Home › Research › Treatments
Passive anti-amyloid β immunotherapy in Alzheimer's disease-opportunities and challenges
Michael T Heneka, David Morgan, Frank Jessen. Lancet (London, England), 2024-11-14
Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety
Plain-language summary
With the advent of the first disease-modifying, anti-amyloid β-directed passive immunotherapy for Alzheimer's disease, questions arise who, when, and how to treat. This paper describes shortly the pathogenic basis of and preclinical data, which have, more than two decades ago, initiated the development of this vaccination therapy. We discuss clinical trial results of aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab. We also review appropriate use recommendations of these novel treatments on patient selection and safety monitoring. Furthermore, estimations of numbers of patient who will qualify for treatment regarding inclusion and exclusion criteria and estimations on readiness of health-care systems for identifying the right patients and for providing the treatment are reported. In our view, we are experiencing a fundamental shift from syndrome-based Alzheimer's dementia care to early, biomarker-guided treatment of Alzheimer's disease. This shift requires substantial adjustments of infrastructure and resources, but also holds promise of eventually achieving substantial slowing of disease progression and delaying dementia.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Heneka, M. T., Morgan, D., & Jessen, F. (2024). Passive anti-amyloid β immunotherapy in Alzheimer's disease-opportunities and challenges. Lancet (London, England). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(24)01883-x
Vancouver
Heneka MT, Morgan D, Jessen F. Passive anti-amyloid β immunotherapy in Alzheimer's disease-opportunities and challenges. Lancet (London, England). 2024. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(24)01883-x. PMID: 39549715.
BibTeX
@article{heneka2024-39549715,
author = {Heneka, Michael T and Morgan, David and Jessen, Frank},
title = {{Passive anti-amyloid β immunotherapy in Alzheimer's disease-opportunities and challenges}},
journal = {Lancet (London, England)},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1016/s0140-6736(24)01883-x},
pmid = {39549715},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(24)01883-x}
}
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
- We discuss clinical trial results of aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a top-tier 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, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 27 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 10 / 10 | Tier 1 — top-tier general journal (Lancet (London, England)) |
| 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 | 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 39549715) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 27 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100. |
| Total | 48 / 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 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.