Treating cold sores with anti-virals ‘may slash risk of developing Alzheimer's'
Treating cold sores with anti-viral medicines could help slash the risk of Alzheimer's disease, research suggests.
Previous studies have found that the herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) can lie dormant in human cells for a lifetime before 're-awakening', leading to dementia symptoms.
Experts have discovered that HSV-1 causes changes that resemble those in the brains of dementia patients, such as amyloid plaque-like formations and inflammation.
Now, a large US study suggests that treating HSV-1 may be a route to lessening the risk of Alzheimer's disease.
Researchers, including from pharmaceutical firm Gilead Sciences and the University of Washington in Seattle, used data on 344,628 people with Alzheimer's matched with the same number of people without the disease.
All were aged over 50 and the diagnosis of Alzheimer's was made between 2006 and 2021.
A history of HSV-1 diagnosis was noted for 1,507 (0.44%) patients with Alzheimer's, compared with 823 (0.24%) of those without.
Nearly two thirds (65%) of those with Alzheimer's disease were women, with an average age if 73.
The study found that people who had suffered the herpes virus had an 80% increased risk of Alzheimer's, even when other factors were taken into account.
But those with HSV-1 who used anti-virals to treat the virus were 17% less likely to develop Alzheimer's compared with those who did not the medicines.
Among the 2,330 people with a history of HSV-1 infection, 931 (40%) used anti-virals after their diagnosis.
The authors, writing in the journal BMJ Open, concluded: 'Findings from this large…study implicate HSV-1 in the development of Alzheimer's disease and highlight anti-herpetic therapies as potentially protective for Alzheimer's and related dementia.'
In the UK, the drug aciclovir is one of those available for treating cold sores, chickenpox, shingles and other herpes virus infections.
The researchers also looked at the potential role of other herpes viruses, including HSV-2, varicella zoster virus (which causes chickenpox), and cytomegalovirus.
Both HSV-2 and varicella zoster virus infections were also associated with a heightened risk of Alzheimer's disease.
Exactly how HSV-1 and other viruses might heighten the risk of dementia is not clear, point out the researchers.
'However, studies have shown that inflammatory alterations in the brain caused by HSV infection are pivotal in (Alzheimer's disease) development,' they added.
HSV-1 DNA is also found in the plaques characteristic of Alzheimer's disease, and people carrying the most common genetic risk factor for the disease are more susceptible to HSV infections, they said.
Professor Tara Spires-Jones, from the University of Edinburgh, said: 'This is a well-conducted study adding to strong data in the field linking HSV-1 and other viral infections to increased risk of developing Alzheimer's disease, but it is important to note that HSV-1 infection, which is extremely common in the population, is by no means a guarantee that someone will develop Alzheimer's.
'Why viral infections may increase risk of dementia is not fully understood, but the most likely explanation is that infections increase inflammation in the body and contribute to age-related brain inflammation.
'More research is needed to understand the best way to protect our brains from Alzheimer's disease as we age, including a better understanding of links between viral infection and Alzheimer's risk.'
Dr David Vickers, from the University of Calgary in Canada, said the 'research exaggerates the role of HSV-1, failing to appreciate its absence in 99.56% of Alzheimer's disease cases'.
He added: 'The observed 17% hazard reduction with anti-herpetic drugs translates to a mere nine-month delay in Alzheimer's disease onset.'
Dr Richard Oakley, director of research and innovation at the Alzheimer's Society, said: 'Results from this observational study suggested that people with recorded cold sore infections were more likely to develop Alzheimer's disease, and interestingly those prescribed antiviral drugs had a slightly lower risk.
'But this doesn't prove that cold sores cause Alzheimer's disease, or that anti-virals prevent it.
'The data came from insurance records, often based on self-reported symptoms which may miss or misclassify infections, and didn't track how often people had cold sores or how consistently they took medication.
'Much more research is needed to explore exactly how viruses might be involved and before we can draw firm conclusions.'
Dr Sheona Scales, director of research at Alzheimer's Research UK, welcomed the study but said more research was needed.
