ReviewArquivos de neuro-psiquiatria2025
Amyloid immunotherapy for Alzheimer's disease: the case for cautious adoption.
Review in Arquivos de neuro-psiquiatria, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The past, present, and future of Alzheimer's disease-part 3: the future.Arquivos de neuro-psiquiatria · 2026Review
- Disease modifying treatments for Alzheimer's disease: Clinician perspectives.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2026Article
- Incidence of altered proteins in the aging brain: Implications for biological diagnostic markers.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2026Article
- Monoclonal antibodies and small molecules: on the cutting edge of Alzheimer's disease therapy.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Antiamyloid therapies for Alzheimer's disease: an experts' dialogue on facts and controversies.Arquivos de neuro-psiquiatria · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The licensing of lecanemab and donanemab, disease-modifying immunotherapies for Alzheimer's disease (AD) targeting β-amyloid pathology, has been met with difference in opinion about efficacy, adverse effects, and cost-effectiveness. Here we summarize the current situation and make the case for cautious adoption of these treatments into clinical practice. This opinion is predicated on four main observations: 1) these treatments impact the core pathologies of AD and result in meaningful benefits; 2) while adverse effects can be serious, these are proving manageable in clinical practice; 3) upscaling services to deliver these agents is likely to provide wider benefits for diagnosing and treating dementia and facilitating the adoption of future treatments from the dementia drug pipeline; and 4) factoring in both the wider societal cost of care and potential for continued accrual of long term benefits will be likely to bring these treatments within acceptable cost-effectiveness thresholds.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.