Amyloid-beta-targeting monoclonal antibodies in early Alzheimer's disease: a cochrane review summary and appraisal for the neurological community.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Diogo Haddad Santos, Anderson Matheus Pereira da Silva
{"title":"Amyloid-beta-targeting monoclonal antibodies in early Alzheimer's disease: a cochrane review summary and appraisal for the neurological community.","authors":"Diogo Haddad Santos, Anderson Matheus Pereira da Silva","doi":"10.1007/s10072-026-09401-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Seven amyloid-beta-targeting monoclonal antibodies have been trialled in early Alzheimer's disease. They differ in epitope and in how much plaque they clear; only two have traditional approval. A 2026 Cochrane Review pooled all seven as one class. We ask what that average tells us about any one drug.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We summarise the review in mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease and report its estimates and certainty ratings unchanged. Our appraisal sits in a separate section and draws on the pivotal trials and regulatory assessments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventeen trials (20,342 participants) were included. At 18 months the pooled standardised mean difference was -0.11 (95 % confidence interval -0.16 to -0.06) for cognition and -0.12 (-0.24 to 0.00) for dementia severity; three functional scales favoured treatment (0.09 to 0.23). Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with oedema affected 119 versus 12 per 1,000 (risk ratio 10.02, 7.49 to 13.41). Four of the seven antibodies cleared no plaque or cleared it incompletely, so the pooled result cannot test whether clearance produces benefit. In the two approved agents dementia severity differed by 0.45 and 0.67 points, larger than the class average but below thresholds of clinical importance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The class average is not an estimate for any single agent. These antibodies clear amyloid and produce small differences on trial scales at 18 months, against a tenfold rise in amyloid-related oedema. Counselling should rest on agent-specific figures and a biomarker-confirmed diagnosis, and should weigh APOE ε4 genotype and antithrombotic use before the first infusion.</p>","PeriodicalId":19191,"journal":{"name":"Neurological Sciences","volume":"47 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13585809/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurological Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-026-09401-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Seven amyloid-beta-targeting monoclonal antibodies have been trialled in early Alzheimer's disease. They differ in epitope and in how much plaque they clear; only two have traditional approval. A 2026 Cochrane Review pooled all seven as one class. We ask what that average tells us about any one drug.

Methods: We summarise the review in mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease and report its estimates and certainty ratings unchanged. Our appraisal sits in a separate section and draws on the pivotal trials and regulatory assessments.

Results: Seventeen trials (20,342 participants) were included. At 18 months the pooled standardised mean difference was -0.11 (95 % confidence interval -0.16 to -0.06) for cognition and -0.12 (-0.24 to 0.00) for dementia severity; three functional scales favoured treatment (0.09 to 0.23). Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with oedema affected 119 versus 12 per 1,000 (risk ratio 10.02, 7.49 to 13.41). Four of the seven antibodies cleared no plaque or cleared it incompletely, so the pooled result cannot test whether clearance produces benefit. In the two approved agents dementia severity differed by 0.45 and 0.67 points, larger than the class average but below thresholds of clinical importance.

Conclusions: The class average is not an estimate for any single agent. These antibodies clear amyloid and produce small differences on trial scales at 18 months, against a tenfold rise in amyloid-related oedema. Counselling should rest on agent-specific figures and a biomarker-confirmed diagnosis, and should weigh APOE ε4 genotype and antithrombotic use before the first infusion.

靶向淀粉样蛋白的单克隆抗体在早期阿尔茨海默病中的应用:cochrane综述总结和神经学界的评价
背景:七种靶向淀粉样蛋白的单克隆抗体已经在早期阿尔茨海默病中进行了试验。它们在表位和清除空斑的数量上有所不同;只有两家获得了传统的批准。一篇2026年的Cochrane Review将这7个类别合并为一个类别。我们问这个平均值告诉了我们关于任何一种药物的什么。方法:我们总结了阿尔茨海默病引起的轻度认知障碍或轻度痴呆的回顾,并报告其估计和确定性评分不变。我们的评估位于一个单独的部分,并借鉴了关键的试验和监管评估。结果:纳入17项试验(20,342名受试者)。在18个月时,认知能力的合并标准化平均差异为-0.11(95%置信区间为-0.16至-0.06),痴呆严重程度的合并标准化平均差异为-0.12(-0.24至0.00);三个功能量表支持治疗(0.09 ~ 0.23)。淀粉样蛋白相关影像学异常伴水肿的发生率为119比12 / 1000(风险比10.02,7.49 - 13.41)。7种抗体中有4种没有清除斑块或清除不完全,因此综合结果不能测试清除是否产生益处。在两种批准的药物中,痴呆严重程度相差0.45和0.67分,大于类别平均值,但低于临床重要性阈值。结论:类平均不是对任何单一药物的估计。这些抗体清除淀粉样蛋白,并在18个月的试验规模上产生微小的差异,对抗淀粉样蛋白相关水肿的10倍上升。咨询应基于药物特异性数据和生物标志物确诊,并应在首次输注前权衡APOE ε4基因型和抗血栓使用情况。
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
Neurological Sciences
Neurological Sciences 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
3.00%
发文量
743
审稿时长
4 months
期刊介绍: Neurological Sciences is intended to provide a medium for the communication of results and ideas in the field of neuroscience. The journal welcomes contributions in both the basic and clinical aspects of the neurosciences. The official language of the journal is English. Reports are published in the form of original articles, short communications, editorials, reviews and letters to the editor. Original articles present the results of experimental or clinical studies in the neurosciences, while short communications are succinct reports permitting the rapid publication of novel results. Original contributions may be submitted for the special sections History of Neurology, Health Care and Neurological Digressions - a forum for cultural topics related to the neurosciences. The journal also publishes correspondence book reviews, meeting reports and announcements.
×
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
小红书