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.

71/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

The most significant adverse events associated with these therapies are infusion-related reactions and amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) with edema/effusion (ARIA-E) and/or hemorrhage/hemosiderin deposition (ARIA-H). Results The 234 patients treated with lecanemab had a mean age of 74.4 (SD, 6.7) years, 117 were female (50%), and 117 were male (50%). Overall, 23 of 234 patients (9.8%) withdrew from treatment for various reasons, 10 for ARIA (4.3%). The frequency of significant adverse events, including ARIA, was manageable. These results may inform discussions about the risks of anti-amyloid treatments.

Key findings

The most significant adverse events associated with these therapies are infusion-related reactions and amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) with edema/effusion (ARIA-E) and/or hemorrhage/hemosiderin deposition (ARIA-H).
Results The 234 patients treated with lecanemab had a mean age of 74.4 (SD, 6.7) years, 117 were female (50%), and 117 were male (50%).
Overall, 23 of 234 patients (9.8%) withdrew from treatment for various reasons, 10 for ARIA (4.3%).
The frequency of significant adverse events, including ARIA, was manageable.
These results may inform discussions about the risks of anti-amyloid treatments.

Why it matters

In this memory clinic cohort of 234 patients treated with lecanemab, the frequency of significant adverse events, including ARIA, was manageable. These results may inform discussions about the risks of anti-amyloid treatments.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →

Study details

Study designcohort
Participants234
Effect sizeARIA 22%; symptomatic ARIA 5.7% overall, 27% in mild dementia vs 1.8% in MCI/very mild dementia
Evidence strengthModerate

Limitations

Single academic centre with extensive infrastructure; retrospective; mean follow-up only 6.5 months; no comparison group.

How this study scored 71/100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on free to read, so that was left out: it earned 70 of the 98 points we could judge it on, which is 71 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (JAMA Neurology)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	JAMA Neurology: journal h-index 235 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	7 / 12	A cohort study following people over time
Strength of evidence	3 / 5	Rated “moderate” 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	2 / 4	234 participants
Effect reported	2 / 3	Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded	0 / 2	No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	5 / 7	Cited 106 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	4 / 5	35.3 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
Impact for its field and year	6 / 6	Cited 57.9× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	3 / 6	Cited by 11 other studies in this library
Still being cited	3 / 4	Cited 106 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	2 / 4	Last-listed author B. Joy Snider: h-index 28 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	2 / 3	Washington University in St. Louis: institution h-index 1,962 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	1 / 3	OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40354064)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	70 / 98	Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 70 of the 98 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100.
Total	71 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — PubMed Central lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 10 Oct 2026).

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's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Paczynski, M., Hofmann, A., Posey, Z., Gregersen, M., Rudman, M., Ellington, D., et al. (2025). Lecanemab Treatment in a Specialty Memory Clinic. JAMA Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2025.1232

Vancouver

Paczynski M, Hofmann A, Posey Z, Gregersen M, Rudman M, Ellington D, et al. Lecanemab Treatment in a Specialty Memory Clinic. JAMA Neurology. 2025. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2025.1232. PMID: 40354064.

BibTeX

@article{paczynski2025-40354064,
  author  = {Paczynski, M. and Hofmann, A. and Posey, Z. and Gregersen, M. and Rudman, M. and Ellington, D. and Aldinger, M. and Musiek, E. S. and Holtzman, D. M. and Bateman, R. J. and others},
  title   = {{Lecanemab Treatment in a Specialty Memory Clinic}},
  journal = {JAMA Neurology},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1001/jamaneurol.2025.1232},
  pmid    = {40354064},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2025.1232}
}

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 19.

Later studies that cite this one

11 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.

Related studies in Treatments

Similar studies

More on Treatments

Where this led: Lecanemab on the treatments page — its current status, approval date, side-effect rate and list price, kept up to date.

See all studies in Treatments →