author groups, which may have amplified the visibility of particular themes within the literature. As such, the thematic frequencies reported in Table 1 represent publication-level counts rather than measures of ethical importance, consensus, or evidentiary strength. Consistent with scoping review methodology, formal quality appraisal was not conducted. Furthermore, the review was restricted to English-language publications and may therefore have excluded relevant ethical perspectives published in other languages. The included literature was also heavily concentrated in North America and Western Europe, raising questions regarding the global applicability of existing ethical analyses. Many concerns identified in this review, particularly those relating to infrastructure, reimbursement, and resource allocation, may manifest differently in low- and middle-income settings where health system constraints are more pronounced. Future work should expand the scope of this literature and incorporate empirical ethics approaches to better understand how patients, caregivers, clinicians, and health systems navigate these challenges in practice.

Conclusion

Collectively, these findings suggest that ethical evaluation of anti-amyloid mAbs has evolved beyond traditional questions of patient benefit and harm toward broader considerations of evidence generation, equity, and health system sustainability. As potentially disease-modifying therapies become increasingly integrated into clinical practice, ethical analysis will need to balance the interests of individual patients and caregivers with wider societal obligations regarding fairness, transparency, and responsible stewardship of healthcare resources. Empirical studies involving patients, caregivers, and clinicians will be particularly important for understanding how these ethical challenges are negotiated in practice.

Statements

Author contributions

AW: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AC-L: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. JT: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1953954/full#supplementary-material

References

  • 1

    Alzheimer’s Association. 2025 Alzheimer's disease facts and figures. Alzheimers Dement. (2025) 21:e70235. doi: 10.1002/alz.70235

  • 2

    DecourtBD'SouzaGXShiJRitterASuazoJSabbaghMN. The cause of alzheimer's disease: The theory of multipathology convergence to chronic neuronal stress. Aging Dis. (2022) 13:37–60. doi: 10.14336/ad.2021.0529

  • 3

    WickerAShriramJDecourtBSabbaghMN. Passive anti-amyloid beta monoclonal antibodies: Lessons learned over past 20 years. Neurol Ther. (2024) 13:1571–95. doi: 10.1007/s40120-024-00664-z

  • 4

    YakubuAAdedejiIMadukaOCJegedeAAdebamowoC. Ethical issues in genomics research in persons with alzheimer's disease/alzheimer's disease-related dementia (AD/ADRD): a systematic review. BMC Med Ethics. (2024) 25:138. doi: 10.1186/s12910-024-01141-w

  • 5

    GötzelmannTGStrechDKahrassH. The full spectrum of ethical issues in dementia research: findings of a systematic qualitative review. BMC Med Ethics. (2021) 22:32. doi: 10.1186/s12910-020-00572-5

  • 6

    StrechDMertzMKnuüppelHNeitzkeGSchmidhuberM. The full spectrum of ethical issues in dementia care: systematic qualitative review. Br J Psychiatry. (2013) 202:400–6. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.112.116335

  • 7

    CummingsJAisenPApostolovaLGAtriASallowaySWeinerM. Aducanumab: Appropriate use recommendations. J Prev Alzheimers Dis. (2021) 8:398–410. doi: 10.1002/alz.12444

  • 8

    CummingsJApostolovaLRabinoviciGDAtriAAisenPGreenbergSet al. Lecanemab: Appropriate use recommendations. J Prev Alzheimers Dis. (2023) 10:362–77. doi: 10.14283/jpad.2023.30

  • 9

    RabinoviciGDSelkoeDJSchindlerSEAisenPApostolovaLGAtriAet al. Donanemab: Appropriate use recommendations. J Prev Alzheimer's Dis. (2025) 12:100150. doi: 10.1016/j.tjpad.2025.100150

  • 10

    YamazakiYZhaoNCaulfieldTRLiuCCBuG. Apolipoprotein E and alzheimer disease: pathobiology and targeting strategies. Nat Rev Neurol. (2019) 15:501–18. doi: 10.1038/s41582-019-0228-7

