Home › Research › Treatments
Anti-amyloid treatments: Why we think they are worth it
Schindler SE, Musiek ES, Morris JC.. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.), 2025-01-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Plain-language summary
Years of experience watching our patients progressively decline and die from complications of Alzheimer's disease (AD) has strongly motivated us to provide newly approved anti-amyloid treatments to appropriate patients. Following detailed and personalized discussions of the potential risks and benefits of these treatments with patients and their families, almost 300 patients at our clinic have chosen to receive lecanemab infusions. We have found the frequency and severity of complications, including amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), to be manageable and as expected based on clinical trials. While the longer-term benefits of these treatments are not yet clear, our patients and their families are accepting of even a modest slowing of disease progression. We have experienced the complexities, burdens, costs, and major logistical challenges associated with the treatment of AD with anti-amyloid treatments. However, we also understand that for some of our current patients with early symptomatic AD, anti-amyloid treatments are their best option for fighting this devastating disease, and we find it worthwhile to provide these treatments to our patients. Highlights Many of our former patients have died from complications of AD.Our clinic now has nearly 300 patients receiving anti-amyloid treatments.We have found the complications of anti-amyloid treatments to be manageable.Despite the challenges, we find anti-amyloid treatments worthwhile.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Schindler, S. E., Musiek, E. S., & Morris, J. C. (2025). Anti-amyloid treatments: Why we think they are worth it. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.). https://doi.org/10.1002/trc2.70055
Vancouver
Schindler SE, Musiek ES, Morris JC. Anti-amyloid treatments: Why we think they are worth it. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.). 2025. doi:10.1002/trc2.70055. PMID: 39995599.
BibTeX
@article{schindler2025-39995599,
author = {Schindler, S. E. and Musiek, E. S. and Morris, J. C.},
title = {{Anti-amyloid treatments: Why we think they are worth it}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia (New York, N. Y.)},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1002/trc2.70055},
pmid = {39995599},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/trc2.70055}
}
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.
Key findings
- We have experienced the complexities, burdens, costs, and major logistical challenges associated with the treatment of AD with anti-amyloid treatments.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Participants300
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 57/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomized / 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 57 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)) |
| 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 | 2 / 4 | 300 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39995599) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 33 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 57 out of 100. |
| Total | 57 / 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.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Treatments from nearby years
Also tagged “anti-amyloid-treatment”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “anti-amyloid-treatment”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.