Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39296920›Full record

ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)

Perspectives on the clinical use of anti-amyloid therapy for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: Insights from the fields of cancer, rheumatology, and neurology.

Gregory A Jicha, Erin L Abner, Elif P Coskun, Mark J Huffmyer, Thomas C Tucker, Peter T Nelson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Italian intersocietal recommendations for restructuring the diagnostic-therapeutic pathway for the implementation and appropriate use of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies in Alzheimer's disease.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Doxycycline: An essential tool for Alzheimer's disease.Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & pharmacotherapie · 2025
    Review
  7. Celebrating 40 years of the University of Kentucky Alzheimer's Disease Research Center.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

6 authors.

Gregory A JichaDepartments of Internal Medicine, Neurology and Pathology University of Kentucky College of Medicine Lexington Kentucky USA.
Erin L AbnerThe Markey Cancer Center, and the Sanders-Brown Center on Aging University of Kentucky Lexington Kentucky USA.
Elif P CoskunDepartments of Internal Medicine, Neurology and Pathology University of Kentucky College of Medicine Lexington Kentucky USA.
Mark J HuffmyerDepartments of Internal Medicine, Neurology and Pathology University of Kentucky College of Medicine Lexington Kentucky USA.
Thomas C TuckerThe Markey Cancer Center, and the Sanders-Brown Center on Aging University of Kentucky Lexington Kentucky USA.
Peter T NelsonDepartments of Internal Medicine, Neurology and Pathology University of Kentucky College of Medicine Lexington Kentucky USA.

Funding

University of Kentucky Alzheimer's Disease Research CenterP30AG072946 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI LINDA J VAN ELDIK · 2021 to 2026
$23.5M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG072946
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The advent of disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer's disease (AD) has raised many questions and debates in the field as to the clinical benefits, risks, and costs of such therapies. The controversies have resulted in the perception that many clinicians are apprehensive about prescribing these medications to their patient populations. There also remains widespread uncertainty as to the economic impact, cost benefit ratio, and safety oversight for use of these medications in standard clinical care settings. Methods: To contextualize such issues, the present study compared anti-amyloid biologic therapy (lecanemab) to four commonly used biologic agents in other fields, including trastuzumab for breast cancer, bevacizumab for lung cancer, etanercept for rheumatoid arthritis, and ocrelizumab for multiple sclerosis. Results: The data presented demonstrate comparable costs, clinical benefits, and risks for these biologic agents in their disparate disease states. Discussion: These results provide context for the costs, clinical benefits, and safety regarding the mainstream use of anti-amyloid biologic agents for the prevention of cognitive loss. While the era of disease-modifying therapies for AD is now in its infancy, there is an expectation that these discoveries will be followed by improved therapies and combination treatments leading to greater efficacy in ameliorating the clinical trajectory of AD. Highlights: Anti-amyloid therapy costs are comparable to other commonly used biologics.Anti-amyloid therapy efficacy is comparable to other commonly used biologics.Anti-amyloid therapy safety is compatible with other commonly used biologics.

Indexed as

Alzheimer's diseaseanti‐amyloid therapybiologic agentsmild cognitive impairment

Identifiers

PMID39296920
PMCPMC11409193

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.