  • 11

    BlascoDRobertsJS. Implications of emerging uses of genetic testing for alzheimer’s disease. J Prev Alzheimer's Dis. (2023) 10:359–61. doi: 10.14283/jpad.2023.46

  • 12

    MahaseE. Three FDA advisory panel members resign over approval of alzheimer’s drug. BMJ. (2021) 373:n1503. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1503

  • 13

    Budd HaeberleinSAisenPSBarkhofFChalkiasSChenTCohenSet al. Two randomized phase 3 studies of aducanumab in early alzheimer's disease. J Prev Alzheimers Dis. (2022) 9:197–210. doi: 10.14283/jpad.2022.30

  • 14

    TriccoALillieEZarinWO'BrienKColquhounHLevacDet al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Internal Med. (2018) 169:467–73. doi: 10.7326/m18-0850

  • 15

    PollockDPetersMDJKhalilHMcInerneyPAlexanderLTriccoACet al. Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis. (2023) 21:520–32. doi: 10.11124/jbies-22-00123

  • 16

    AromatarisELockwoodCPorrittKPillaBJordanZ. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. AromatarisELockwoodCPorrittKPillaBJordanZ, editors. South Australia: JBI. (2024).

  • 17

    SallowaySSperlingRFoxNCBlennowKKlunkWRaskindMet al. Two phase 3 trials of bapineuzumab in mild-to-moderate alzheimer's disease. N Engl J Med. (2014) 370:322–33. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa1304839

  • 18

    AnilAAKrishnanALChandraPUnnikrishnanMK. Lecanemab: The advent of biologicals in alzheimer's disease, affordability, and clinical relevance. J Appl Pharm Sci. (2025) 15:30–8. doi: 10.7324/japs.2025.204843

  • 19

    AraújoRReis CarneiroDNunes RatoRMassanoJ. Time-saved and time-invested with anti-amyloid treatments in early alzheimer's disease: practical considerations. J Clin Neurosci. (2025) 141:111584. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2025.111584

  • 20

    AtwoodCSPerryG. Playing russian roulette with alzheimer's disease patients: Do the cognitive benefits of lecanemab outweigh the risk of edema, stroke and encephalitis? J Alzheimers Dis. (2023) 92:799–801. doi: 10.3233/jad-230040

  • 21

    BanziRCamaioniPTettamantiMBerteleVLuccaU. Older patients are still under-represented in clinical trials of alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's Res Ther. (2016) 8:32. doi: 10.1186/s13195-016-0201-2

  • 22

    BarbosaBResendeEPFCastilhosRMBorelliWVFrotaNAFBalthazarMLFet al. Use of anti-amyloid therapies for alzheimer's disease in brazil: a position paper from the scientific department of cognitive neurology and aging of the brazilian academy of neurology. Dement Neuropsychol. (2024) 18:e2024C002. doi: 10.1590/1980-5764-dn-2024-c002

  • 23

    BarroetaIVidelaLCarmona-IraguiMForteaJRafiiMS. Current advances and unmet needs in alzheimer's disease trials for individuals with down syndrome: Navigating new therapeutic frontiers. Alzheimers Dement. (2025) 21:e70258. doi: 10.1002/alz.70258

  • 24

    BeshirSAAadithsooryaAMParveenAGohSSLHussainNMenonVB. Aducanumab therapy to treat alzheimer's disease: A narrative review. Int J Alzheimer's Dis. (2022) 2022:9343514. doi: 10.1155/2022/9343514

  • 25

    BeveridgeJKanieckiENaiduASilverglateBDGrossbergG. How promising are the latest monoclonal antibodies targeting amyloid-β for the treatment of early alzheimer's disease? Expert Opin Emerg Drugs. (2024) 29:35–43. doi: 10.1080/14728214.2024.2304059

