Home › Research › Treatments
Vascular Considerations for Amyloid Immunotherapy
Foley KE, Wilcock DM.. Current neurology and neuroscience reports, 2022-10-21
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Purpose of review Amyloid beta (Aβ) plaque accumulation is a hallmark pathology contributing to Alzheimer's disease (AD) and is widely hypothesized to lead to cognitive decline. Decades of research into anti-Aβ immunotherapies provide evidence for increased Aβ clearance from the brain; however, this is frequently accompanied by complicated vascular deficits. This article reviews the history of anti-Aβ immunotherapies and clinical findings and provides recommendations moving forward. Recent findings In 20 years of both animal and human studies, anti-Aβ immunotherapies have been a prevalent avenue of reducing hallmark Aβ plaques. In both models and with different anti-Aβ antibody designs, amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) indicating severe cerebrovascular compromise have been common and concerning occurrence. ARIA caused by anti-Aβ immunotherapy has been noted since the early 2000s, and the mechanisms driving it are still unknown. Recent approval of aducanumab comes with renewed urgency to consider vascular deficits caused by anti-Aβ immunotherapy.
Key findings
- This article reviews the history of anti-Aβ immunotherapies and clinical findings and provides recommendations moving forward.
- Recent findings In 20 years of both animal and human studies, anti-Aβ immunotherapies have been a prevalent avenue of reducing hallmark Aβ plaques.
- In both models and with different anti-Aβ antibody designs, amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) indicating severe cerebrovascular compromise have been common and concerning occurrence.
- ARIA caused by anti-Aβ immunotherapy has been noted since the early 2000s, and the mechanisms driving it are still unknown.
- Recent approval of aducanumab comes with renewed urgency to consider vascular deficits caused by anti-Aβ immunotherapy.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 40/100
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 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Current neurology and neuroscience reports) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 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 36269539) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 23 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100. |
| Total | 40 / 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
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.
APA 7th
Foley, K. E., & Wilcock, D. M. (2022). Vascular Considerations for Amyloid Immunotherapy. Current neurology and neuroscience reports. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11910-022-01235-1
Vancouver
Foley KE, Wilcock DM. Vascular Considerations for Amyloid Immunotherapy. Current neurology and neuroscience reports. 2022. doi:10.1007/s11910-022-01235-1. PMID: 36269539.
BibTeX
@article{foley2022-36269539,
author = {Foley, K. E. and Wilcock, D. M.},
title = {{Vascular Considerations for Amyloid Immunotherapy}},
journal = {Current neurology and neuroscience reports},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1007/s11910-022-01235-1},
pmid = {36269539},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11910-022-01235-1}
}