针对β淀粉样蛋白的被动免疫疗法治疗阿尔茨海默病的疗效和安全性:一项系统综述和荟萃分析

IF 15.8 1区 医学 Q1 Medicine
Reina Tonegawa-Kuji, Yuan Hou, Bo Hu, Noah Lorincz-Comi, Andrew A Pieper, Babak Tousi, James B Leverenz, Feixiong Cheng
{"title":"针对β淀粉样蛋白的被动免疫疗法治疗阿尔茨海默病的疗效和安全性:一项系统综述和荟萃分析","authors":"Reina Tonegawa-Kuji, Yuan Hou, Bo Hu, Noah Lorincz-Comi, Andrew A Pieper, Babak Tousi, James B Leverenz, Feixiong Cheng","doi":"10.1371/journal.pmed.1004568","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While recently U.S. FDA-approved anti-amyloid beta (anti-Aβ) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) offer new treatment approaches for patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease (AD), these medications also carry potential safety concerns and uncertainty about their efficacy for improving cognitive function. This study presents an updated meta-analysis of cognitive outcomes and side effects of anti-Aβ mAbs from phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with sporadic AD.</p><p><strong>Methods and findings: </strong>Phase III randomized, placebo-controlled blinded trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of anti-Aβ mAbs in patients with AD were identified through a search in clinical trials.gov, PubMed and Embase on January 14th, 2024. The retrieved studies were further screened from January 15th, 2024, to February 14th, 2024. We included studies that had been published in any language. Quality of trials was assessed using the Jadad score and publication bias was assessed using Egger's test and Funnel plot. Primary outcomes were mean changes from baseline to post-treatment in Clinical Dementia Rating scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) and AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) scores, and secondary outcomes were adverse events including amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with edema (ARIA-E), and ARIA with hemorrhage (ARIA-H). Random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression analyses were conducted. The literature search identified 13 phase III RCTs, which included 18,826 patients with mild cognitive impairment or dementia due to AD. Compared with placebo, treatment with mAbs significantly improved cognitive performance on CDR-SB (mean difference -0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.38, -0.11]) and ADAS-Cog (standardized mean difference -0.09, 95% CI [-0.12, -0.06]), in which a negative change indicates improvement for both scores. Meta-regression analysis suggested that trials enrolling patients with early-stage AD were associated with better efficacy. Elevated risk of ARIA-E (risk ratio [RR] 9.79, 95% CI [5.32,18.01]), ARIA-H (RR 1.94, 95% CI [1.47,2.57]), and headaches (RR 1.21, 95% CI [1.10,1.32]) were noted. Statistical heterogeneity was relatively high for ARIA-E and ARIA-H, leading to wide confidence intervals and considerable variability in effect sizes, though meta-regression was conducted to address this. Furthermore, differences in trial designs introduce limitations in cross-trial comparisons.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Anti-Aβ mAb therapy slows cognitive decline, but with small effect sizes, and raises potential concerns about ARIA and headaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":49008,"journal":{"name":"PLoS Medicine","volume":"22 3","pages":"e1004568"},"PeriodicalIF":15.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and safety of passive immunotherapies targeting amyloid beta in Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Reina Tonegawa-Kuji, Yuan Hou, Bo Hu, Noah Lorincz-Comi, Andrew A Pieper, Babak Tousi, James B Leverenz, Feixiong Cheng\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pmed.1004568\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While recently U.S. FDA-approved anti-amyloid beta (anti-Aβ) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) offer new treatment approaches for patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease (AD), these medications also carry potential safety concerns and uncertainty about their efficacy for improving cognitive function. This study presents an updated meta-analysis of cognitive outcomes and side effects of anti-Aβ mAbs from phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with sporadic AD.</p><p><strong>Methods and findings: </strong>Phase III randomized, placebo-controlled blinded trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of anti-Aβ mAbs in patients with AD were identified through a search in clinical trials.gov, PubMed and Embase on January 14th, 2024. The retrieved studies were further screened from January 15th, 2024, to February 14th, 2024. We included studies that had been published in any language. Quality of trials was assessed using the Jadad score and publication bias was assessed using Egger's test and Funnel plot. Primary outcomes were mean changes from baseline to post-treatment in Clinical Dementia Rating scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) and AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) scores, and secondary outcomes were adverse events including amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with edema (ARIA-E), and ARIA with hemorrhage (ARIA-H). Random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression analyses were conducted. The literature search identified 13 phase III RCTs, which included 18,826 patients with mild cognitive impairment or dementia due to AD. Compared with placebo, treatment with mAbs significantly improved cognitive performance on CDR-SB (mean difference -0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.38, -0.11]) and ADAS-Cog (standardized mean difference -0.09, 95% CI [-0.12, -0.06]), in which a negative change indicates improvement for both scores. Meta-regression analysis suggested that trials enrolling patients with early-stage AD were associated with better efficacy. Elevated risk of ARIA-E (risk ratio [RR] 9.79, 95% CI [5.32,18.01]), ARIA-H (RR 1.94, 95% CI [1.47,2.57]), and headaches (RR 1.21, 95% CI [1.10,1.32]) were noted. Statistical heterogeneity was relatively high for ARIA-E and ARIA-H, leading to wide confidence intervals and considerable variability in effect sizes, though meta-regression was conducted to address this. Furthermore, differences in trial designs introduce limitations in cross-trial comparisons.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Anti-Aβ mAb therapy slows cognitive decline, but with small effect sizes, and raises potential concerns about ARIA and headaches.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49008,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLoS Medicine\",\"volume\":\"22 3\",\"pages\":\"e1004568\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":15.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLoS Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004568\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004568","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:虽然最近美国fda批准的抗β -淀粉样蛋白单克隆抗体(mab)为阿尔茨海默病(AD)患者提供了新的治疗方法,但这些药物也存在潜在的安全性问题,并且其改善认知功能的有效性存在不确定性。本研究对散发性AD患者的III期随机对照试验(rct)中抗β单抗的认知结局和副作用进行了最新的荟萃分析。方法和研究结果:评估抗β单抗治疗AD患者疗效和安全性的III期随机、安慰剂对照盲法试验于2024年1月14日通过临床试验网站(clinical trials.gov)、PubMed和Embase进行检索。从2024年1月15日至2024年2月14日对检索到的研究进行进一步筛选。我们纳入了以任何语言发表的研究。试验质量采用Jadad评分评估,发表偏倚采用Egger检验和漏斗图评估。主要结局是临床痴呆评定量表-框和(CDR-SB)和AD评估量表-认知亚量表(ADAS-Cog)评分从基线到治疗后的平均变化,次要结局是不良事件,包括淀粉样蛋白相关影像学异常伴水肿(ARIA- e)和ARIA伴出血(ARIA- h)。进行随机效应meta分析和meta回归分析。文献检索确定了13项III期随机对照试验,其中包括18826例AD引起的轻度认知障碍或痴呆患者。与安慰剂相比,单抗治疗显著改善了CDR-SB(平均差值-0.25,95%可信区间[CI][-0.38, -0.11])和ADAS-Cog(标准化平均差值-0.09,95% CI[-0.12, -0.06])的认知表现,其中负变化表明两项评分均有改善。荟萃回归分析表明,纳入早期AD患者的试验与更好的疗效相关。注意到ARIA-E(风险比[RR] 9.79, 95% CI[5.32,18.01])、ARIA-H (RR 1.94, 95% CI[1.47,2.57])和头痛(RR 1.21, 95% CI[1.10,1.32])的风险升高。ARIA-E和ARIA-H的统计异质性相对较高,导致较宽的置信区间和相当大的效应大小变异性,尽管进行了元回归来解决这一问题。此外,试验设计的差异给交叉试验比较带来了限制。结论:抗β单抗治疗减缓认知能力下降,但效果较小,并引起对ARIA和头痛的潜在担忧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy and safety of passive immunotherapies targeting amyloid beta in Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: While recently U.S. FDA-approved anti-amyloid beta (anti-Aβ) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) offer new treatment approaches for patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease (AD), these medications also carry potential safety concerns and uncertainty about their efficacy for improving cognitive function. This study presents an updated meta-analysis of cognitive outcomes and side effects of anti-Aβ mAbs from phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with sporadic AD.

