Search

The present study analyzes two potential therapeutic approaches for Alzheimer's disease (AD). One is the suppression of the neuronal integrated stress response (ISR). Another is the targeted degradation of intraneuronal amyloid-beta (iAβ) via the activation of BACE1 (Beta-site Aβ-protein-precursor Cleaving Enzyme) and/or BACE2. Both approaches are rational. Both are promising. Both have substantial intrinsic limitations. However, when combined in a carefully orchestrated manner into a composite therapy they display a prototypical synergy and constitute the apparently optimal, potentially most effective therapeutic strategy for AD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study analyzes two potential therapeutic approaches for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). One is the suppression of the neuronal integrated stress response (ISR). Another is the targeted degradation of intraneuronal amyloid-beta (iAβ) via the activation of BACE1 (Beta-site Aβ-protein-precursor Cleaving Enzyme) and/or BACE2. Both approaches are rational. Both are promising. Both have substantial intrinsic limitations. However, when combined in a carefully orchestrated manner into a composite therapy they display a prototypical synergy and constitute the apparently optimal, potentially most effective therapeutic strategy for AD.

Although the long-standing Amyloid Cascade Hypothesis (ACH) has been largely discredited, its main attribute, the centrality of amyloid-beta (Aβ) in Alzheimer's disease (AD), remains the cornerstone of any potential interpretation of the disease: All known AD-causing mutations, without a single exception, affect, in one way or another, Aβ. The ACH2.0, a recently introduced theory of AD, preserves this attribute but otherwise differs fundamentally from the ACH. It posits that AD is a two-stage disorder where both stages are driven by intraneuronal (rather than extracellular) Aβ (iAβ) albeit of two distinctly different origins. The first asymptomatic stage is the decades-long accumulation of Aβ protein precursor (AβPP)-derived iAβ to the critical threshold. This triggers the activation of the self-sustaining AβPP-independent iAβ production pathway and the commencement of the second, symptomatic AD stage. Importantly, Aβ produced independently of AβPP is retained intraneuronally. It drives the AD pathology and perpetuates the operation of the pathway; continuous cycles of the iAβ-stimulated propagation of its own AβPP-independent production constitute an engine that drives AD, the AD Engine. It appears that the dynamics of AβPP-derived iAβ accumulation is the determining factor that either drives Aging-Associated Cognitive Decline (AACD) and triggers AD or confers the resistance to both. Within the ACH2.0 framework, the ACH-based drugs, designed to lower levels of extracellular Aβ, could be applicable in the prevention of AD and treatment of AACD because they reduce the rate of accumulation of AβPP-derived iAβ. The present study analyzes their utility and concludes that it is severely limited. Indeed, their short-term employment is ineffective, their long-term engagement is highly problematic, their implementation at the symptomatic stages of AD is futile, and their evaluation in conventional clinical trials for the prevention of AD is impractical at best, impossible at worst, and misleading in between. In contrast, the ACH2.0-guided Next Generation Therapeutic Strategy for the treatment and prevention of both AD and AACD, namely the depletion of iAβ via its transient, short-duration, targeted degradation by the novel ACH2.0-based drugs, has none of the shortcomings of the ACH-based drugs. It is potentially highly effective, easily evaluable in clinical trials, and opens up the possibility of once-in-a-lifetime-only therapeutic intervention for prevention and treatment of both conditions. It also identifies two plausible ACH2.0-based drugs: activators of physiologically occurring intra-iAβ-cleaving capabilities of BACE1 and/or BACE2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the long-standing Amyloid Cascade Hypothesis (ACH) has been largely discredited, its main attribute, the centrality of amyloid-beta (Aβ) in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), remains the cornerstone of any potential interpretation of the disease: All known AD-causing mutations, without a single exception, affect, in one way or another, Aβ. The ACH2.0, a recently introduced theory of AD, preserves this attribute but otherwise differs fundamentally from the ACH. It posits that AD is a two-stage disorder where both stages are driven by intraneuronal (rather than extracellular) Aβ (iAβ) albeit of two distinctly different origins. The first asymptomatic stage is the decades-long accumulation of Aβ protein precursor (AβPP)-derived iAβ to the critical threshold. This triggers the activation of the self-sustaining AβPP-independent iAβ production pathway and the commencement of the second, symptomatic AD stage. Importantly, Aβ produced independently of AβPP is retained intraneuronally. It drives the AD pathology and perpetuates the operation of the pathway; continuous cycles of the iAβ-stimulated propagation of its own AβPP-independent production constitute an engine that drives AD, the AD Engine. It appears that the dynamics of AβPP-derived iAβ accumulation is the determining factor that either drives Aging-Associated Cognitive Decline (AACD) and triggers AD or confers the resistance to both. Within the ACH2.0 framework, the ACH-based drugs, designed to lower levels of extracellular Aβ, could be applicable in the prevention of AD and treatment of AACD because they reduce the rate of accumulation of AβPP-derived iAβ. The present study analyzes their utility and concludes that it is severely limited. Indeed, their short-term employment is ineffective, their long-term engagement is highly problematic, their implementation at the symptomatic stages of AD is futile, and their evaluation in conventional clinical trials for the prevention of AD is impractical at best, impossible at worst, and misleading in between. In contrast, the ACH2.0-guided Next Generation Therapeutic Strategy for the treatment and prevention of both AD and AACD, namely the depletion of iAβ via its transient, short-duration, targeted degradation by the novel ACH2.0-based drugs, has none of the shortcomings of the ACH-based drugs. It is potentially highly effective, easily evaluable in clinical trials, and opens up the possibility of once-in-a-lifetime-only therapeutic intervention for prevention and treatment of both conditions. It also identifies two plausible ACH2.0-based drugs: activators of physiologically occurring intra-iAβ-cleaving capabilities of BACE1 and/or BACE2.