'We know there are 14 established risk factors for dementia, and there's not enough evidence to include infections in this list.
'This study doesn't tell us if infections are causing the risk, it only shows an association. Further research is needed to understand what the underlying biology around this is.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Prediction: Eli Lilly Will Reach a $1 Trillion Valuation by 2027
Eli Lilly has been experiencing strong growth lately due to its impressive GLP-1 drugs. It could rake in a couple more approvals within the next year. The stock has been sliding this year, and that has made its valuation look much more appealing. 10 stocks we like better than Eli Lilly › Eli Lilly (NYSE: LLY) has been a growth beast over the years and is now easily the most valuable healthcare company in the world, with a market cap of more than $650 billion. But there's still much more growth on the horizon for the business in the years ahead. Although as of this week the stock has declined by more than 4% since the start of the year, there's little reason to believe that its shares have peaked. Eli Lilly is the most likely healthcare stock to reach a $1 trillion valuation, and I believe it could hit that plateau by 2027. Eli Lilly's stock has surged close to 400% in five years. But for it to get going again and start rallying, it'll likely need a catalyst and a reason for growth investors to rally around its business. The good news is that it may not be too long before that happens. A big reason for the company's growth is the hype and excitement surrounding its GLP-1 treatments, Zepbound (approved for weight loss) and Mounjaro (approved for diabetes). These blockbuster drugs have been generating billions in revenue and have bolstered the company's growth rate in recent quarters. The drug that you should keep an eye on moving forward, however, is orforglipron. Unlike Zepbound and Mounjaro, which are injections, orforglipron is a pill that can be a more attractive option for patients looking to lose weight or to bring down their glucose levels. Eli Lilly expects that the drug could obtain approval from regulators by as early as next year. Clinical trials thus far have been encouraging, with the drug showing it can help people lose around 15% of their body weight. The company is also working on another injectable treatment, retatrutide, which has the potential to be its best weight loss treatment yet. In a recent clinical trial, patients using the drug lost more than 24% of their body weight. With not one but two exciting weight loss drugs that may potentially obtain approval in the near future, it may not be too long before this healthcare stock gets going again. It wasn't all that long ago that Eli Lilly's stock looked incredibly expensive, trading at well over 100 times its trailing earnings. But as the stock has fallen this year and as its earnings have grown, its valuation has become much more attractive. While its price-to-earnings (P/E) multiple is still significant at 60, based on analyst estimates, its forward P/E multiple is just 34. And when you look at its price-to-earnings growth (PEG) ratio, which sits at around 1.1, that suggests the stock may even be cheap given the future growth the business may experience. For PEG, anything below 1 indicates great value for growth investors. However, Eli Lilly is arguably worth a premium, which is why I don't think these multiples will stay as low as they are for long. The overall healthcare sector has been struggling this year. The Health Care Select Sector SPDR Fund has declined by more than 3% since January. The market appears to be concerned over healthcare spending cuts and how they may affect stocks across the entire sector. But for Eli Lilly, one of the top healthcare companies in the world -- which grew its sales by 32% last year to $45 billion and still looks unstoppable -- the stock should be doing much better than it is. For Eli Lilly to reach a $1 trillion market cap within the next couple of years, it would need to rise by more than 50% from where it is today. I think that's possible as its earnings continue to grow, and especially if you factor in that it's underperforming this year and that there could be multiple approvals coming its way in the not-too-distant future. This is a top growth stock to own, and now that its valuation has come down, it could be a remarkable investment to load up on. Before you buy stock in Eli Lilly, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Eli Lilly wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $657,385!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $842,015!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 987% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 171% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 David Jagielski has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Prediction: Eli Lilly Will Reach a $1 Trillion Valuation by 2027 was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Regeneron makes obesity push; Atai, Alto ink brain drug deals
