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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety

Alzheimer's disease, a progressive neurodegenerative pathology, is characterized by the accumulation of Amyloid-β plaques in the brain. Lecanemab (BAN2401), a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody, binds with high affinity to Amyloid-β protofibrils. It is the first monoclonal antibody for Alzheimer's disease to receive full FDA approval. This systematic review, conducted meticulously, examines the current use and safety of Lecanemab in treating Alzheimer's disease. We screened literature from databases such as PubMed Central, PubMed (MedLine), ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, and Wolters Kluwer for randomized controlled trials testing Lecanemab for cognitive decline in patients with mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease. Outcomes measured included CDR-SB, ADCOMS, ADAS-Cog, and Amyloid burden on PET in centiloids. Likewise, reports were analyzed for adverse events associated with ARIA-A and ARIA-H. Five papers were included in the systematic review and three in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that Lecanemab slowed the progression of cognitive impairment as measured by CDR-SB, ADCOMS, and ADASCog, and significantly reduced Amyloid burden on PET in centiloids. However, Lecanemab was associated with an increased risk of ARIA-E and ARIA-H. Lecanemab has demonstrated efficacy in slowing cognitive impairment progression in Alzheimer's disease as measured by ADCOMS, ADAS-Cog, and CDR-SB. However, it is associated with an increased risk of ARIA-E and ARIA-H, particularly in ApoE4 carriers.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 69/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 12 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 4 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 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 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 40 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 69 of 100. Total 69 of 100.40 of the 58 points we could judge = 69 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people 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 40 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 69 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Ageing research reviews)
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 4 / 5 2025 — within 3 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 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 39638097)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 40 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 40 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 69 out of 100.
Total 69 / 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.

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. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Arroyo-Pacheco, N., Sarmiento-Blanco, S., Vergara-Cadavid, G., Castro-Leones, M., & Contreras-Puentes, N. (2025). Monoclonal therapy with lecanemab in the treatment of mild Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing research reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2024.102620

Vancouver

Arroyo-Pacheco N, Sarmiento-Blanco S, Vergara-Cadavid G, Castro-Leones M, Contreras-Puentes N. Monoclonal therapy with lecanemab in the treatment of mild Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing research reviews. 2025. doi:10.1016/j.arr.2024.102620. PMID: 39638097.

BibTeX

@article{arroyopacheco2025-39638097,
  author  = {Arroyo-Pacheco, N. and Sarmiento-Blanco, S. and Vergara-Cadavid, G. and Castro-Leones, M. and Contreras-Puentes, N.},
  title   = {{Monoclonal therapy with lecanemab in the treatment of mild Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis}},
  journal = {Ageing research reviews},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.arr.2024.102620},
  pmid    = {39638097},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2024.102620}
}

Related studies in Treatments

Also tagged “aducanumab”

332 studies in the library carry the topic tag “aducanumab”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 332 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Treatments

See all studies in Treatments →