  • 26

    BhalalaOGThompsonJWatsonRYassiN. Contextualising the benefits and risks of anti-amyloid therapy for patients with alzheimer disease and their care team. Med J Aust. (2024) 221:78–82. doi: 10.5694/mja2.52359

  • 27

    BradshawACGeorgesJ. Anti-amyloid therapies for alzheimer's disease: An alzheimer europe position paper and call to action. J Prev Alzheimers Dis. (2024) 11:265–73. doi: 10.14283/jpad.2024.37

  • 28

    BurkeJFKerberKALangaKMAlbinRLKotagalV. Lecanemab: Looking before we leap. Neurology. (2023) 101:661–5. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000207505

  • 29

    BurroughsAWKrainLP. What might aducanumab teach us about clinicians' judgment about whether to recommend emerging alzheimer's interventions? AMA J Ethics. (2023) 25:E777-82. doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2023.777

  • 30

    BurryEPlumackerFVillainNAmaralSDamierPDelrieuJet al. Simulated shared and supported decision making for amyloid immunotherapy in alzheimer's disease: A bicentric study. Rev Neurol (Paris). (2026) 182(4):270–9. doi: 10.1016/j.neurol.2026.01.267

  • 31

    ChenCLeeJHParkKHHuCJMokVSenanarongVet al. Clinical meaningfulness of anti-amyloid therapies in early alzheimer's disease: Perspectives from the east and southeast asia region. Alzheimers Dement. (2026) 22:e71230. doi: 10.1002/alz.71230

  • 32

    ChinNAWideraEBrangmanSAKarlawishJ. Monoclonal anti-amyloid antibodies for the treatment of alzheimer's disease and the hesitant geriatrician. J Am Geriatr Soc. (2024) 72:643–5. doi: 10.1111/jgs.18652

  • 33

    ChiongWTolchinBDBonnieRJBuslKCruz-FloresSEpsteinLGet al. Decisions with patients and families regarding aducanumab in alzheimer disease, with recommendations for consent: AAN position statement. Neurology. (2022) 98:154–9. doi: 10.1212/wnl.0000000000013053

  • 34

    CohenSvan DyckCHGeeMDohertyTKanekiyoMDhaddaSet al. Lecanemab clarity AD: quality-of-life results from a randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial in early alzheimer's disease. J Prev Alzheimer's Dis. (2023) 10:771–7p. doi: 10.14283/jpad.2023.123

  • 35

    DalyT. Lecanemab: turning point, or status quo? An ethics perspective. Brain. (2023) 146:e71-e2. doi: 10.1093/brain/awad094

  • 36

    DalyTKurkinenM. Measuring our language about anti-amyloid antibodies in alzheimer's disease: Technical, theoretical, and lay language considerations. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. (2024) 241:108314. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2024.108314

  • 37

    DalyT. Ethical issues around treatment-induced amyloid-related imaging abnormalities in alzheimer's disease. J Radiol Nurs. (2024) 43:214–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jradnu.2024.04.004

  • 38

    DalyTOlluriAKurkinenM. Anti-amyloid treatments in alzheimer's disease: elegance, evidence and ethics. Adv Clin Exp Med. (2024) 33:1303–9. doi: 10.17219/acem/198674

  • 39

    DalyTOlluriAKurkinenM. Treatments for alzheimer’s and the declaration of helsinki. J Prev Alzheimer's Dis. (2025) 12:100260. doi: 10.1016/j.tjpad.2025.100260

  • 40

    FalgàsNMaure-BlesaLAncesBFlores-AguilarLHartleySHassenstabJet al. Genetically determined alzheimer's disease research advances: The down syndrome & autosomal dominant alzheimer's disease 2024 conference. Alzheimers Dement. (2025) 21:e70309. doi: 10.1002/alz.70309

