Landmark Alzheimer’s drug approval confounds research community

Asher Mullard

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01546-2

IF: 64.8

2021-06-08

Nature

Abstract:Many scientists say there is not enough evidence that Biogen's aducanumab is an effective therapy for the disease. Many scientists say there is not enough evidence that Biogen's aducanumab is an effective therapy for the disease.

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Can we learn lessons from the FDA's approval of aducanumab?

Kathy Y Liu,Robert Howard

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-021-00557-x

Abstract:On 7 June 2021, aducanumab was granted accelerated approval for the treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD) by the FDA on the basis of amyloid-lowering effects considered reasonably likely to confer clinical benefit. This decision makes aducanumab the first new drug to be approved for the treatment of AD since 2003 and the first drug to ever be approved for modification of the course of AD. Many have questioned how scientific evidence, expert advice and the best interests of patients and families were considered in the approval decision. In this article, we argue that prior to approval, the FDA and Biogen's shared interpretation of clinical trial data - that high-dose aducanumab was substantially clinically effective - avoided conventional scientific scrutiny, was prominently advanced by patient representative groups who had been major recipients of Biogen funds, and raised concerns that safeguards were insufficient to mitigate regulatory capture within the FDA. Here, we reflect on events leading to the FDA's decision on 7 June 2021 and consider whether any lessons can be learned for the field.
Substantial Doubt Remains about the Efficacy of Anti-Amyloid Antibodies

Leonardino A. Digma MD,Joseph R. Winer PhD,Michael D. Greicius MD

2023-11-19

Abstract:Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a prevalent, progressive, and ultimately fatal neurodegenerative disorder that is defined pathologically by the accumulation of amyloid plaques and tau neurofibrillary tangles in the brain. There remains an unmet need for therapies that can halt or slow the course of AD. To address this need, the FDA has provided a mechanism, under its Accelerated Approval pathway, for potential therapeutics to be approved based in part on their ability to reduce brain amyloid. Through this pathway, two monoclonal anti-amyloid antibodies, aducanumab and lecanemab, have been approved for clinical use. More recently, another amyloid-lowering antibody, donanemab, generated a statistically significant outcome in a phase 3 clinical trial and will shortly come under FDA review. While these monoclonal antibodies are not yet routinely used in clinical practice, the series of recent positive clinical trials has fostered enthusiasm amongst some AD experts. Here, we discuss three key limitations regarding recent anti-amyloid clinical trials: (1) there is little to no evidence that amyloid reduction correlates with clinical outcome, (2) the reported efficacy of anti-amyloid therapies may be partly, or wholly, explained by functional unblinding, and (3) donanemab in its phase 3 trial had no effect on tau burden, the pathological hallmark more closely related to cognition. Taken together, these observations call into question the efficacy of anti-amyloid therapies.

Tissues and Organs
The Problem of Aducanumab for the Treatment of Alzheimer Disease

G Caleb Alexander,Jason Karlawish,G. Caleb Alexander

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/M21-2603

IF: 39.2

2021-06-18

Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract:On 7 June 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer disease. Biogen, the owner of the drug, will sell it as Aduhelm. The FDA's decision to approve aducanumab is among its most controversial ever. In this article, we examine the decision's implications for clinical research and patient care.

medicine, general & internal
High-clearance anti-amyloid immunotherapies in Alzheimer's disease. Part 1: Meta-analysis and review of efficacy and safety data, and medico-economical aspects

N Villain,V Planche,R Levy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurol.2022.06.012

