Home › Research › Treatments
Evaluating emerging amyloid-β centric drugs for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease
Lozupone M, Dibello V, Sardone R, Zupo R, Castellana F, Bortone I, Lampignano L, Di Matteo M et al.. Expert opinion on emerging drugs, 2026-06-30
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Plain-language summary
Introduction The amyloid cascade hypothesis provided a compelling rationale for Alzheimer's disease (AD) drug development, but many amyloid-β (Aβ)-targeted agents failed to show benefit. The present review article evaluated emerging Aβ-directed therapies, focusing on mechanisms, clinical efficacy, safety, and regulatory progress. Areas covered The recent approvals of lecanemab and donanemab offered the first convincing evidence that reducing Aβ burden can modestly slow cognitive decline in early AD. Beyond these first-generation monoclonal antibodies, the pipeline includes next-generation antibodies with enhanced brain penetration (trontinemab), therapies designed also for presymptomatic intervention (remternetug tested for secondary prevention), and novel approaches targeting galectin-3 to disrupt Aβ aggregation and neuroinflammation. Active immunotherapies like UB-311 and small molecules such as ALZ-801, avoiding amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), broaden the therapeutic horizon with potentially safer and more accessible options, but with no proven efficacy. Expert opinion Clinical benefits for Aβ-centric therapies are modest, ARIA poses ongoing safety concerns, and high costs coupled with intensive monitoring limit accessibility. Regulators have begun to restrict approval to genetically defined subgroups according to apolipoprotein E genotype, underscoring the need for precision medicine. Therefore, while Aβ-centric therapies are incremental, they represent essential steps toward combination and precision strategies in the treatment of AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Lozupone, M., Dibello, V., Sardone, R., Zupo, R., Castellana, F., Bortone, I., et al. (2026). Evaluating emerging amyloid-β centric drugs for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. Expert opinion on emerging drugs. https://doi.org/10.1080/14728214.2026.2693701
Vancouver
Lozupone M, Dibello V, Sardone R, Zupo R, Castellana F, Bortone I, et al. Evaluating emerging amyloid-β centric drugs for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. Expert opinion on emerging drugs. 2026. doi:10.1080/14728214.2026.2693701. PMID: 42322185.
BibTeX
@article{lozupone2026-42322185,
author = {Lozupone, M. and Dibello, V. and Sardone, R. and Zupo, R. and Castellana, F. and Bortone, I. and Lampignano, L. and Di Matteo, M. and others},
title = {{Evaluating emerging amyloid-β centric drugs for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Expert opinion on emerging drugs},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.1080/14728214.2026.2693701},
pmid = {42322185},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/14728214.2026.2693701}
}
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's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Beyond these first-generation monoclonal antibodies, the pipeline includes next-generation antibodies with enhanced brain penetration (trontinemab), therapies designed also for presymptomatic intervention (remternetug tested for secondary prevention), and novel approaches targeting galectin-3 to disrupt Aβ aggregation and neuroinflammation.
- Active immunotherapies like UB-311 and small molecules such as ALZ-801, avoiding amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), broaden the therapeutic horizon with potentially safer and more accessible options, but with no proven efficacy.
- Expert opinion Clinical benefits for Aβ-centric therapies are modest, ARIA poses ongoing safety concerns, and high costs coupled with intensive monitoring limit accessibility.
- Regulators have begun to restrict approval to genetically defined subgroups according to apolipoprotein E genotype, underscoring the need for precision medicine.
- Therefore, while Aβ-centric therapies are incremental, they represent essential steps toward combination and precision strategies in the treatment of AD.
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 (Expert opinion on emerging 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 | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 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 42322185) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| 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.
Related studies in Treatments from nearby years
Also tagged “drug”
4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “drug”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.