Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Abstract We report the case of a 79-year-old woman in good general health aside from early-stage Alzheimer’s disease who was enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of the novel therapeutic monoclonal antibody lecanemab where she was treated with the placebo, and subsequently in the open label extension study where she received lecanemab infusions every two weeks. After the third infusion, she suffered a seizure followed by aphasia and progressively worsening encephalopathy. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed multifocal cerebral edema and an increased burden of cerebral microhemorrhages compared to pre-trial imaging, consistent with Amyloid Related Imaging Abnormality (ARIA). She was treated with an antiepileptic regimen and high-dose intravenous corticosteroids but continued to worsen and expired after five days in the hospital. The family requested an autopsy and consented to evaluation of her brain for research. Post-mortem MRI confirmed extensive microhemorrhagic changes in the temporal, parietal and occipital lobes, some of which were visible on gross inspection of the brain. Autopsy confirmed APOE genotype of E4/E4 and the presence of typical neuropathological features of Alzheimer’s disease along with severe cerebral amyloid angiopathy with inflammatory features, including perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates, reactive macrophages and fibrinoid degeneration of vessel walls. There were deposits of β-amyloid in meningeal vessels and penetrating arterioles with numerous microaneurysms. Cerebral microhemorrhages were associated with arterioles harboring β-amyloid deposits and having degenerative morphologies. We conclude from these results that the patient likely died as a result of severe cerebral amyloid angiopathy with marked microvascular degeneration and meningoencephalitis. Further study of the mechanism of ARIA and the neuropathological changes associated with plaque clearance are needed.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Schrag, M., Solopova, E., Romero-Fernandez, W., Harmsen, H., Antunes, L. V., Wang, E., et al. (2023). Fatal Iatrogenic Cerebral Amyloid-Related Encephalitis in a patient treated with lecanemab for Alzheimer’s disease: neuroimaging and neuropathology. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2865642/v1

Vancouver

Schrag M, Solopova E, Romero-Fernandez W, Harmsen H, Antunes LV, Wang E, et al. Fatal Iatrogenic Cerebral Amyloid-Related Encephalitis in a patient treated with lecanemab for Alzheimer’s disease: neuroimaging and neuropathology. Research Square. 2023. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2865642/v1.

BibTeX

@article{schrag2023-2f35ceff,
  author  = {Schrag, M. and Solopova, E. and Romero-Fernandez, W. and Harmsen, H. and Antunes, L. V. and Wang, E. and Maldonado, J. and Shostak, A. and others},
  title   = {{Fatal Iatrogenic Cerebral Amyloid-Related Encephalitis in a patient treated with lecanemab for Alzheimer’s disease: neuroimaging and neuropathology}},
  journal = {Research Square},
  year    = {2023},
  doi     = {10.21203/rs.3.rs-2865642/v1},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2865642/v1}
}

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

Study details

How this study scored 16/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 2 of 10; Journal's citation record 0 of 4; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 4 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 1 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 1 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 27 of the 62 points it could be judged on, which is 44 of 100. Raw total 44 of 100, shown as 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed research article.raw total 44 of 100capped at 16 — hatched points do not count

Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 44 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on 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 62 points we could judge it on, which is 44 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 2 / 10 Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Research Square)
Journal's citation record 0 / 4 Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count
Study design 11 / 12 A randomised controlled trial
Strength of evidence 5 / 5 Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation 4 / 10 Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server.
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 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 1 / 2 Randomised (as stated in the record)
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 1 / 2 Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 27 / 62 Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 44 out of 100.
Total 44 / 100 Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article.

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.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Treatments

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Treatments

See all studies in Treatments →