The first drug successfully target beta-amyloid is absolutely a breakthrough. It's a breakthrough in drugs successfully targeting beta amyloid. Going from 0 drugs having an effect to 1 drug having an effect is by definition a breakthrough.

It's not effective at treating or curing Alzheimers at this stage, especially because it would not have any appreciable affect by the time the disease has progressed to the stage where it is typically diagnosed, which I stated in my top comment in response to someone asking "why isn't this as exciting as it sounds".

If you are thinking a 'breakthrough' means a 'immediately available permanent cure', then no, obviously not.

>One of the world's leading researchers behind the whole idea of targeting amyloid 30 years ago, Prof John Hardy, said it was "historic" and was optimistic "we're seeing the beginning of Alzheimer's therapies". Prof Tara Spires-Jones, from the University of Edinburgh, said the results were "a big deal because we've had a 100% failure rate for a long time".

>How changes in nerve cells could offer protection in old age Currently, people with Alzheimer's are given other drugs to help manage their symptoms, but none change the course of the disease.

It would only potentially be effective in very early stages of disease development. Much earlier than when it is typically detected. And still then not very effective. So we need a more reliable early detection method to make this particular version of the drug worthwhile.

However according to the article this is the first drug ever to show any actual results in breaking down the troublesome amyloid proteins on neurons in the brain. So this is just the earliest version of a potential treatment. Maybe it can be improved upon. I'm thinking about the earlier treatment methods for cancer compared to what we have today. And how early detection is still incredibly important to survival rates.