This story was originally published on BioPharma Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily BioPharma Dive newsletter. Today, a brief rundown of news involving Regeneron and Bluebird bio, as well as updates from Atai Life Sciences, Alto Neuroscience and UniQure that you may have missed. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals on Monday disclosed Phase 2 study results that it claimed suggest the addition of one or two of its experimental medicines to Novo Nordisk's Wegovy might help people with obesity preserve muscle mass. Leerink Partners analyst David Risinger, however, described the results in a research note as "mixed," highlighting how the addition of Regeneron's drug resulted in either numerically lower weight loss with "comparable tolerability" or "greater weight loss with worse tolerability." The effects on muscle function, which haven't yet been disclosed, will be "critical,' Risinger added. Draft guidance published by the Food and Drug Administration has indicated muscle-protecting medicines "need to demonstrate functional benefits" to succeed. — Ben Fidler Regeneron also expanded its portfolio of weight-loss medicines, announcing on Monday a deal for most worldwide rights to a drug developed by Hansoh Pharmaceuticals Group that's currently in late-stage testing in obesity in China. Regeneron paid Hansoh $80 million upfront for the drug, which, like Eli Lilly's Zepbound targets the gut hormones GLP-1 and GIP. It could add nearly $2 billion in additional payouts. In testing, the drug has demonstrated a "potentially similar profile" to Zepbound, Regeneron said. — Ben Fidler Carlyle Group and SK Capital on Monday closed a deal to acquire and take private gene therapy developer Bluebird bio. The two private equity firms said they've provided 'significant primary capital' to support and scale Bluebird's gene therapies for rare blood and brain diseases, and that the company will now prioritize building up its manufacturing capabilities and strengthening relationships with insurers. Bluebird's stock, which will no longer trade on the Nasdaq, last closed at around $5 per share. — Ben Fidler Psychedelics developer Atai Life Sciences is absorbing the rest of a U.K.-based biotechnology company through an all-share transaction announced Monday. Atai last year took a nearly 36% stake in Beckley Psytech, providing it access to an experimental version of the mind-altering compound mebufotenin. Now, the two developers are combining in a deal that values Beckley at $390 million and is expected to close in the back half of this year. Beckley's investors other than Atai will be issued around 105 million new shares as consideration, representing about 31% of the combined company. Additionally, the investment firms Ferring Ventures and Adage Capital Partners are making a concurrent $30 million private placement. Atai said the new entity will have enough cash to keep it running through 'multiple' readouts of important mid-stage clinical trials. — Jacob Bell Alto Neuroscience has, for just under $2 million, acquired a portfolio of dopamine-boosting drugs in development for depression. The deal with Chase Therapeutics, disclosed Tuesday, hands Alto a fixed-dose combination of pramipexole, which is already used to treat Parkinson's disease, and ondansetron, the active ingredient in the nausea medication Zofran. Now code-named ALTO-207, this combination recently succeeded in a mid-stage study of patients with major depressive disorder. Alto plans to start by mid-2026 a Phase 2b trial designed to potentially enable an approval application. The trial would focus on treatment-resistant depression and report high-level data sometime in 2027. — Jacob Bell UniQure, the Belgium-based gene therapy developer, said it has reached an agreement with the FDA on 'several key components' of an approval application for its closely watched treatment for Huntington's disease. Those components include the manufacturing process for the treatment, named AMT-130, as well as updated statistical analysis plans that UniQure expects to submit before the end of June. Looking ahead, the company intends to have another pre-filing meeting with the FDA late this year and then formally submit its application for priority review sometime between January and March of 2026. Analysts at TD Cowen have estimated that peak annual sales of AMT-130 could reach or surpass around $1 billion. — Jacob Bell Recommended Reading Sanofi reaches consumer health deal; Supernus antidepressant fails study Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Hurdles to GLP-1s threaten the lives of our patients
