Comparative efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on cognitive function in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

IF 4.5 3区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Itsuki Terao, Wakako Kodama
{"title":"Comparative efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on cognitive function in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.","authors":"Itsuki Terao, Wakako Kodama","doi":"10.1177/02698811251340901","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved three disease-modifying treatments for mild cognitive impairment and early Alzheimer's disease: aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab, which showed little efficacy, serious side effects, and are costly. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) may overcome these difficulties by its safe, cheap, and potentially disease-modifying properties that extend beyond Aβ removal.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>We aim to compare the efficacy on cognitive function, tolerability, and acceptability of rTMS with aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab in people with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically reviewed relevant randomized placebo-controlled trials in PubMed, the CENTRAL, the CINHAL, and the ClinicalTrials.gov and performed a random-effect network meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen randomized placebo-controlled trials with 6918 participants were included. rTMS was significantly more effective than placebo/sham stimulation. In addition, rTMS was significantly more effective than aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab. Furthermore, rTMS was not significantly inferior to placebo/sham stimulation in tolerability and acceptability, whereas aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab were significantly inferior to placebo/sham stimulation in tolerability and acceptability. rTMS was significantly superior to lecanemab and donanemab in acceptability. No significant differences were observed in the remaining comparisons.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>rTMS may be more effective, tolerable, and acceptable than aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab. Long-term direct comparison studies are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":16892,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Psychopharmacology","volume":" ","pages":"2698811251340901"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Psychopharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02698811251340901","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved three disease-modifying treatments for mild cognitive impairment and early Alzheimer's disease: aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab, which showed little efficacy, serious side effects, and are costly. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) may overcome these difficulties by its safe, cheap, and potentially disease-modifying properties that extend beyond Aβ removal.

Aims: We aim to compare the efficacy on cognitive function, tolerability, and acceptability of rTMS with aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab in people with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease.

Methods: We systematically reviewed relevant randomized placebo-controlled trials in PubMed, the CENTRAL, the CINHAL, and the ClinicalTrials.gov and performed a random-effect network meta-analysis.

Results: Nineteen randomized placebo-controlled trials with 6918 participants were included. rTMS was significantly more effective than placebo/sham stimulation. In addition, rTMS was significantly more effective than aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab. Furthermore, rTMS was not significantly inferior to placebo/sham stimulation in tolerability and acceptability, whereas aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab were significantly inferior to placebo/sham stimulation in tolerability and acceptability. rTMS was significantly superior to lecanemab and donanemab in acceptability. No significant differences were observed in the remaining comparisons.

Conclusions: rTMS may be more effective, tolerable, and acceptable than aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab. Long-term direct comparison studies are needed.

aducanumab、lecanemab和donanemab与重复经颅磁刺激对轻度认知障碍和阿尔茨海默病认知功能的比较疗效、耐受性和可接受性:一项系统综述和网络荟萃分析。
背景:美国食品和药物管理局批准了三种用于轻度认知障碍和早期阿尔茨海默病的疾病改善治疗方法:aducanumab, lecanemab和donanemab,这些药物疗效甚微,副作用严重,而且价格昂贵。重复经颅磁刺激(rTMS)可以克服这些困难,因为它具有安全、廉价和潜在的疾病改善特性,而不仅仅是去除Aβ。目的:我们的目的是比较rTMS与aducanumab、lecanemab和donanemab在轻度认知障碍和阿尔茨海默病患者的认知功能、耐受性和可接受性的疗效。方法:我们系统地回顾了PubMed、CENTRAL、CINHAL和ClinicalTrials.gov上的相关随机安慰剂对照试验,并进行了随机效应网络荟萃分析。结果:纳入了19项随机安慰剂对照试验,共6918名受试者。rTMS明显比安慰剂/假刺激更有效。此外,rTMS明显比aducanumab、lecanemab和donanemab更有效。此外,rTMS在耐受性和可接受性方面并不明显低于安慰剂/假刺激,而aducanumab, lecanemab和donanemab在耐受性和可接受性方面明显低于安慰剂/假刺激。rTMS在可接受性上明显优于lecanemab和donanemab。在其余比较中未观察到显著差异。结论:rTMS可能比aducanumab、lecanemab和donanemab更有效、更耐受和更可接受。需要长期的直接比较研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Psychopharmacology
Journal of Psychopharmacology 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
4.90%
发文量
126
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Psychopharmacology is a fully peer-reviewed, international journal that publishes original research and review articles on preclinical and clinical aspects of psychopharmacology. The journal provides an essential forum for researchers and practicing clinicians on the effects of drugs on animal and human behavior, and the mechanisms underlying these effects. The Journal of Psychopharmacology is truly international in scope and readership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信