Abstract:In 2021, aducanumab, an immunotherapy targeting amyloid-β, was approved for Alzheimer's disease (AD) by the US Food and Drug Administration thanks to positive results on a putative biological surrogate marker. This approval has raised an unprecedented controversy. It was followed by a refusal of the European Medicine Agency, which does not allow the marketing of drugs solely on biological arguments and raised safety issues, and important US coverage limitations by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Two other anti-amyloid immunotherapies showed significant results regarding a clinical outcome in phase 2 trials, and five drugs are being studied in phase 3 trials. Compared to those tested in previous trials of the 2010s, the common feature and novelty of these anti-amyloid immunotherapies is their ability to induce a high clearance of amyloid load, as measured with positron emission tomography, in the brain of early-stage biomarker-proven AD patients. Here, we review the available evidence regarding efficacy and safety data and medico-economical aspects for high-clearance anti-amyloid immunotherapies. We also perform frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses of the clinical efficacy and safety of the highest dose groups from the two aducanumab phase 3 trials and the donanemab and lecanemab phase 2 trials. When pooled together, the data from high-clearance anti-amyloid immunotherapies trials confirm a statistically significant clinical effect of these drugs on cognitive decline after 18 months (difference in cognitive decline measured with CDR-SB after 18 months between the high dose immunotherapy groups vs. placebo = -0.24 points; P=0.04, frequentist random-effect model), with results on ADAS-Cog being the most statistically robust. However, this effect remains below the previously established minimal clinically relevant values. In parallel, the drugs significantly increased the occurrence of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities-edema (ARIA-E: risk ratio=13.39; P<0.0001), ARIA-hemorrhage (risk ratio=2.78; P=0.0002), and symptomatic and serious ARIA (7/1321=0.53% in the high dose groups versus 0/1446 in the placebo groups; risk ratio=6.44; P=0.04). The risk/benefit ratio of high-clearance immunotherapies in early AD is so far questionable after 18 months. Identifying subgroups of better responders, the perspective of combination therapies, and a longer follow-up may help improve their clinical relevance. Finally, the preliminary evidence from medico-economical analyses seems to indicate that the current cost of aducanumab in the US is not in reasonable alignment with its clinical benefits.
FDA Considers Alzheimer’s Drug Previously Abandoned for Lack of Effectiveness

Nigel Hawkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6164

2019-01-01

Abstract:An Alzheimer’s drug that failed in two phase III trials and was abandoned as valueless has been brought back to life after an intensive examination of the trial results showed that it just might work in patients with early stage disease if the dose is right. Aducanumab, developed by Biogen, joined a long list of failed Alzheimer’s treatments in March this year after the two trials found that it failed to slow the course of the disease. A similar drug from Eli Lilly also failed,1 leading analysts to conclude that the search for a treatment that was based on attacking amyloid plaques, the pathological signature of the disease, was doomed. The failure hit Biogen hard, as it had created big expectations for aducanumab. So, drug company analysts showed …
Alzheimer's drug approvals create prescribing dilemmas

Jennifer Couzin-Frankel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adu2383

IF: 56.9

2024-11-01

Science

Abstract:Clinicians and patients weigh modest benefits of the antibodies against sometimes-serious side effects

multidisciplinary sciences
Lecanemab's Path Forward: Navigating the Future of Alzheimer's Treatment in Europe Amidst the EMA's Rejection

Alessandro Martorana,Chiara Giuseppina Bonomi,Martina Gaia Di Donna,Caterina Motta

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40120-024-00675-w

2024-11-04

Neurology and Therapy

Abstract:Lecanemab (Leqembi © , Biogen), a humanized anti-amyloid-beta monoclonal antibody, has been approved for early-stage Alzheimer's disease (AD) in several countries, including the US and Japan. However, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) recently issued a negative opinion on its marketing authorization, reflecting concerns over the clinical value and manageability of anti-amyloid treatments. This decision highlights the ongoing disconnect between research advancements and clinical practice, where the focus on biological markers over tangible clinical improvements remains contentious. Despite promising biological effects, lecanemab's clinical outcomes have been modest, raising questions about its therapeutic role. The EMA's refusal underscores the need to address doubts surrounding the real-world effectiveness and safety of such treatments, especially concerning amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIAs), a common side effect observed in clinical trials. The recent approval of lecanemab by the UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, despite the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's rejection on cost-effectiveness grounds, further fuels the debate on the feasibility of anti-amyloid therapies. This commentary emphasizes the importance of real-world data on lecanemab's impact on cognitive decline, daily functioning, and side-effect management. As the global clinical use of lecanemab increases, continuous and standardized reporting on its outcomes is crucial for guiding future regulatory decisions and for potentially bridging the gap between research and practice in AD treatment.

clinical neurology
Lessons Learned from Approval of Aducanumab for Alzheimer's Disease

Judith L. Heidebrink,Henry L. Paulson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-051022-043645