  • 41

    FilippiMCecchettiGSpinelliEGGhirelliARugarliGPisanoSet al. Anti-amyloid therapies and the transformation of alzheimer's care pathways: early lessons from the frontline. Lancet Reg Health Eur. (2026) 64:101609. doi: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2026.101609

  • 42

    FleckLM. Alzheimer's and aducanumab: Unjust profits and false hopes. Hastings Cent Rep. (2021) 51:9–11. doi: 10.1002/hast.1264

  • 43

    FrisoniGBAhoEBrayneCCiccarelliODuboisBFoxNCet al. Alzheimer's disease outlook: controversies and future directions. Lancet. (2025) 406:1424–42. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(25)01389-3

  • 44

    GrayK. A black alzheimer's patient wants to be part of the cure. Health Aff (Millwood). (2017) 36:1129–32. doi: 10.2307/45227780

  • 45

    GuoMHVaishnaviSN. Clinical management in alzheimer's disease in the era of disease-modifying therapies. Curr Treat Options Neurol. (2023) 25:121–33. doi: 10.1007/s11940-023-00750-x

  • 46

    Hazegh FetratjooDKargarANoroozianM. Aducanumab: an uprising hope with vague horizons. Egyptian J Neurology Psychiatry Neurosurg. (2023) 59:85. doi: 10.1186/s41983-023-00684-w

  • 47

    HeidebrinkJLPaulsonHL. Lessons learned from approval of aducanumab for alzheimer's disease. Annu Rev Med. (2024) 75:99–111. doi: 10.1146/annurev-med-051022-043645

  • 48

    Høilund-CarlsenPFAlaviABarrioJRCastellaniRJCostaTHerrupKet al. Donanemab, another anti-alzheimer's drug with risk and uncertain benefit. Ageing Res Rev. (2024) 99:102348. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2024.102348

  • 49

    HuntLJHarrisonKLCovinskyKE. Instead of wasting money on aducanumab, pay for programs proven to help people living with dementia. J Am Geriatrics Soc. (2021) 69:3690–2. doi: 10.1111/jgs.17462

  • 50

    JeonSYWangSMRohHWKimKYChangYYKimEet al. Practical guide of the korean association for geriatric psychiatry to anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody therapy for alzheimer's disease: Focused on lecanemab. J Korean Med Sci. (2025) 40:e215. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e215

  • 51

    KarlawishJ. Aducanumab and the business of Alzheimer disease-some choice. JAMA Neurol. (2021) 78:1303–4. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.3123

  • 52

    KarnebogeJHaberstrohJGeschkeKPerryJRadenbachKJessenFet al. Facing the new diagnostic and treatment options of Alzheimer's disease: The necessity of informed consent. Alzheimers Dement. (2025) 21:e14204. doi: 10.1002/alz.14204

  • 53

    KatayamaSTsujimotoMSuzukiKUedaKShimouraKSuoSet al. Care partners' perceptions of amyloid-targeting therapy and treat-to-clearance for Alzheimer's disease in Japan: A qualitative study. Neurol Ther. (2026) 15:257–67. doi: 10.1007/s40120-025-00869-w

  • 54

    KeppKPSensiSLJohnsenKBBarrioJRHøilund-CarlsenPFNeveRLet al. The anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody lecanemab: 16 cautionary notes. J Alzheimers Dis. (2023) 94:497–507. doi: 10.3233/jad-230099

  • 55

    LawrenceVPickettJBallardCMurrayJ. Patient and carer views on participating in clinical trials for prodromal Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. (2014) 29:22–31. doi: 10.1002/gps.3958

  • 56

    LeeJHJiaJJiYKandiahNKimSMokVet al. A framework for best practices and readiness in the advent of anti-amyloid therapy for early Alzheimer's disease in Asia. J Alzheimers Dis. (2024) 101:1–12. doi: 10.3233/jad-240684

