Home › Research › Treatments
Comparative efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on cognitive function in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis
Itsuki Terao, Wakako Kodama. Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England), 2025-05-19
Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety
Nineteen randomized placebo-controlled trials with 6918 participants were included. rTMS was significantly more effective than placebo/sham stimulation. In addition, rTMS was significantly more effective than aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab. Furthermore, rTMS was not significantly inferior to placebo/sham stimulation in tolerability and acceptability, whereas aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab were significantly inferior to placebo/sham stimulation in tolerability and acceptability. rTMS was significantly superior to lecanemab and donanemab in acceptability. No significant differences were observed in the remaining comparisons. rTMS may be more effective, tolerable, and acceptable than aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab. Long-term direct comparison studies are needed.
Key findings
- Nineteen randomized placebo-controlled trials with 6918 participants were included. rTMS was significantly more effective than placebo/sham stimulation.
- In addition, rTMS was significantly more effective than aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab.
- Furthermore, rTMS was not significantly inferior to placebo/sham stimulation in tolerability and acceptability, whereas aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab were significantly inferior to placebo/sham stimulation in tolerability and acceptability. rTMS was significantly superior to lecanemab and donanemab in acceptability.
- No significant differences were observed in the remaining comparisons. rTMS may be more effective, tolerable, and acceptable than aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab.
- Long-term direct comparison studies are needed.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designmeta-analysis
- Participants6,918
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 82/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for effect reported 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 46 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 82 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England)) |
| 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 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 6,918 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) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation 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 |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40386876) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 46 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 46 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 82 out of 100. |
| Total | 82 / 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
Terao, I., & Kodama, W. (2025). Comparative efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on cognitive function in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England). https://doi.org/10.1177/02698811251340901
Vancouver
Terao I, Kodama W. Comparative efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on cognitive function in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England). 2025. doi:10.1177/02698811251340901. PMID: 40386876.
BibTeX
@article{terao2025-40386876,
author = {Terao, Itsuki and Kodama, Wakako},
title = {{Comparative efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on cognitive function in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis}},
journal = {Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England)},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1177/02698811251340901},
pmid = {40386876},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/02698811251340901}
}