Home › Research › Treatments
Spontaneous and Drug-Induced Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities: Overlaps, Divergences, and Clinical Implications Across a Continuum Between Alzheimer's Disease and Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy
Zedde M, Losa M, Grisafi E, Lucia DD, Gandoglia I, Del Sette M, Pardini M, Roccatagliata L et al.. Biomolecules, 2026-01-05
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Background Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) have gained significance in the context of anti-amyloid therapies (AATs), exhibiting clinical and radiological manifestations that overlap with Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy-related inflammation (CAA-ri). This review aims to elucidate the similarities and differences between spontaneous (sARIA) and drug-induced ARIA (dARIA). Methods We conducted a narrative review comparing sARIA and dARIA, focusing on their underlying mechanisms, clinical presentations, and implications for diagnosis and treatment. Results Both sARIA and dARIA are characterized by similar pathophysiological mechanisms involving amyloid deposits and neuroinflammation. Notably, ARIA can manifest as ARIA-E (edema) or ARIA-H (hemorrhage), with varying incidence rates in clinical trials. The review highlights that while sARIA occurs independently from treatment, dARIA is associated with AAT and can lead to significant symptomatic presentations. Conclusions Understanding the continuum between sARIA and dARIA is crucial for improving diagnostic criteria, risk stratification, and therapeutic approaches. The proposed unified framework emphasizes the need for consensus in managing these conditions and advancing future research in amyloid-related diseases.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Zedde, M., Losa, M., Grisafi, E., Lucia, D. D., Gandoglia, I., Del Sette, M., et al. (2026). Spontaneous and Drug-Induced Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities: Overlaps, Divergences, and Clinical Implications Across a Continuum Between Alzheimer's Disease and Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy. Biomolecules. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom16010089
Vancouver
Zedde M, Losa M, Grisafi E, Lucia DD, Gandoglia I, Del Sette M, et al. Spontaneous and Drug-Induced Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities: Overlaps, Divergences, and Clinical Implications Across a Continuum Between Alzheimer's Disease and Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy. Biomolecules. 2026. doi:10.3390/biom16010089. PMID: 41594629.
BibTeX
@article{zedde2026-41594629,
author = {Zedde, M. and Losa, M. and Grisafi, E. and Lucia, D. D. and Gandoglia, I. and Del Sette, M. and Pardini, M. and Roccatagliata, L. and others},
title = {{Spontaneous and Drug-Induced Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities: Overlaps, Divergences, and Clinical Implications Across a Continuum Between Alzheimer's Disease and Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy}},
journal = {Biomolecules},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.3390/biom16010089},
pmid = {41594629},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3390/biom16010089}
}
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.
Key findings
- Results Both sARIA and dARIA are characterized by similar pathophysiological mechanisms involving amyloid deposits and neuroinflammation.
- The review highlights that while sARIA occurs independently from treatment, dARIA is associated with AAT and can lead to significant symptomatic presentations.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designnarrative review
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 47/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / 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 multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 47 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Biomolecules) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | Design recorded as “narrative review”, 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 | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 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) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation 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 |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41594629) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 27 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 47 out of 100. |
| Total | 47 / 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.