Home › Research › Treatments
Gantenerumab for Early Alzheimer's Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Muhammad Nouman Javed, Saim Mahmood Khan, Smaher Mustafa, Amna Mujtaba, Hassaan Amin, Naveen Azhar, Abdullah Hameed, Alaa Zayed et al.. Brain and behavior, 2026-08
Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety
Six trials (3103 Gantenerumab significantly reduces amyloid and statistically improves select functional (FAQ) and cognitive (ADAS-Cog13) measures in early AD; however, these changes remain below accepted MCID thresholds, indicating a lack of true clinical meaningfulness. Combined with its failure to enhance global cognition and an increased ARIA risk, routine clinical use is not supported.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Javed, M. N., Khan, S. M., Mustafa, S., Mujtaba, A., Amin, H., Azhar, N., et al. (2026). Gantenerumab for Early Alzheimer's Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Brain and behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.71643
Vancouver
Javed MN, Khan SM, Mustafa S, Mujtaba A, Amin H, Azhar N, et al. Gantenerumab for Early Alzheimer's Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Brain and behavior. 2026. doi:10.1002/brb3.71643. PMID: 42605139.
BibTeX
@article{javed2026-42605139,
author = {Javed, Muhammad Nouman and Khan, Saim Mahmood and Mustafa, Smaher and Mujtaba, Amna and Amin, Hassaan and Azhar, Naveen and Hameed, Abdullah and Zayed, Alaa and others},
title = {{Gantenerumab for Early Alzheimer's Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis}},
journal = {Brain and behavior},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.1002/brb3.71643},
pmid = {42605139},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.71643}
}
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
- Six trials (3103 Gantenerumab significantly reduces amyloid and statistically improves select functional (FAQ) and cognitive (ADAS-Cog13) measures in early AD; however, these changes remain below accepted MCID thresholds, indicating a lack of true clinical meaningfulness.
- Combined with its failure to enhance global cognition and an increased ARIA risk, routine clinical use is not supported.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Participants3,103
- Effect sizeRR = 5.51; RR = 1.73; RR = 2.15
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 89/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. 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 50 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 89 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Brain and behavior) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| 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 | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 3,103 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 42605139) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 50 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 50 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 89 out of 100. |
| Total | 89 / 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 “monoclonal”
332 studies in the library carry the topic tag “monoclonal”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 332 tagged studies.