Home › Research › Treatments
Anti-Amyloid Therapies for Alzheimer’s Disease: Progress, Pitfalls, and the Path Ahead
Vasileios T. Papaliagkas. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2025-09-29
Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety
Anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies have finally achieved their translational breakthrough after many years of unmet expectations. The FDA granted traditional approval to lecanemab in July 2023, and the European Medicines Agency approved it in late 2024 with specific genetic restrictions; meanwhile, donanemab received FDA approval in July 2024 and EMA marketing authorization just one month ago. These agents consistently clear cerebral amyloid and slow clinical decline modestly in early-stage, biomarker-confirmed Alzheimer's disease (AD). On the other hand, they also create significant safety risks, including amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) and substantial operational requirements for health systems that are already under pressure. Therefore, precise risk management based on APOE genotyping and the presence of cerebral amyloid angiopathy and cerebral microbleeds should be performed before therapy is initiated. The near-term agenda should prioritize the following areas of study: (1) biomarker-driven front-end triage (including emerging plasma assays); (2) ARIA-aware care pathways and shared decision making; (3) outcome-based coverage and rational pricing; (4) clinical trials that layer anti-amyloid therapy into combinatorial strategies targeting tau protein, neuroinflammation, and synaptic resilience.
Key findings
- On the other hand, they also create significant safety risks, including amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) and substantial operational requirements for health systems that are already under pressure.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 45/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International Journal of Molecular Sciences) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41096797) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 26 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100. |
| Total | 45 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Papaliagkas, V. T. (2025). Anti-Amyloid Therapies for Alzheimer’s Disease: Progress, Pitfalls, and the Path Ahead. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26199529
Vancouver
Papaliagkas VT. Anti-Amyloid Therapies for Alzheimer’s Disease: Progress, Pitfalls, and the Path Ahead. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2025. doi:10.3390/ijms26199529. PMID: 41096797.
BibTeX
@article{papaliagkas2025-41096797,
author = {Papaliagkas, Vasileios T.},
title = {{Anti-Amyloid Therapies for Alzheimer’s Disease: Progress, Pitfalls, and the Path Ahead}},
journal = {International Journal of Molecular Sciences},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.3390/ijms26199529},
pmid = {41096797},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26199529}
}
Related studies in Treatments
Also tagged “aducanumab”
332 studies in the library carry the topic tag “aducanumab”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 332 tagged studies.