2024-01-30

Annual Review of Medicine

Abstract:When the US Food and Drug Administration used the accelerated approval process to authorize the use of the antiamyloid drug aducanumab to treat Alzheimer's disease (AD), many people hoped this signaled a new era of disease-modifying treatment. But 2 years later, aducanumab's failure to launch provides a cautionary tale about the complexities of dementia and the need for a thorough and transparent review of the role that regulatory agencies and various stakeholders play in approving AD drugs. We highlight the events leading to aducanumab's controversial approval and discuss some of the key lessons learned from the drug's failure to deliver the hoped-for benefits. These lessons include the inherent limitations of antiamyloid strategies for a complex disease in which amyloid is only one of several pathological processes, the need for clinical trials that better reflect the diversity of communities affected by AD, the potential pitfalls of futility analyses in clinical trials, the need for greater transparency and other modifications to the approval process, and the dementia field's unreadiness to move from the highly controlled environment of clinical trials to the widespread and chronic use of resource-intensive, disease-modifying drugs in real-world treatment scenarios. People with dementia desperately need effective therapies. We hope that the aducanumab story will inspire changes to the approval process—changes that restore public trust and improve future efforts to deliver disease-modifying therapies to the clinic.

medicine, research & experimental
Debate rages over Alzheimer's drug lecanemab as UK limits approval

Diana Kwon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02720-y

IF: 64.8

2024-08-24

Nature

Abstract:The medicine is being assessed by agencies including the European Union regulator, but the community is divided on its efficacy and safety. The medicine is being assessed by agencies including the European Union regulator, but the community is divided on its efficacy and safety.

multidisciplinary sciences
Monoclonal antibodies for treating early Alzheimer disease—a commentary on recent ‘positive’ trials

Ian A Scott

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afae023

2024-02-01

Age and Ageing

Abstract:Abstract Recent phase 3 randomised controlled trials of amyloid-targeting monoclonal antibodies in people with pre-clinical or early Alzheimer disease have reported positive results, raising hope of finally having disease-modifying drugs. Given their far-reaching implications for clinical practice, the methods and findings of these trials, and the disease causation theory underpinning the mechanism of drug action, need to be critically appraised. Key considerations are the representativeness of trial populations; balance of prognostic factors at baseline; psychometric properties and minimal clinically important differences of the primary efficacy outcome measures; level of study fidelity; consistency of subgroup analyses; replication of findings in similar trials; sponsor role and potential conflicts of interest; consistency of results with disease causation theory; cost and resource estimates; and alternative prevention and treatment strategies. In this commentary, we show shortcomings in each of these areas and conclude that monoclonal antibody treatment for early Alzheimer disease is lacking high-quality evidence of clinically meaningful impacts at an affordable cost.

geriatrics & gerontology,gerontology
Meta‐analysis of high‐clearance anti‐amyloid immunotherapies trials in early Alzheimer’s disease: A significant clinical effect but a low benefit/risk ratio

Nicolas Villain,Vincent Planche

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.064799

2023-06-01

Abstract:In the last three years, three over four phase II or III clinical trials using high‐dose anti‐amyloid immunotherapies in early Alzheimer’s disease (AD) have turned out to be positive on clinical outcomes: aducanumab (one of two), donanemab, and lecanemab. These results contrast with the previous failures of anti‐amyloid immunotherapies. Despite different pharmacodynamic properties, these drugs share a new characteristic: the high clearance of amyloid load as measured with amyloid positron emission tomography. In the meantime, the Food and Drug Administration’s conditional approval of aducanumab has led to unprecedented scientific controversies. We used the data from the highest dose group (i.e., the groups used for approval application or ongoing phase III trials) versus placebo after 18 months of the lecanemab and donanemab phase II trials and of the two aducanumab phase III trials to perform a meta‐analysis. Regarding clinical efficacy, we analyzed the CDR‐SB, ADASCog, and MMSE data. Regarding safety, we analyzed the occurrence of any Amyloid‐Related Imaging Abnormalities (ARIA), of ARIA‐edema (ARIA‐E), of ARIA‐hemorrhage (ARIA‐H), and of symptomatic and serious ARIA. The analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4.1 and a random effect model. High‐clearance anti‐amyloid immunotherapies were shown to significantly slow down cognitive decline after 18 months as measured with CDR‐SB (weighted mean = ‐0.24 points; p = 0.04), and ADAS‐Cog (weighted mean = ‐1.25 points; p = 0.0003), but not with MMSE (weighted mean = +0.31 points; p = 0.23) when compared to placebo. In parallel, the drugs significantly increased the occurrence of any ARIA (risk ratio = 3.68; p<0.0001), of ARIA‐E (risk ratio = 13.39; p<0.0001), of ARIA‐H (risk ratio = 2.78; p = 0.0002), and of symptomatic and serious ARIA (7/1321 = 0.53% in the high dose groups versus 0/1446 in the placebo groups; risk ratio = 6.44; p = 0.04). When pooled together, the data from high‐clearance anti‐amyloid immunotherapies trials confirm a significant clinical effect after 18 months. However, this effect remains below the established minimal clinically relevant values. Safety remains an issue with 0.5% of symptomatic and serious ARIA, significantly beyond chance, despite thorough in‐trial monitoring and management. The benefit/risk ratio of this class of drugs in early AD is thus questionable after 18‐months. Identifying subgroups of better responders and the perspective of combination therapies may help improve their clinical relevance.