The May 26 front-page article 'Patients face new hurdles to affordable obesity drugs' highlighted significant barriers patients and providers face in accessing GLP-1 and dual GLP-1/GIP receptor agonists (such as Ozempic, Mounjaro, Wegovy, Tirzepatide and Zepbound) for weight management. However, one critical group whose lives may depend on these medications was absent: individuals with end-stage organ failure. For these patients, the path to a lifesaving transplant is often long and uncertain. Many wait years on transplant lists — if they can get on one at all. Obesity is a major obstacle in this process. It not only reduces the likelihood of being listed for transplantation but also increases the risk of poor outcomes posttransplant, including higher rates of failure of their transplanted organ, wound complications, heart disease and diabetes. GLP-1 medications have demonstrated benefits beyond weight loss, including reducing the risk of heart disease and slowing the progression of kidney disease in certain populations. These benefits could improve both pre- and posttransplant outcomes, offering a critical bridge to transplantation and enhancing long-term survival. Yet access to these medications is increasingly limited. Many insurance companies have removed them from the lists of drugs that they cover, restricted the duration of use, or required patients to try other, often inappropriate, treatments first and show they aren't working. For people with organ failure, particularly those with kidney disease, there are few to no safe and effective alternatives. This leaves a growing number of patients unable to access the only medications that might improve their transplant eligibility. Medicare provides indefinite coverage for dialysis — a life-sustaining but extremely costly intervention — yet does not cover GLP-1 medications prescribed for weight loss that could help patients lose enough weight to become eligible for a kidney transplant, ultimately reducing or even eliminating the need for dialysis. Expanding access to these therapies for individuals with end-stage organ failure is not only an issue of equity and compassion — it is also a sound fiscal strategy. By improving transplant eligibility and outcomes, we can reduce long-term dependence on dialysis, resulting in substantial cost savings for Medicare and other health-care payers. Though cash payment options exist, the out-of-pocket cost — often several hundred dollars per month — is simply unaffordable for many patients. This financial barrier exacerbates existing disparities and deepens inequities in access to transplant care. Focusing on patients with organ failure presents a clear opportunity to save lives and reduce health-care costs. We urge policymakers and drug manufacturers to prioritize this narrow but critically important population by lowering the cost and improving access to GLP-1 medications. For these individuals, access is about survival. Sima Saberi, Ann Arbor, Michigan Vineeta Kumar, Birmingham, Alabama Mohammad Kazem Fallahzadeh, Winston Salem, North Carolina Krista Lentine, St. Louis Hector Madariaga, Cambridge, Massachusetts Pooja Budhiraja, Phoenix Vasanthi Balaraman, Memphis Prince Mohan Anand, Lancaster, South Carolina Kenneth J. Woodside, Charleston, South Carolina Sabiha M. Hussain, Philadelphia The writers are physicians who provide care for people with organ transplants. The May 30 online Fact Checker analysis, 'Are 4.8 million people on Medicaid 'cheating the system,'' cut to the heart of a growing crisis: the way data is being twisted to justify cruelty, particularly against people like me. I'm autistic, and I've had to rely on Medicaid — not because I don't want to work, but because I live in a society that doesn't always make room for people like me to thrive, or even survive, on its terms. I've spent much of my adult life navigating a system that treats vulnerability as a burden and not as a fact of human existence. That's why I was so disturbed by Sen. Joni Ernst's (R-Iowa) response at a recent town hall, when a constituent in Butler County warned that proposed budget cuts under President Donald Trump's administration would lead people to die. Ernst smiled and replied, 'Well, we are all going to die.' That smile and her dismissive wave of the hand might have been the product of awkwardness. But indifference to injustice can be deeply damaging. Ernst wasn't denying that deaths would happen. She was suggesting they don't really matter because death comes for us all. There's a chilling difference between acknowledging mortality and brushing off preventable deaths as unimportant. When our leaders fail to take the lives of their most vulnerable constituents seriously, it sends a message: that those lives have no place in their political calculations. That we are disposable. The Post's Fact Checker analysis showed that the 4.8 million figure cited by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) was a projection of people who would lose Medicaid insurance if the House bill became law. The people being painted as 'cheaters' are often the sick, disabled, elderly or those caring for others full-time. They are people whose work might not fit into conventional molds, but whose lives and contributions matter deeply. Ernst's comment might have sounded like a joke to some. To me, as someone who knows how fragile survival can be, it sounded like a warning. A government that makes light of your death is not a government that's protecting your life. Matthew Lovewell, Pittsburgh We are facing a crisis in coverage for obesity care, leaving countless Americans struggling to access treatment for this chronic disease. As highlighted by the May 26 