Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38253509›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of family medicine

Clinically Important Benefits and Harms of Monoclonal Antibodies Targeting Amyloid for the Treatment of Alzheimer Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Mark H Ebell, Henry C Barry, Kanishka Baduni, Gabrielle Grasso

Open access · diamondAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
26.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mark H EbellDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Public Health, the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia ebell@uga.edu.
Henry C BarryDepartment of Family Medicine, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
Kanishka BaduniDepartment of Kinesiology, College of Education, the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Gabrielle GrassoDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Public Health, the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
University of Georgia · USMichigan State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate clinically meaningful benefits and harms of monoclonal antibodies targeting amyloid in patients with Alzheimer dementia.

methodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and 5 trial registries, as well as the reference lists of identified studies. We included randomized controlled trials comparing a monoclonal antibody with placebo at a dose consistent with that used in phase 3 trials or for Food and Drug Administration approval. Studies had to report at least 1 clinically relevant benefit or harm. Data were extracted independently by at least 2 researchers for random effects meta-analysis. Changes in cognitive and functional scales were compared between groups, and each difference was assessed to determine if it met the minimal clinically important difference (MCID).

resultsWe identified 19 publications with 23,202 total participants that evaluated 8 anti-amyloid antibodies. There were small improvements over placebo in the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS)-Cog-11 to -14 score (standardized mean difference = -0.07; 95% CI, -0.10 to -0.04), Mini Mental State Examination score (0.32 points; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.50), and Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes scale score (mean difference =-0.18 points; 95% CI, -0.34 to -0.03), and the combined functional scores (standardized mean difference = 0.09; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.13). None of the changes, including those for lecanemab, aducanumab, and donanemab, exceeded the MCID. Harms included significantly increased risks of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA)-edema (relative risk [RR] = 10.29; number needed to harm [NNH] = 9), ARIA-hemorrhage (RR = 1.74; NNH = 13), and symptomatic ARIA-edema (RR = 24.3; NNH = 86).

conclusionsAlthough monoclonal antibodies targeting amyloid provide small benefits on cognitive and functional scales in patients with Alzheimer dementia, these improvements are far below the MCID for each outcome and are accompanied by clinically meaningful harms.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntibodies, MonoclonalEdemaHumansMental Status and Dementia TestsUnited StatesAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizeddonanemabaducanumabagedAlzheimer dementiaAlzheimer diseaseamyloidantibodies, monoclonalARIAbiological therapycerebral edemacerebral hemorrhagechronic diseasedementiadonanemabdrug approvallecanemabmeta-analysisrisks and benefitssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38253509
PMCPMC11233076
OpenAlexW4391116469

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.