This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

43/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety

Plain-language summary

With recent data demonstrating that lecanemab treatment can slow cognitive and functional decline in early symptomatic Alzheimer disease (AD), it is widely anticipated that this drug and potentially other monoclonal antibody infusions targeting β-amyloid protein will imminently be realistic options for some patients with AD. Given that these new antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are associated with nontrivial risks and burdens of treatment that are radically different from current mainstays of AD management, effectively and equitably translating their use to real-world clinical care will require systematic and practice-specific modifications to existing workflows and infrastructure. In this Emerging Issues in Neurology article, we provide practical guidance for a wide audience of neurology clinicians on logistic adaptations and decision making around emerging antiamyloid mAbs. Specifically, we briefly summarize the rationale and available evidence supporting antiamyloid mAb use in AD to facilitate appropriate communication with patients and care partners on potential benefits. We also discuss pragmatic approaches to optimizing patient selection and treatment monitoring, with a particular focus on the value of incorporating shared decision making and multidisciplinary collaboration. In addition, we review some of the recognized limitations of current knowledge and highlight areas of future evolution to guide the development of sustainable and flexible models for treatment and follow-up. As the field enters a new era with disease-modifying treatment options for AD, it will be critical for neurology practices to prepare and continually innovate to ensure optimal outcomes for patients.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Ramanan, V. K., Armstrong, M. J., Choudhury, P., Coerver, K. A., Hamilton, R. H., Klein, B. C., et al. (2023). Antiamyloid Monoclonal Antibody Therapy for Alzheimer Disease: Emerging Issues in Neurology. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000207757

Vancouver

Ramanan VK, Armstrong MJ, Choudhury P, Coerver KA, Hamilton RH, Klein BC, et al. Antiamyloid Monoclonal Antibody Therapy for Alzheimer Disease: Emerging Issues in Neurology. Neurology. 2023. doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000207757. PMID: 37495380.

BibTeX

@article{ramanan2023-37495380,
  author  = {Ramanan, V. K. and Armstrong, M. J. and Choudhury, P. and Coerver, K. A. and Hamilton, R. H. and Klein, B. C. and Wolk, D. A. and Wessels, SR. and others},
  title   = {{Antiamyloid Monoclonal Antibody Therapy for Alzheimer Disease: Emerging Issues in Neurology}},
  journal = {Neurology},
  year    = {2023},
  doi     = {10.1212/wnl.0000000000207757},
  pmid    = {37495380},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000207757}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: this is a narrative review. It summarises a field without a fixed search method, so it shows how authors read the evidence rather than measuring it. Use it to find the primary studies, not as a result in itself.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Given that these new antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are associated with nontrivial risks and burdens of treatment that are radically different from current mainstays of AD management, effectively and equitably translating their use to real-world clinical care will require systematic and practice-specific modifications to existing workflows and infrastructure.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 43/100

Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Neurology)
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	3 / 5	2023 — within 6 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)
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 37495380)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	25 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100.
Total	43 / 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.

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 “monoclonal”

332 studies in the library carry the topic tag “monoclonal”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 332 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Treatments

See all studies in Treatments →