Home › Research › Treatments
Comparative efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of donanemab, lecanemab, aducanumab and lithium on cognitive function in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis
Itsuki Terao, Wakako Kodama. Ageing research reviews, 2024-01-20
Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety
The analysis included 8 randomized placebo-controlled trials with 6547 participants. On the Mini-Mental State Examination, lithium significantly outperformed donanemab, aducanumab and placebo. On the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale, the efficacy of all active drugs was significantly higher than placebo. In addition, in the Clinical Dementia Rating sum of boxes, the efficacy of donanemab and lecanemab was significantly higher than placebo. Compared to placebo, donanemab and lecanemab were significantly less acceptable and tolerable. Aducanumab was also less well tolerated compared to placebo. There were no significant differences in the other comparisons. Although it is yet to be determined which is more effective between lithium or lecanemab or donanemab, lithium may be more effective than aducanumab. Aducanumab, lecanemab and donanemab do not appear to differ in their effectiveness on cognitive function. Low-dose lithium may be safer than aducanumab, lecanemab and donanemab.
Key findings
- The analysis included 8 randomized placebo-controlled trials with 6547 participants.
- On the Mini-Mental State Examination, lithium significantly outperformed donanemab, aducanumab and placebo.
- On the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale, the efficacy of all active drugs was significantly higher than placebo.
- In addition, in the Clinical Dementia Rating sum of boxes, the efficacy of donanemab and lecanemab was significantly higher than placebo.
- Compared to placebo, donanemab and lecanemab were significantly less acceptable and tolerable.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designmeta-analysis
- Participants6,547
- 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 (Ageing research reviews) |
| 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 | 3 / 4 | 6,547 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 38253184) |
| 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. (2024). Comparative efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of donanemab, lecanemab, aducanumab and lithium on cognitive function in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ageing research reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2024.102203
Vancouver
Terao I, Kodama W. Comparative efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of donanemab, lecanemab, aducanumab and lithium on cognitive function in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ageing research reviews. 2024. doi:10.1016/j.arr.2024.102203. PMID: 38253184.
BibTeX
@article{terao2024-38253184,
author = {Terao, Itsuki and Kodama, Wakako},
title = {{Comparative efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of donanemab, lecanemab, aducanumab and lithium on cognitive function in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis}},
journal = {Ageing research reviews},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1016/j.arr.2024.102203},
pmid = {38253184},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2024.102203}
}