When the FDA approved Aduhelm a month ago, the original label said the drug was “for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease.” The surprisingly broad label caused a storm of concern among many Alzheimer’s experts, even those who had supported the drug’s approval.

At a forum sponsored by the Alzheimer’s Association last month that urged Aduhelm to be approved, a panel of Alzheimer’s clinics with differing views agreed on whether the drug should have been approved that its use was strong should be restricted.

Many experts say the drug’s label should not only restrict Aduhelm’s use to mild disease stages, but also require two more stringent clinical trial conditions: that suitable patients have evidence of high levels of a key protein, amyloid, in their brain, and that people with certain diseases (so-called “contraindications”) should be prevented from taking the drug or at least classified as a high-risk group, as this can lead to brain swelling and bleeding.

At the forum, Dr. Stephen Selloway, director of the Memory and Aging Program at Butler Hospital in Providence, RI, who helped conduct the Aduhelm studies and is one of the drug’s most ardent medical advocates, when he saw the label had no contraindications to his The reaction was “oy”.

On Thursday, Dr. Lon Schneider, director of the California Alzheimer’s Disease Center at the University of Southern California, who also worked on one of the Aduhelm studies and spoke out against the approval of the drug, saying that the new labeling was neglected.

The label should have said, among other things, that people with diabetes, high blood pressure and people who take blood thinners are not allowed to take part in the clinical trials and therefore “no extent is known”. of increased risk ”for these patients.

Dr. Jason Karlawish, a co-director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Memory Center, said the new label was based more on what he and other Alzheimer’s experts believe should originally have been written. But the abrupt revision of the label so soon after a much criticized approval decision was worrying, he said.