Methods and findings: Phase III randomized, placebo-controlled blinded trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of anti-Aβ mAbs in patients with AD were identified through a search in clinical trials.gov, PubMed and Embase on January 14th, 2024. The retrieved studies were further screened from January 15th, 2024, to February 14th, 2024. We included studies that had been published in any language. Quality of trials was assessed using the Jadad score and publication bias was assessed using Egger's test and Funnel plot. Primary outcomes were mean changes from baseline to post-treatment in Clinical Dementia Rating scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) and AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) scores, and secondary outcomes were adverse events including amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with edema (ARIA-E), and ARIA with hemorrhage (ARIA-H). Random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression analyses were conducted. The literature search identified 13 phase III RCTs, which included 18,826 patients with mild cognitive impairment or dementia due to AD. Compared with placebo, treatment with mAbs significantly improved cognitive performance on CDR-SB (mean difference -0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.38, -0.11]) and ADAS-Cog (standardized mean difference -0.09, 95% CI [-0.12, -0.06]), in which a negative change indicates improvement for both scores. Meta-regression analysis suggested that trials enrolling patients with early-stage AD were associated with better efficacy. Elevated risk of ARIA-E (risk ratio [RR] 9.79, 95% CI [5.32,18.01]), ARIA-H (RR 1.94, 95% CI [1.47,2.57]), and headaches (RR 1.21, 95% CI [1.10,1.32]) were noted. Statistical heterogeneity was relatively high for ARIA-E and ARIA-H, leading to wide confidence intervals and considerable variability in effect sizes, though meta-regression was conducted to address this. Furthermore, differences in trial designs introduce limitations in cross-trial comparisons.

Conclusions: Anti-Aβ mAb therapy slows cognitive decline, but with small effect sizes, and raises potential concerns about ARIA and headaches.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PLoS Medicine
PLoS Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
17.60
自引率
0.60%
发文量
227
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: PLOS Medicine is a prominent platform for discussing and researching global health challenges. The journal covers a wide range of topics, including biomedical, environmental, social, and political factors affecting health. It prioritizes articles that contribute to clinical practice, health policy, or a better understanding of pathophysiology, ultimately aiming to improve health outcomes across different settings. The journal is unwavering in its commitment to uphold the highest ethical standards in medical publishing. This includes actively managing and disclosing any conflicts of interest related to reporting, reviewing, and publishing. PLOS Medicine promotes transparency in the entire review and publication process. The journal also encourages data sharing and encourages the reuse of published work. Additionally, authors retain copyright for their work, and the publication is made accessible through Open Access with no restrictions on availability and dissemination. PLOS Medicine takes measures to avoid conflicts of interest associated with advertising drugs and medical devices or engaging in the exclusive sale of reprints.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信