With the Amyloid Cascade Hypothesis (ACH) largely discredited, the ACH2.0 theory of Alzheimer's disease (AD) has been recently introduced. Within the framework of the ACH2.0, AD is triggered by amyloid-β protein precursor (AβPP)-derived intraneuronal Aβ ( i Aβ) and is driven by i Aβ produced in the AβPP-independent pathway and retained intraneuronally. In this paradigm, the depletion of extracellular Aβ or suppression of Aβ production by AβPP proteolysis, the two sources of AβPP-derived i Aβ, would be futile in symptomatic AD, due to its reliance on i Aβ generated independently of AβPP, but effective in preventing AD and treating Aging-Associated Cognitive Decline (AACD) driven, in the ACH2.0 framework, by AβPP-derived i Aβ. The observed effect of lecanemab and donanemab, interpreted in the ACH2.0 perspective, supports this notion and mandates AD-preventive clinical trials. Such trials are currently in progress. They are likely, however, to fail or to yield deceptive results if conducted conventionally. The present study considers concepts of design of clinical trials of lecanemab, donanemab, or any other drug, targeting the influx of AβPP-derived i Aβ, in prevention of AD and treatment of AACD. It analyzes possible outcomes and explains why selection of high-risk asymptomatic participants seems reasonable but is not. It argues that outcomes of such AD preventive trials could be grossly misleading, discusses inevitable potential problems, and proposes feasible solutions. It advocates the initial evaluation of this type of drugs in clinical trials for treatment of AACD. Whereas AD protective trials of these drugs are potentially of an impractical length, AACD clinical trials are expected to yield unequivocal results within a relatively short duration. Moreover, success of the latter, in addition to its intrinsic value, would constitute a proof of concept for the former. Furthermore, this study introduces concepts of the active versus passive i Aβ depletion, contends that targeted degradation of i Aβ is the best therapeutic strategy for both prevention and treatment of AD and AACD, proposes potential i Aβ-degrading drugs, and describes their feasible and unambiguous evaluation in clinical trials., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflict of interest to report., (© 2023 – The authors. Published by IOS Press.)