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. Health systems and care delivery

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

The advancement of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for Alzheimer's disease (AD), along with the approval of three amyloid-targeting therapies in the US and several other countries, represents a significant development in the treatment landscape, offering new hope for addressing this once untreatable chronic progressive disease. However, significant challenges persist that could impede the successful integration of this class of drugs into clinical practice. These challenges include determining patient eligibility, appropriate use of diagnostic tools and genetic testing in patient care pathways, effective detection and monitoring of side effects, and improving the healthcare system's readiness by engaging both primary care and dementia specialists. Additionally, there are logistical concerns related to infrastructure, as well as cost-effectiveness and reimbursement issues. This article brings together insights from a diverse group of international researchers and dementia experts and outlines the potential challenges and opportunities, urging all stakeholders to prepare for the introduction of DMTs. We emphasize the need to develop appropriate use criteria, including patient characteristics, specifically for the European healthcare system, to ensure that treatments are administered to the most suitable patients. It is crucial to improve the skills and knowledge of physicians to accurately interpret biomarker results, share decision-making with patients, recognize treatment-related side effects, and monitor long-term treatment. We advocate for investment in patient registries and unbiased follow-up studies to better understand treatment effectiveness, evaluate treatment-related side effects, and optimize long-term treatment. Utilizing amyloid-targeting therapies as a starting point for combination therapies should also be a priority.

What this study adds

Evidence grade: Low

Taken from this record’s own fields, not from reading the paper. The grade is assigned from the abstract’s wording; what that means.

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

APA 7th

Sandar, A., Gunilla, J., Christoph, H., Lars, L., Sims John, R., Kaj, B., et al. (2025). Point of view: Challenges in implementation of new immunotherapies for Alzheimer's disease. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjpad.2024.100022

Vancouver

Sandar A, Gunilla J, Christoph H, Lars L, Sims John R, Kaj B, et al. Point of view: Challenges in implementation of new immunotherapies for Alzheimer's disease. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease. 2025. doi:10.1016/j.tjpad.2024.100022. PMID: 39800469.

BibTeX

@article{sandar2025-39800469,
  author  = {Sandar, Aye and Gunilla, Johansson and Christoph, Hock and Lars, Lannfelt and Sims John, R. and Kaj, Blennow and Frederiksen Kristian, S. and Caroline, Graff and others},
  title   = {{Point of view: Challenges in implementation of new immunotherapies for Alzheimer's disease}},
  journal = {The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.tjpad.2024.100022},
  pmid    = {39800469},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjpad.2024.100022}
}

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.

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

The advancement of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for Alzheimer's disease (AD), along with the approval of three amyloid-targeting therapies in the US and several other countries, represents a significant development in the treatment landscape, offering new hope for addressing this once untreatable chronic progressive disease.
However, significant challenges persist that could impede the successful integration of this class of drugs into clinical practice.
It is crucial to improve the skills and knowledge of physicians to accurately interpret biomarker results, share decision-making with patients, recognize treatment-related side effects, and monitor long-term treatment.

Why it matters

This is an expert opinion piece, not a study. International dementia researchers say new amyloid-targeting drugs face practical hurdles: deciding who is eligible, using diagnostic and genetic tests, monitoring side effects, getting primary care and specialists ready, and cost and reimbursement. They call for treatment-use criteria built for Europe, better physician training in reading biomarker results and sharing decisions with patients, and patient registries with unbiased follow-up. It reports no new treatment results.

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, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here and still being cited, so those were left out: it earned 33 of the 72 points we could judge it on, which is 46 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease)
Journal's citation record	0 / 4	The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer s Disease: journal h-index 63 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
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	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)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	— / 7	Citation count not trusted: 11 of 44 library studies citing it were published more than a year before it - a sign OpenAlex merged several works under this DOI — left out of this score
Citations per year	— / 5	Citation count not trusted (see above) — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year	— / 6	Citation count not trusted (see above) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here	— / 6	Library citations not trusted (see above) — left out of this score
Still being cited	— / 4	Citation count not trusted (see above) — left out of this score
Senior author's track record	4 / 4	Last-listed author Bengt G. Winblad: h-index 171 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	2 / 3	University College London: institution h-index 2,029 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	3 / 3	OpenAlex lists 27 institution(s) in 11 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39800469)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	33 / 72	Scored on 15 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 72 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.

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 17.

Later studies that cite this one

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

Related studies in Health systems and care delivery from nearby years

Also in Health systems and care delivery

172 studies in the library are filed under Health systems and care delivery with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Health systems and care delivery hub.

Similar studies

More on Health systems and care delivery

See all studies in Health systems and care delivery →