Home › Research › Treatments
ENGAGE and EMERGE: Truth and consequences?
Kuller LH, Lopez OL.. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2021-03-03
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
The potential benefit of the anti-amyloid drug aducanumab based on results of recent EMERGE and ENGAGE clinical trials has generated great controversy and has very important implications for the future of anti-amyloid drug therapies. The two trials of 18-month duration were done in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early dementia. The ENGAGE trial showed no benefit while the high-dose EMERGE trial initially also showed no benefit but with longer follow-up there was a significant positive benefit. A recent review form the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Advisory Committee was negative while the FDA Office of Neurological Drugs was positive and the statisticians negative. This has generated debate about whether the drug should be approved, disapproved, require a new clinical trial, or approved for a subsample only. The implications for treating both MCI and Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients with anti-amyloid drugs is very substantial as well as the brain amyloid-AD-dementia hypothesis.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Kuller, L. H., & Lopez, O. L. (2021). ENGAGE and EMERGE: Truth and consequences? Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12286
Vancouver
Kuller LH, Lopez OL. ENGAGE and EMERGE: Truth and consequences? Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2021. doi:10.1002/alz.12286. PMID: 33656288.
BibTeX
@article{kuller2021-33656288,
author = {Kuller, L. H. and Lopez, O. L.},
title = {{ENGAGE and EMERGE: Truth and consequences?}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1002/alz.12286},
pmid = {33656288},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12286}
}
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
- The potential benefit of the anti-amyloid drug aducanumab based on results of recent EMERGE and ENGAGE clinical trials has generated great controversy and has very important implications for the future of anti-amyloid drug therapies.
- The ENGAGE trial showed no benefit while the high-dose EMERGE trial initially also showed no benefit but with longer follow-up there was a significant positive benefit.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 47/100
Published in a leading specialty 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 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 47 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association) |
| 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) |
| 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 33656288) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 27 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 47 out of 100. |
| Total | 47 / 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 “consequences”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “consequences”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.