ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2026
Incidence of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities and health resource utilization in patients with Alzheimer disease receiving monoclonal antibody treatments: A real-world evidence study.
Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAll recently approved monoclonal antibodies (eg, aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab) for Alzheimer disease (AD) were shown to increase the risks of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) in randomized clinical trials, which can include brain swelling or hemorrhage. Real-world evidence (RWE) studies are critically warranted to evaluate the associated risks of ARIA and health care resource utilization (HRU) with monoclonal treatments compared with existing nonmonoclonal (eg, donepezil, memantine and rivastigmine) treatments.
objectiveTo evaluate the risk of ARIA in patients receiving monoclonal vs nonmonoclonal treatments. The secondary aim was to investigate the HRUs including emergency department (ED) and inpatient visits between the 2 groups.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study using a large electronic health record dataset. Individuals (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed with AD and receiving monoclonal treatment were matched with a nonmonoclonal treatment group using propensity score matching. An Andersen-Gill survival model was used to estimate the cumulative hazard of ARIA after adjusting for baseline comorbidities. Negative binomial regression was applied to assess the HRUs between the 2 groups.
resultsThe monoclonal group included 240 patients. Most patients in both groups were aged 70-80 years (47.08% vs 47.29%), female (55.42% vs 56.25%), and White (85.42% vs 85.83%) in the monoclonal and the nonmonoclonal groups, respectively. The monoclonal group had significantly higher cumulative hazard of ARIA (hazard ratio = 4.65, 95% CI = 3.77-5.73;
conclusionsMonoclonal treatment was associated with higher cumulative hazard of ARIA but fewer inpatient visits. This study indicated the potential of RWE, despite its distinct observational design and differences from randomized clinical trials, to serve as a credible proof-of-concept in postapproval assessment and to inform personalized treatment guidelines based on patients' risk factors.
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.