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.

46/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers

Plain-language summary

Host responses to anti-amyloid-β (Aβ) antibody therapy are evident in neuroimaging changes and clinical symptoms in a subset of clinical trial subjects receiving such therapy. The pathological basis for the imaging changes and clinical symptoms is not known, nor is the precise mechanism of Aβ clearing. We report the autopsy findings in a 65-year-old woman who received three open label infusions of the experimental anti-Aβ drug lecanemab over about one month. Four days after the last infusion, she was treated with tissue plasminogen activator for acute stroke symptoms and died several days later with multifocal hemorrhage. Neuropathological examination demonstrated histiocytic vasculitis involving blood vessels with cerebral amyloid angiopathy. Fragmentation and phagocytosis of vascular Aβ were present throughout the cerebral cortex. Phagocytosis of parenchymal Aβ plaques was noted. Changes suggestive of Aβ and phosphorylated tau "clearing" were also noted. The findings overall suggest that anti-Aβ treatment stimulated a host response to Aβ, i.e., target engagement. The findings also provide evidence that amyloid-related imaging abnormalities might be indicative of an Aβ phagocytic syndrome within cerebral vasculature and parenchymal brain tissue in some cases.

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

APA 7th

Castellani, R. J., Shanes, E. D., McCord, M., Reish, N. J., Flanagan, M. E., Mesulam, M.-M., et al. (2023). Neuropathology of Anti-Amyloid-β Immunotherapy: A Case Report. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-221305

Vancouver

Castellani RJ, Shanes ED, McCord M, Reish NJ, Flanagan ME, Mesulam M.-M, et al. Neuropathology of Anti-Amyloid-β Immunotherapy: A Case Report. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2023. doi:10.3233/jad-221305. PMID: 37125554.

BibTeX

@article{castellani2023-37125554,
  author  = {Castellani, Rudolph J and Shanes, Elisheva D and McCord, Matthew and Reish, Nicholas J and Flanagan, Margaret E and Mesulam, M-Marsel and Jamshidi, Pouya},
  title   = {{Neuropathology of Anti-Amyloid-β Immunotherapy: A Case Report}},
  journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
  year    = {2023},
  doi     = {10.3233/jad-221305},
  pmid    = {37125554},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-221305}
}

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 names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Neuropathological examination demonstrated histiocytic vasculitis involving blood vessels with cerebral amyloid angiopathy.
The findings overall suggest that anti-Aβ treatment stimulated a host response to Aβ, i.e., target engagement.

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

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 46/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported 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, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 46 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (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	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	3 / 3	Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study)
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 37125554)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	26 / 56	Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 46 out of 100.
Total	46 / 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.

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

Related studies in Treatments from nearby years

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.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Treatments

See all studies in Treatments →