Home › Research › Treatments
Donanemab: Not two without a third
Markku Kurkinen. Advances in clinical and experimental medicine : official organ Wroclaw Medical University, 2023-10
Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety
Recently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 2 anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies, aducanumab (June 7, 2021) and lecanemab (July 6, 2023), for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients, and will most likely also approve a 3rd one, donanemab, soon. While these antibodies have been shown to significantly reduce amyloid in the brain, there is little, if any, evidence that they provide clinically meaningful benefit for AD patients by slowing cognitive decline. I have said it before, and I say it again: the reported benefits of anti-amyloid antibodies observed in clinical trials are erroneous and based on misinterpretation of data and a trivial miscalculation. For example, Sims et al. (2023) reported in a phase III clinical trial that donanemab treatment of early symptomatic AD patients with amyloid and tau pathology provided 35% and 36% slowing of clinical progression and cognitive decline, respectively, as measured using the Integrated Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (iADRS) and Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) psychometric tests. Here, in this editorial, I show that 2.5% and 9.6% would be better estimates for less cognitive impairment with donanemab treatment.
Key findings
- While these antibodies have been shown to significantly reduce amyloid in the brain, there is little, if any, evidence that they provide clinically meaningful benefit for AD patients by slowing cognitive decline.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Effect size2.5%; 9.6%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 45/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Advances in clinical and experimental medicine : official organ Wroclaw Medical University) |
| 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 | 2023 — 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 | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 37831471) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 25 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100. |
| Total | 45 / 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
Kurkinen, M. (2023). Donanemab: Not two without a third. Advances in clinical and experimental medicine : official organ Wroclaw Medical University. https://doi.org/10.17219/acem/172673
Vancouver
Kurkinen M. Donanemab: Not two without a third. Advances in clinical and experimental medicine : official organ Wroclaw Medical University. 2023. doi:10.17219/acem/172673. PMID: 37831471.
BibTeX
@article{kurkinen2023-37831471,
author = {Kurkinen, Markku},
title = {{Donanemab: Not two without a third}},
journal = {Advances in clinical and experimental medicine : official organ Wroclaw Medical University},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.17219/acem/172673},
pmid = {37831471},
url = {https://doi.org/10.17219/acem/172673}
}