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.

63/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety

Plain-language summary

Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) occurred in 11.2% (10/89) with lecanemab and 13.3% (11/83) with donanemab-less than in pivotal trials. Modified donanemab titration reduced ARIA versus the original protocol (8.1% vs 28.6%; p = 0.03) and TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 6 (23.6%). No anaphylaxis occurred. Surveillance magnetic resonance imaging captured 95.2% of ARIA events. Within-center comparison showed comparable safety between lecanemab and modified-titration donanemab (all p's > 0.40). IRRs occurred in 12.0% (donanemab) and 9.0% (lecanemab). In a real-world cohort representing patients excluded from trials, ARIA and IRR rates matched or improved upon pivotal trials, supporting safe ATT use under FDA-approved MRI intervals.

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

APA 7th

Hakim, R., Harris, K., Merrill, L., Falk-Vargas, A., Whalen, E., Xia, T., et al. (2026). Real-world evidence for amyloid-targeted therapies: Lecanemab and donanemab. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.70404

Vancouver

Hakim R, Harris K, Merrill L, Falk-Vargas A, Whalen E, Xia T, et al. Real-world evidence for amyloid-targeted therapies: Lecanemab and donanemab. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2026. doi:10.1002/dad2.70404. PMID: 42661728.

BibTeX

@article{hakim2026-42661728,
  author  = {Hakim, Ryan and Harris, Kristofer and Merrill, Livia and Falk-Vargas, Amanda and Whalen, Eileen and Xia, Tianxu and Ochoa, Olga and Hunter, David and others},
  title   = {{Real-world evidence for amyloid-targeted therapies: Lecanemab and donanemab}},
  journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.1002/dad2.70404},
  pmid    = {42661728},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.70404}
}

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 lists 89 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record reports “72.7%; 11.2%; 13.3%”. A statistically significant result can still be small in daily life.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded moderate. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Moderate means the abstract mentions a cohort, case-control or longitudinal design. 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

Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) occurred in 11.2% (10/89) with lecanemab and 13.3% (11/83) with donanemab-less than in pivotal trials.
Modified donanemab titration reduced ARIA versus the original protocol (8.1% vs 28.6%; p = 0.03) and TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 6 (23.6%).
Surveillance magnetic resonance imaging captured 95.2% of ARIA events.
Within-center comparison showed comparable safety between lecanemab and modified-titration donanemab (all p's > 0.40).
IRRs occurred in 12.0% (donanemab) and 9.0% (lecanemab).

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

Study details

Participants89
Effect size72.7%; 11.2%; 13.3%
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 63/100

Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design 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 35 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 63 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands))
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	3 / 5	Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	5 / 5	2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	1 / 4	89 participants
Effect reported	2 / 3	Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
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 42661728)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	35 / 56	Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 35 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 63 out of 100.
Total	63 / 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

Where this led: Lecanemab on the treatments page — its current status, approval date, side-effect rate and list price, kept up to date.

See all studies in Treatments →