  • 57

    LeeSStögmannE. Monoclonal anti-amyloid antibody treatment: The epidemiological profile of the target patients in Austria and the status of treatment-eligible patients registered at an outpatient memory clinic. Wien Klin Wochenschr. (2025) 137:189–92. doi: 10.1007/s00508-024-02465-8

  • 58

    LenzerJBrownleeS. Donanemab: Conflicts of interest found in FDA committee that approved new Alzheimer's drug. Bmj. (2024) 386:q2010. doi: 10.1136/bmj.q2010

  • 59

    LinPJNeumannPJ. Valuing Alzheimer disease therapies-considering costs and benefits beyond the patient. JAMA Netw Open. (2021) 4:e2131913. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.31913

  • 60

    LundebjergNE. Hope is the thing with feathers. J Am Geriatrics Soc. (2024) 72:2271–3. doi: 10.1111/jgs.18815

  • 61

    LundebjergNEHollmannPASupianoMA. Of education and public policy: Aducanumab. J Am Geriatrics Soc. (2022) 70:81–4. doi: 10.1111/jgs.17523

  • 62

    MakiYUbukaTYamaneY. The importance of non-pharmacological interventions to improve cognitive reserve prior to the administration of a drug against the causative agent of Alzheimer's disease. J Alzheimers Dis. (2025) 103:358–60. doi: 10.1177/13872877241301806

  • 63

    ManlyJJDetersKD. Donanemab for Alzheimer disease-who benefits and who is harmed? Jama. (2023) 330:510–1. doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.11704

  • 64

    MolinuevoJLCamiJCarnéXCarrilloMCGeorgesJIsaacMBet al. Ethical challenges in preclinical Alzheimer's disease observational studies and trials: Results of the Barcelona summit. Alzheimers Dement. (2016) 12:614–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2016.01.009

  • 65

    MorehouseCRHendriksSRabbeeNKimSY. Do caregivers value the new antiamyloid treatments for Alzheimer's disease more than home-based care? Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. (2025) 33:438–49. doi: 10.1016/j.jagp.2024.11.011

  • 66

    PadalaSPYarnsBC. Under-represented populations left out of Alzheimer's disease treatment with aducanumab: Commentary on ethics. J Alzheimers Dis Rep. (2022) 6:345–8. doi: 10.3233/adr-220023

  • 67

    ParksALThackerADohanDGomezLARGaleSAJohnsonKGet al. Characterizing clinician communication with patients about lecanemab: A qualitative study of clinicians across seven academic medical centers. Alzheimers Dement (N Y). (2025) 11:e70150. doi: 10.1002/alz70858_096332

  • 68

    ParksALThackerADohanDGomezLARRitchieCSPaladinoJet al. A qualitative study of people with Alzheimer's disease in a memory clinic considering lecanemab treatment. J Alzheimers Dis. (2025) 105:494–504. doi: 10.1177/13872877251329519

  • 69

    RabinoviciGD. Controversy and progress in Alzheimer's disease - FDA approval of aducanumab. N Engl J Med. (2021) 385:771–4. doi: 10.1056/nejmp2111320

  • 70

    RamananVKArmstrongMJChoudhuryPCoerverKAHamiltonRHKleinBCet al. Antiamyloid monoclonal antibody therapy for Alzheimer disease: Emerging issues in neurology. Neurology. (2023) 101:842–52. doi: 10.1212/wnl.0000000000207757

  • 71

    RentzDMAisenPSAtriAHitchcockJIrizarryMLandenJet al. Benefits and risks of FDA-approved amyloid-targeting antibodies for treatment of early Alzheimer's disease: Navigating clinician-patient engagement. Alzheimers Dement. (2024) 20:8162–71. doi: 10.1002/alz.14199

  • 72

    RohHWChangYYKimKYJeonSYWangSMKimEet al. Evolving Alzheimer's disease clinical practice: Updated diagnostic criteria, fluid biomarkers, and special considerations for anti-amyloid therapies. Psychiatry Investig. (2026) 23:183–200. doi: 10.30773/pi.2025.0400