clinical neurology
Physician Perspectives on the Food and Drug Administration's Decision to Grant Accelerated Approval to Aducanumab for Alzheimer's Disease

Sanket S Dhruva,Aaron S Kesselheim,Steven Woloshin,Robin Z Ji,Zhigang Lu,Jonathan J Darrow,Rita F Redberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.2954

Abstract:In June 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to aducanumab, a monoclonal antibody indicated for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. The accelerated approval decision was controversial due to concerns about the use of an unvalidated surrogate measure, beta-amyloid, as the basis for approval and a lack of clinical outcome benefit. Between October 2021 and September 2022, we conducted a survey of a nationally representative group of internists, medical oncologists, and cardiologists to understand perspectives around aducanumab's approval and how this FDA decision may influence trust in other drugs approved through the accelerated approval program. Among 214 physician respondents familiar with the accelerated approval of aducanumab, 184 (86%) would not prescribe or recommend aducanumab. Further, 143 (67%) physicians reported losing trust in other drugs approved through the accelerated approval program due to the FDA's decision with aducanumab. As a growing number of similar novel Alzheimer's disease treatments are on the horizon, the first of which, lecanemab, already has received accelerated approval in January 2023, our survey findings provide insight into the impact of the FDA's regulatory decisions on the perspectives and prescribing behavior of physicians concerning these novel drug treatments.
Support for the Amyloid Cascade Hypothesis in Guiding Further Avenues of Treatment in Alzheimer's Disease

Brendan Kortjohn,Marc Nahmani

Abstract:Alzheimer’s disease currently affects 50 million individuals and is expected to increase to 152 million by 2050. Despite this prevalence, the neurodegenerative disease still has minimal treatments, and there are minimally FDA approved drugs that show any slowing in cognitive decline. One of these drugs, aducanumab (Aduhelm), attacks the amyloid-beta plaques that form in Alzheimer’s. This evidence coincides with the predominant theory in Alzheimer’s pathogenesis, the Amyloid Cascade Hypothesis (ACH). However, there are conflicting reports about whether evidence supporting aducanumab warranted FDA approval. Some scientists suggest that the underlying pathology of Alzheimer’s is via tau, which involves the accumulation of neurofibrillary tau tangles that progress to the disease’s diagnostic lesions. To determine if degrading amyloid plaques is the most beneficial path of treatment, a comprehensive literature review of current Alzheimer’s research and understanding of how the disease is treated was conducted. This review found that the ACH should remain the prevailing theory based on Alzheimer’s progression, with findings that indicate amyloid plaques are necessary to induce the phosphorylation crucial to the development of tau tangles. This data suggests that Alzheimer’s disease develops via an amyloid-induced tau-pathology. In addition, a multitude of other treatments has been shown to reduce these plaques along with aducanumab, which renews promise in using the ACH to develop treatments. Using the ACH as a guide and implementing the treatments listed in this paper, new drugs like aducanumab target the perpetrator of Alzheimer’s and may stop or reverse progression to more severe presentations of the disease.

