IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1004568.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Efficacy and safety of passive immunotherapies targeting amyloid beta in Alzheimer’s disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Reina Tonegawa-Kuji
  • Yuan Hou
  • Bo Hu
  • Noah Lorincz-Comi
  • Andrew A Pieper
  • Babak Tousi
  • James B Leverenz
  • Feixiong Cheng

Abstract

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 trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of anti-Aβ mAbs in patients with AD were identified through a search in clinicaltrials.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. Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?: Reina Tonegawa-Kuji and colleagues present an updated meta-analysis of cognitive outcome and side effects of anti-amyloid beta monoclonal antibodies from phase III randomized controlled trials in patients with sporadic Alzheimer's disease.

Suggested Citation

  • Reina Tonegawa-Kuji & Yuan Hou & Bo Hu & Noah Lorincz-Comi & Andrew A Pieper & Babak Tousi & James B Leverenz & Feixiong Cheng, 2025. "Efficacy and safety of passive immunotherapies targeting amyloid beta in Alzheimer’s disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 22(3), pages 1-29, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1004568
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004568
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004568
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004568&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004568?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1004568. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.