  • 73

    RoseRVKassJS. The medicolegal and ethical dimensions of physician prescription reluctance. Continuum (Minneap Minn). (2022) 28:937–41. doi: 10.1212/con.0000000000001164

  • 74

    RossiniPMPappaletteraC. Should all MCI with Alzheimer's biological diagnosis receive anti-amyloid therapy? Cell Death Dis. (2026) 17:212. doi: 10.1038/s41419-026-08456-z

  • 75

    RydbergMGNiznikJDSpanglerHBMournighanKJ. An analysis of institutional anti-amyloid websites. J Am Geriatrics Soc. (2025) 73:3608–10. doi: 10.1111/jgs.70054

  • 76

    SalemmeSAncidoniALocuratoloNPiscopoPLacorteECanevelliMet al. Advances in amyloid-targeting monoclonal antibodies for Alzheimer's disease: Clinical and public health issues. Expert Rev Neurother. (2023) 23:1113–29. doi: 10.1080/14737175.2023.2284305

  • 77

    Salvioni ChiabottiPSalvioni ChiabottiPBommaritoGMichelPPizzarottiBPiazzaFet al. Anti-amyloid treatments: A therapeutic revolution, ready for Europe. Neurodegener Dis. (2025) 25:107–13. doi: 10.1159/000545800

  • 78

    SarkisianCARomanovAMafiJN. Talking with patients about the new anti-amyloid Alzheimer disease medications. Ann Internal Med. (2024) 177:246–8. doi: 10.7326/m23-3377

  • 79

    SatoKNiimiYIharaRIwataANemotoKAraiTet al. Real-world lecanemab adoption in Japan 1 year after launch: Insights from 311 specialists on infrastructure and reimbursement barriers. Alzheimer's Dementia. (2025) 21:e70652. doi: 10.1002/alz.70652

  • 80

    SchindlerSE. Anti-amyloid treatments: Why we think they are worth it. Alzheimer's Dementia Conference: Alzheimer's Assoc Int Conference AAIC. (2025) 21:e108615. doi: 10.1002/alz70861_108615

  • 81

    SchneiderLS. Aducanumab trials EMERGE but don’t ENGAGE. J Prev Alzheimer's Dis. (2022) 9:193–6. doi: 10.14283/jpad.2022.37

  • 82

    SchottJMMarshallCR. Amyloid immunotherapy for Alzheimer's disease: The case for cautious adoption. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. (2025) 83:1–4. doi: 10.1055/s-0045-1807718

  • 83

    ScraseDRBudhwarN. Balancing the conflicting goals for treatment of Alzheimer’s disease with monoclonal antibodies. J Prev Alzheimer's Dis. (2023) 10:336–8. doi: 10.14283/jpad.2023.71

  • 84

    ShieldsKE. Uninformed consent in an Alzheimer’s clinical trial. Health Affairs. (2025) 44:1317–20. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2025.00314

  • 85

    SmithEEPhillipsNAFeldmanHHBorrieMGaneshAHenri-BhargavaAet al. Use of lecanemab and donanemab in the Canadian healthcare system: Evidence, challenges, and areas for future research. J Prev Alzheimers Dis. (2025) 12:100068. doi: 10.1016/j.tjpad.2025.100068

  • 86

    SternAMSelkoeDJ. Unfairness to patients with Alzheimer disease in Medicare's coverage of antiamyloid immunotherapy. JAMA Neurol. (2022) 79:962–3. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.2131

  • 87

    TampiRR. Lecanemab for mild Alzheimer disease - is there a way forward? Drugs Context. (2025) 14:no pagination. doi: 10.7573/dic.2024-12-2

  • 88

    TayebHOKhallafRAMuayqilTAAlkeridyWAAlibrahimFSAlfaifyOAet al. The future of Alzheimer disease immunotherapies in Saudi Arabia: Consensus statement of the Saudi Chapter of Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology. Neurosci (Riyadh). (2023) 28:77–84. doi: 10.17712/nsj.2023.2.20220133

