Home › Research › Treatments
More failure with solanezumab - this time in preclinical Alzheimer's disease
Doggrell SA.. Expert opinion on biological therapy, 2024-03-03
Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety
Introduction There is no cure for Alzheimer's disease, which is the sixth leading cause of death in the USA. Lecanemab is anti-Aβ monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of early Alzheimer's disease but is only marginally effective. Other antibodies are being developed including solanezumab. Areas covered A phase 3 clinical trial of solanezumab in preclinical Alzheimer's disease. In the A4 study, solanezumab did not reduce the decline in cognition or function and had no effect on brain amyloid burden. Expert opinion After the poor results in the EXPEDITION series of trials, the development of solanezumab should have been terminated. The rationale for undertaking the A4 trial was questionable, and the lack of benefit was probable. The controversial approval of two anti-Aβ monoclonal antibodies (aducanumab and lecanemab) for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), despite a high incidence of amyloid-related imagining abnormalities (ARIA), may be fueling this continuation of clinical development of agents such as solanezumab. The lesson from the A4 trial is that more careful/realistic consideration needs to be given before embarking on further phase 3 trials with anti-Aβ monoclonal antibodies.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Doggrell, S. A. (2024). More failure with solanezumab - this time in preclinical Alzheimer's disease. Expert opinion on biological therapy. https://doi.org/10.1080/14712598.2024.2325551
Vancouver
Doggrell SA. More failure with solanezumab - this time in preclinical Alzheimer's disease. Expert opinion on biological therapy. 2024. doi:10.1080/14712598.2024.2325551. PMID: 38414336.
BibTeX
@article{doggrell2024-38414336,
author = {Doggrell, S. A.},
title = {{More failure with solanezumab - this time in preclinical Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Expert opinion on biological therapy},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1080/14712598.2024.2325551},
pmid = {38414336},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/14712598.2024.2325551}
}
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.
Key findings
- Expert opinion After the poor results in the EXPEDITION series of trials, the development of solanezumab should have been terminated.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designclinical trial
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
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 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Expert opinion on biological therapy) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | Design recorded as “clinical trial”, which our rubric does not rank (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 | 4 / 5 | 2024 — 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) |
| 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 38414336) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 24 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 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.