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.

84/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 84 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety

Plain-language summary

Background Recent clinical trials of anti-Aβ monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in the treatment of early Alzheimer's disease (AD) have produced encouraging cognitive and clinical results. Results Thirty-three randomized controlled trials with a total of 21,087 patients were included in the current NMA, involving eight different mAbs. SUCRA values showed that aducanumab (87.01% and 99.37%, respectively) was the most likely to achieve the best therapeutic effect based on the changes of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Clinical Dementia Rating scale Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) scores. Conclusion Despite immunotherapies significantly increasing the risks of adverse events and ARIA, the data suggest that mAbs can effectively improve the cognitive function of patients with mild and moderate AD. According to the NMA, aducanumab was the most likely to achieve significant improvements in different cognitive and clinical assessments (statistically improved MMSE and CDR-SB), followed by donanemab (statistically improved ADAS-Cog, and PET-SUVr) and lecanemab (statistically improved ADCS-ADL).

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

APA 7th

Qiao, Y., Gu, J., Yu, M., Chi, Y., & Ma, Y. (2024). Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Monoclonal Antibodies for Cognitive Decline in Patients with Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. CNS drugs. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40263-024-01067-2

Vancouver

Qiao Y, Gu J, Yu M, Chi Y, Ma Y. Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Monoclonal Antibodies for Cognitive Decline in Patients with Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. CNS drugs. 2024. doi:10.1007/s40263-024-01067-2. PMID: 38429615.

BibTeX

@article{qiao2024-38429615,
  author  = {Qiao, Y. and Gu, J. and Yu, M. and Chi, Y. and Ma, Y.},
  title   = {{Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Monoclonal Antibodies for Cognitive Decline in Patients with Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis}},
  journal = {CNS drugs},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.1007/s40263-024-01067-2},
  pmid    = {38429615},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40263-024-01067-2}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a pooled review. It combines earlier studies, so it is only as good as the studies it pools. Check how many were included, whether they were similar enough to combine, and whether the authors report inconsistency between them.
Size: the record lists 21,087 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record reports “87.01%; 99.37%; 88.50%”. A statistically significant result can still be small in daily life.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded high. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. High means the abstract mentions a randomized design, a meta-analysis or a systematic review. 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

Background Recent clinical trials of anti-Aβ monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in the treatment of early Alzheimer's disease (AD) have produced encouraging cognitive and clinical results.
Results Thirty-three randomized controlled trials with a total of 21,087 patients were included in the current NMA, involving eight different mAbs.
SUCRA values showed that aducanumab (87.01% and 99.37%, respectively) was the most likely to achieve the best therapeutic effect based on the changes of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Clinical Dementia Rating scale Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) scores.
Conclusion Despite immunotherapies significantly increasing the risks of adverse events and ARIA, the data suggest that mAbs can effectively improve the cognitive function of patients with mild and moderate AD.
According to the NMA, aducanumab was the most likely to achieve significant improvements in different cognitive and clinical assessments (statistically improved MMSE and CDR-SB), followed by donanemab (statistically improved ADAS-Cog, and PET-SUVr) and lecanemab (statistically improved ADCS-ADL).

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

Study details

Study designmeta-analysis
Participants21,087
Effect size87.01%; 99.37%; 88.50%
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 84/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. 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 49 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 84 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (CNS drugs)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	12 / 12	A meta-analysis pooling many studies
Strength of evidence	5 / 5	Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	4 / 5	2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	4 / 4	21,087 participants
Effect reported	2 / 3	Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	A review of other studies — randomization is not credited here
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 38429615)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	49 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 49 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 84 out of 100.
Total	84 / 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 →