  • 89

    van VeluwSJYoungMJ. Ethical considerations for the use of anti-amyloid immunotherapy in patients with early Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement. (2024) 20:3664–5. doi: 10.1002/alz.13795

  • 90

    VillainNPlancheVLevyR. High-clearance anti-amyloid immunotherapies in Alzheimer's disease. Part 2: Putative scenarios and timeline in case of approval, recommendations for use, implementation, and ethical considerations in France. Rev Neurol (Paris). (2022) 178:999–1010. doi: 10.1016/j.neurol.2022.08.002

  • 91

    WahlJGadboisEA. Analysis of the first round of public comments for the national coverage determination for monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. J Aging Soc Policy. (2024) 36:984–1003. doi: 10.1080/08959420.2023.2238534

  • 92

    WahlbergKWinbladBColeAHerringWLRamsbergJTorontaliIet al. People get ready! A new generation of Alzheimer's therapies may require new ways to deliver and pay for healthcare. J Intern Med. (2024) 295:281–91. doi: 10.1111/joim.13759

  • 93

    WalshSMerrickRMilneRBrayneC. Aducanumab for Alzheimer's disease? Bmj. (2021) 374:n1682. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1682

  • 94

    WalshSMerrickRMilneRNurockSRichardEBrayneC. Considering challenges for the new Alzheimer's drugs: Clinical, population, and health system perspectives. Alzheimer's Dementia. (2024) 20:6639–46. doi: 10.1002/alz.14108

  • 95

    WeberMRothHLAbramowitzAJohnsonKG. Developing treatment models for the delivery of the antiamyloid therapy, lecanemab: Considerations for implementation of lecanemab in healthcare systems. Am J Geriatric Psychiatry. (2025) 33:601–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jagp.2025.02.007

  • 96

    WhitehousePJSainiV. Making the case for the accelerated withdrawal of aducanumab. J Alzheimers Dis. (2022) 87:999–1001. doi: 10.3233/jad-220264

  • 97

    YadollahikhalesGRojasJC. Anti-amyloid immunotherapies for Alzheimer's disease: A 2023 clinical update. Neurotherapeutics. (2023) 20:914–31. doi: 10.1007/s13311-023-01405-0

  • 98

    Yeo-TehNSLTangBL. A review of scientific ethics issues associated with the recently approved drugs for Alzheimer's disease. Sci Eng Ethics. (2023) 29:2. doi: 10.1007/s11948-022-00422-0

  • 99

    ScottIA. Monoclonal antibodies for treating early Alzheimer disease-a commentary on recent 'positive' trials. Age Ageing. (2024) 53:afae023. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afae023

  • 100

    World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. (2013) 310:2191–4. doi: 10.5124/jkma.25.0052

  • 101

    McLarenMA. Care ethics. In: KassnerJJChatterjeeDK, editors. Encyclopedia of Global Justice. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg (2025). p. 1–6.

Keywords

Alzheimer’s disease, anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies, anti-amyloid therapy, bioethics, ethics

Citation

Wicker A, Courtright-Lim A and Tilburt J (2026) Ethical challenges in the clinical translation of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies for Alzheimer’s disease: a scoping review. Front. Psychiatry 17:1953954. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1953954

Received

30 July 2026

Revised

14 September 2026

Accepted

17 September 2026

Published

05 October 2026

Volume

17 - 2026

Edited by

Nobuto Shibata, Juntendo Tokyo Koto Medical Center for the Elderly, Japan

Updates

Copyright

© 2026 Wicker, Courtright-Lim and Tilburt.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Jon Tilburt, tilburt.jon@mayo.edu

Disclaimer

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

来源：Frontiers in Psychiatry · frontiersin.org

#研究发布#神经科学#老年心理#测量评估#Frontiers

猜你喜欢