Home › Research › Treatments
Efficacy and safety of passive immunotherapies targeting amyloid beta in Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Tonegawa-Kuji R, Hou Y, Hu B, Lorincz-Comi N, Pieper AA, Tousi B, Leverenz JB, Cheng F.. PLoS medicine, 2025-03-31
Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety
Compared with placebo, treatment with mAbs significantly improved cognitive performance on CDR-SB (mean difference -0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.38, -0.11]) and ADAS-Cog (standardized mean difference -0.09, 95% CI [-0.12, -0.06]), in which a negative change indicates improvement for both scores. Meta-regression analysis suggested that trials enrolling patients with early-stage AD were associated with better efficacy.
Key findings
- Compared with placebo, treatment with mAbs significantly improved cognitive performance on CDR-SB (mean difference -0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.38, -0.11]) and ADAS-Cog (standardized mean difference -0.09, 95% CI [-0.12, -0.06]), in which a negative change indicates improvement for both scores.
- Meta-regression analysis suggested that trials enrolling patients with early-stage AD were associated with better efficacy.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designmeta-analysis
- Participants18,826
- Effect sizeRR 1.94; RR 1.21
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 90/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. 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 52 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 90 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (PLoS medicine) |
| 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 | 4 / 4 | 18,826 participants |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| 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 40163534) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 52 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 52 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 90 out of 100. |
| Total | 90 / 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. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Tonegawa-Kuji, R., Hou, Y., Hu, B., Lorincz-Comi, N., Pieper, A. A., Tousi, B., et al. (2025). Efficacy and safety of passive immunotherapies targeting amyloid beta in Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS medicine. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004568
Vancouver
Tonegawa-Kuji R, Hou Y, Hu B, Lorincz-Comi N, Pieper AA, Tousi B, et al. Efficacy and safety of passive immunotherapies targeting amyloid beta in Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS medicine. 2025. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1004568. PMID: 40163534.
BibTeX
@article{tonegawakuji2025-40163534,
author = {Tonegawa-Kuji, R. and Hou, Y. and Hu, B. and Lorincz-Comi, N. and Pieper, A. A. and Tousi, B. and Leverenz, J. B. and Cheng, F.},
title = {{Efficacy and safety of passive immunotherapies targeting amyloid beta in Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis}},
journal = {PLoS medicine},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1371/journal.pmed.1004568},
pmid = {40163534},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004568}
}