front-page article 'Patients face new hurdles to affordable obesity drugs,' the lack of obesity care coverage for GLP-1 medications not only strains an inundated health-care system and its overwhelmed providers, but also has a significant human and financial cost for patients, insurers and employers. The status quo must change. Despite obesity being recognized as a chronic, treatable disease that is associated with more than 200 other health conditions, insurers continue to place barriers on coverage for obesity care. Furthermore, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' recent decision not to expand coverage of obesity management medications through Medicare and Medicaid underscored the ongoing struggle individuals living with obesity face in accessing care. The costs of not treating obesity are staggering. Collectively, diseases linked to obesity cost our nation's health-care system more than $1.7 trillion each year. Additionally, obesity costs employers approximately $425 billion annually in the form of increased medical costs, disability payments, workers' compensation programs and absenteeism. Providing coverage for the full range of evidence-based care is crucial in addressing the significant consequences of obesity. Patients should be able to work with their health-care provider to decide on the best evidence-based obesity treatment — and have insurance coverage for that care. We must all call on insurers, employers and policymakers to ensure comprehensive obesity care is covered just like any other chronic disease — it's only fair. Millicent Gorham, Washington The writer is CEO of the Alliance for Women's Health and Prevention. Regarding the May 28 front-page article 'RFK Jr. remolds policy on covid': Although the coronavirus vaccines for children and adults are safe and effective, the Food and Drug Administration removed them from its recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and pregnant women. This is incredibly irresponsible. Children play a significant role in the transmission of the coronavirus. During the pandemic, more than 70 percent of household coronavirus transmissions originated with a child, and data shows that young children can be considerable transmission vectors within households, despite having lower viral loads. Many infected children are asymptomatic, making it harder to identify and control the spread. This means children who might be infected but do not show symptoms can transmit the virus to others. It is true that most children generally present with mild disease and exhibit lower hospitalization rates than adults. However, infected children can experience long covid and its long-term effects, including fatigue and muscle weakness. Pregnant women also face a higher risk of developing severe coronavirus complications compared with nonpregnant individuals. Without vaccination, they are more likely to require intensive care and mechanical ventilation, are at a higher risk of mortality and severe illness, and are four times more likely to be hospitalized than vaccinated pregnant women. Coronavirus infection during pregnancy can lead to serious complications, including a higher risk of preterm birth, an increased likelihood of developing preeclampsia and a greater chance of gestational diabetes. And a mother vaccinated against the coronavirus can transfer protective antibodies to the fetus, providing immunity to the newborn after birth. The benefits of coronavirus immunization far outweigh any potential risks, establishing it as a vital preventive measure for children and all pregnant women. It is irresponsible not to recommend and support its use. A.J. Russo, Chincoteague, Virginia The writer is author of 'Vaccine Development and the Understanding of Immunity.' I am a doctor, and I spent the majority of my career as executive director of the Pasco County Health Department in Florida. Limiting access to the coronavirus vaccine conflicts with recommended public health policy. Denying and discouraging lifesaving vaccines to at-risk groups will increase the rates of death and disability caused by this serious disease. Political interference with recommended public health policy concerning this disease has already taken a terrible toll on Americans. Yet politicians turn a blind eye to their responsibility bucking professional and expert guidance from the New England Journal of Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Those who allowed this disease to race through the American population should be held accountable, not shielded. Now again, an untrained and questionably informed bureaucrat, wants to compromise protections for millions of Americans who should be getting the vaccine. I believe the Food and Drug Administration's changes to its approval process for the coronavirus vaccine has a serious potential to allow this disease to race out of control again. I continue to have full confidence in the recommendations made by professional public health scientists and doctors. When government agencies choose to blind themselves to studies and recommendations, we all pay a terrible price. Marc J. Yacht, Hudson, Florida