Home › Research › Treatments
Critical Appraisal of Amyloid Lowering Agents in AD
Decourt B, Boumelhem F, Pope ED, Shi J, Mari Z, Sabbagh MN.. Current neurology and neuroscience reports, 2021-06-10
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Purpose of review According to the amyloid cascade hypothesis, removing amyloid beta (Aβ) should cure Alzheimer's disease (AD). In the past three decades, many agents have been tested to try to lower Aβ production, prevent Aβ aggregation, and dissolve Aβ deposits. However, the paucity in definitive preventative or curative properties of these agents in clinical trials has resulted in more avant-garde approaches to therapeutic investigations. Immunotherapy has become an area of focus for research on disease-modifying therapies for neurodegenerative diseases. In this review, we highlight the current clinical development landscape of monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies that target Aβ plaque formation and removal in AD. Recent findings Multiple potential disease-modifying therapeutics for AD are in active development. Targeting Aβ with mAbs has the potential to treat various stages of AD: prodromal, prodromal to mild, mild, and mild to moderate. Monoclonal antibodies discussed here include aducanumab, lecanemab, solanezumab, crenezumab, donanemab, and gantenerumab. The final decision by the FDA regarding the approval of aducanumab will offer valuable insight into the trajectory of drug development for mAbs in AD and other neurodegenerative diseases. Future directions for improving the treatment of AD will include more inquiry into the efficacy of mAbs as disease-modifying agents that specifically target Aβ peptides and/or multimers. In addition, a more robust trial design for AD immunotherapy agents should improve outcomes such that objective measures of clinical efficacy will eventually lead to higher chances of drug approval.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Decourt, B., Boumelhem, F., Pope, E. D., Shi, J., Mari, Z., & Sabbagh, M. N. (2021). Critical Appraisal of Amyloid Lowering Agents in AD. Current neurology and neuroscience reports. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11910-021-01125-y
Vancouver
Decourt B, Boumelhem F, Pope ED, Shi J, Mari Z, Sabbagh MN. Critical Appraisal of Amyloid Lowering Agents in AD. Current neurology and neuroscience reports. 2021. doi:10.1007/s11910-021-01125-y. PMID: 34110536.
BibTeX
@article{decourt2021-34110536,
author = {Decourt, B. and Boumelhem, F. and Pope, E. D. and Shi, J. and Mari, Z. and Sabbagh, M. N.},
title = {{Critical Appraisal of Amyloid Lowering Agents in AD}},
journal = {Current neurology and neuroscience reports},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1007/s11910-021-01125-y},
pmid = {34110536},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11910-021-01125-y}
}
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
- Targeting Aβ with mAbs has the potential to treat various stages of AD: prodromal, prodromal to mild, mild, and mild to moderate.
- Monoclonal antibodies discussed here include aducanumab, lecanemab, solanezumab, crenezumab, donanemab, and gantenerumab.
- The final decision by the FDA regarding the approval of aducanumab will offer valuable insight into the trajectory of drug development for mAbs in AD and other neurodegenerative diseases.
- Future directions for improving the treatment of AD will include more inquiry into the efficacy of mAbs as disease-modifying agents that specifically target Aβ peptides and/or multimers.
- In addition, a more robust trial design for AD immunotherapy agents should improve outcomes such that objective measures of clinical efficacy will eventually lead to higher chances of drug approval.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a peer-reviewed 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 | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Current neurology and neuroscience reports) |
| 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 | 2021 — 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 34110536) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| 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.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.