Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Donanemab (donanemab-azbt; Kisunla TM ) is an amyloid β-directed antibody developed by Eli Lilly and Company for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. Donanemab recently received approval in the USA for the treatment of adults with early symptomatic Alzheimer's disease (patients with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia stage of disease). This article summarizes the milestones in the development of donanemab leading to this first approval for Alzheimer's disease.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Kang, C. (2024). Donanemab: First Approval. Drugs. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-024-02087-4
Vancouver
Kang C. Donanemab: First Approval. Drugs. 2024. doi:10.1007/s40265-024-02087-4. PMID: 39237715.
BibTeX
@article{kang2024-39237715,
author = {Kang, C.},
title = {{Donanemab: First Approval}},
journal = {Drugs},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1007/s40265-024-02087-4},
pmid = {39237715},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-024-02087-4}
}
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
- Donanemab (donanemab-azbt; Kisunla TM ) is an amyloid β-directed antibody developed by Eli Lilly and Company for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.
- Donanemab recently received approval in the USA for the treatment of adults with early symptomatic Alzheimer's disease (patients with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia stage of disease).
- This article summarizes the milestones in the development of donanemab leading to this first approval for Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / 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 multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Drugs) |
| 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 | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 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) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation 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 |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39237715) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 24 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 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.
Related studies in Treatments
Also tagged “approval”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “approval”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.