Home › Research › Treatments
Structural and Functional Determinants of ARIA-H Risk in Anti-Amyloid Monoclonal Antibodies: A Comparative Mechanistic Framework for Alzheimer's Immunotherapy Development
An D, Zou X, Xu Y.. Current neuropharmacology, 2026-01-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Introduction Amyloid-beta-targeting monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for Alzheimer's disease frequently induce amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with hemorrhage (ARIA-H), yet systematic comparisons of ARIA-H incidence across therapeutic agents remain limited. Post-approval research prioritizes dosing over mechanism, leaving unresolved whether ARIA-H variations originate from intrinsic mAb properties. We address two gaps: comparative ARIA-H risk stratification among clinically available/investigational mAbs, and elucidation of structural/functional features influencing ARIA-H susceptibility. Methods A systematic comparison of seven mAbs (donanemab, aducanumab, bapineuzumab, lecanemab, gantenerumab, crenezumab, solanezumab) was conducted, analyzing clinical trial data and molecular characteristics. Results ARIA-H incidence ranked as follows (highest to lowest): donanemab > aducanumab > bapineuzumab > lecanemab > gantenerumab > crenezumab > solanezumab. Five mAb-specific determinants emerged: (1) Types of Aβ Binding: Enhanced clearance of mature amyloid plaques correlated with elevated ARIA-H risk. (2) Polymer binding Affinity: Reduced small oligomer-binding capacity predicted higher ARIA-H incidence. (3) Epitope location: N-terminal-targeting mAbs showed greater ARIA-H incidence vs. mid/C-terminal binders. (4) Fc region structure: IgG4-based constructs showed higher ARIA-H incidence than IgG1 analogs. (5) Clearance kinetics: Rapid attainment of amyloid reduction thresholds amplified ARIA-H incidence. Discussion We identify a risk hierarchy for ARIA-H among anti-Aβ mAbs and link specific mAb biophysical properties-Aβ binding type, affinity for soluble oligomers, epitope specificity, Fc structure, and plaque clearance dynamics-directly to ARIA-H pathogenesis. Conclusion These findings establish a mechanistic framework for ARIA-H risk and provide concrete molecular predictors to guide antibody engineering strategies. Prioritizing mAbs with controlled amyloid clearance, C-terminal binding domains, and IgG1 frameworks may enhance therapeutic safety, advancing precision immunotherapy for Alzheimer's disease.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
An, D., Zou, X., & Xu, Y. (2026). Structural and Functional Determinants of ARIA-H Risk in Anti-Amyloid Monoclonal Antibodies: A Comparative Mechanistic Framework for Alzheimer's Immunotherapy Development. Current neuropharmacology. https://doi.org/10.2174/011570159x391766250806091602
Vancouver
An D, Zou X, Xu Y. Structural and Functional Determinants of ARIA-H Risk in Anti-Amyloid Monoclonal Antibodies: A Comparative Mechanistic Framework for Alzheimer's Immunotherapy Development. Current neuropharmacology. 2026. doi:10.2174/011570159x391766250806091602. PMID: 40917029.
BibTeX
@article{an2026-40917029,
author = {An, D. and Zou, X. and Xu, Y.},
title = {{Structural and Functional Determinants of ARIA-H Risk in Anti-Amyloid Monoclonal Antibodies: A Comparative Mechanistic Framework for Alzheimer's Immunotherapy Development}},
journal = {Current neuropharmacology},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.2174/011570159x391766250806091602},
pmid = {40917029},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2174/011570159x391766250806091602}
}
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
- Results ARIA-H incidence ranked as follows (highest to lowest): donanemab > aducanumab > bapineuzumab > lecanemab > gantenerumab > crenezumab > solanezumab.
- Conclusion These findings establish a mechanistic framework for ARIA-H risk and provide concrete molecular predictors to guide antibody engineering strategies.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- 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 (Current neuropharmacology) |
| 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 | 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 40917029) |
| 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.
Related studies in Treatments
Also tagged “mechanistic”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “mechanistic”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.