Home › Research › Treatments
Targeting Soluble Amyloid Oligomers in Alzheimer's Disease: A Hypothetical Model Study Comparing Intrathecal Pseudodelivery of mAbs Against Intravenous Administration
Menendez-Gonzalez M.. Diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 2025-01-16
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Background/objective Neurotoxic soluble amyloid-β (Aβ) oligomers are key drivers of Alzheimer's pathology, with evidence suggesting that early targeting of these soluble forms may slow disease progression. Traditional intravenous (IV) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) face challenges, including limited brain penetration and risks such as amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA). This hypothetical study aimed to model amyloid dynamics in early-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) and compare the efficacy of IV mAn with intrathecal pseudodelivery, a novel method that confines mAbs in a subcutaneous reservoir for selective amyloid clearance in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) without systemic exposure. Methods A mathematical framework was employed to simulate Aβ dynamics in patients with early-to-moderate AD. Two therapeutic approaches were compared: IV mAb and intrathecal pseudodelivery of mAb. The model incorporated amyloid kinetics, mAb affinity, protofibril size, and therapy-induced clearance rates to evaluate the impact of both methods on amyloid reduction, PET negativity timelines, and the risk of ARIA. Results Intrathecal pseudodelivery significantly accelerated Aβ clearance compared to IV administration, achieving amyloid PET scan negativity by month 132, as opposed to month 150 with IV mAb. This method demonstrated no ARIA risk and reduced amyloid reaccumulation. By targeting soluble Aβ species more effectively, intrathecal pseudodelivery emerged as a safer and more efficient strategy for early AD intervention. Conclusions Intrathecal pseudodelivery offers a promising alternative to IV mAbs, overcoming challenges associated with blood-brain barrier penetration and systemic side effects. Further research should focus on optimizing this approach and exploring combination therapies to enhance clinical outcomes in AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Menendez-Gonzalez, M. (2025). Targeting Soluble Amyloid Oligomers in Alzheimer's Disease: A Hypothetical Model Study Comparing Intrathecal Pseudodelivery of mAbs Against Intravenous Administration. Diseases (Basel, Switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/diseases13010017
Vancouver
Menendez-Gonzalez M. Targeting Soluble Amyloid Oligomers in Alzheimer's Disease: A Hypothetical Model Study Comparing Intrathecal Pseudodelivery of mAbs Against Intravenous Administration. Diseases (Basel, Switzerland). 2025. doi:10.3390/diseases13010017. PMID: 39851481.
BibTeX
@article{menendezgonzalez2025-39851481,
author = {Menendez-Gonzalez, M.},
title = {{Targeting Soluble Amyloid Oligomers in Alzheimer's Disease: A Hypothetical Model Study Comparing Intrathecal Pseudodelivery of mAbs Against Intravenous Administration}},
journal = {Diseases (Basel, Switzerland)},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.3390/diseases13010017},
pmid = {39851481},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3390/diseases13010017}
}
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
- Background/objective Neurotoxic soluble amyloid-β (Aβ) oligomers are key drivers of Alzheimer's pathology, with evidence suggesting that early targeting of these soluble forms may slow disease progression.
- Results Intrathecal pseudodelivery significantly accelerated Aβ clearance compared to IV administration, achieving amyloid PET scan negativity by month 132, as opposed to month 150 with IV mAb.
- This method demonstrated no ARIA risk and reduced amyloid reaccumulation.
- Conclusions Intrathecal pseudodelivery offers a promising alternative to IV mAbs, overcoming challenges associated with blood-brain barrier penetration and systemic side effects.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 45/100
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 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Diseases (Basel, Switzerland)) |
| 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 | 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 | 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 39851481) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 26 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100. |
| Total | 45 / 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 “hypothetical”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “hypothetical”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.