Medicine
Alzheimer's drug with modest benefits wins backing of FDA advisers

Sara Reardon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01726-w

IF: 64.8

2024-06-11

Nature

Abstract:Donanemab slows progression of symptoms, but questions linger about the durability of its effect. Donanemab slows progression of symptoms, but questions linger about the durability of its effect.

multidisciplinary sciences
Lecanemab Questions

Stephen E Nadeau,Stephen E. Nadeau

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000209320

IF: 9.9

2024-04-09

Neurology

Abstract:The recently published results of the 18-month randomized controlled trial of lecanemab, reporting the efficacy of the drug in slowing the progression of early Alzheimer disease, quickly led to approval by the FDA and widespread acceptance of lecanemab treatment. However, there are a number of matters that deserve further consideration. The success of blinding was not assessed, even as infusion reactions and the cerebral pathology underlying amyloid-related imaging abnormalities could have signaled to many participants that they were on drug, potentially exerting a potent placebo effect. The value of the outcome to participants is not defined in the absolute terms necessary for clinical decision-making, and the difference attributable to lecanemab was between 18% and 46% of estimates of the minimal clinically important difference on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes. The attenuation of change on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive 14 achieved by lecanemab at 18 months was 50% of that achieved by donepezil at 6 months. Lecanemab treatment imposes a high treatment burden. The fact that the burden commences at the initiation of lecanemab treatment, whereas the benefit accrues years later requires us to take into account value discounting over time, which would significantly reduce the benefit/burden ratio. Finally, treatment with monoclonal antibodies to cerebral amyloid has consistently been associated with progressive cerebral atrophy. At the least, these issues should be raised in treatment discussions with patients. They also suggest a need to very seriously reconsider how we evaluate clinical trial results preparatory to translating them into clinical practice. Some suggestions are provided.

clinical neurology
New Alzheimer's drug clears FDA advisory vote despite unknowns

Jennifer Couzin-Frankel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adr0291

IF: 56.9

2024-06-15

Science

Abstract:Pivotal trial of Eli Lilly's donanemab leaves questions about how to prescribe it and minimize risks

multidisciplinary sciences
Current status of the use of monoclonal antibodies for Alzheimer’s disease

Haoming Hong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.61173/hhy8x053

2024-08-14

Abstract:Currently, there is no therapy proven to be ultimate in treating Alzheimer’s disease (AD) that the World Health Organization (WHO) has named the condition its main global public health goal. Established treatments, such as cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine, primarily alleviate a number of manifestations of the problem, but they do not target the main problem at hand. Monoclonal antibodies like aducanumab and lecanemab are new drug classes with original mechanisms that rest on the Aβ hypothesis. Aducanumab is the first recombinant G1 human antibody, which can be given through intravenous drip and targets the amyloid plaques and, though its efficacy is still doubtful. Lecanemab, another of the FDA-undeclared antibodies yet displayed as potential early-phase trials that can neutralize soluble Aβ protofibrils. This essay weighs the AD treatment success, the safety profiles, and the potential side effects of aducanumab and lecanemab; it does so by comparing and contrasting these two therapies in terms of treating patients at different stages of the disease. Thus, through the application of the mAbs in this study, the essay becomes able to provide clues for the most effective use of these drugs. Such will eventually lead to the improved effectiveness of AD research and treatment.
ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE DRUG DEVELOPMENT PIPELINE 2020

Marwan N. Sabbagh,M.N. Sabbagh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2020.12

2020-01-01

Abstract:On March 21, 2019, the aducanumab development team conducting the EMERGE and ENGAGE studies announced that the trials had met a pre-specified futility endpoint (1). The consequences of that announcement were far reaching, as many companies that had invested heavily in targeting amyloid were left to consider if targeting amyloid still remained a viable strategy for developing effective Alzheimer’s disease (AD) therapeutics. Following that announcement, the remaining BACE inhibitor trials announced safety concerns or efficacy concerns effectively ending elenbecestat, umibecestat, lanabecestat, atabecestat, and verubecestat as possible treatments for AD (2). Given that gamma secretase inhibitors and modulators had failed in the past, altering or halting production of amyloid appears to no longer offer viable therapeutic benefits moving forward. To further complicate this already troubling situation, the TMS/cognitive stimulation treatment combination (3) has not received FDA approval.

clinical neurology
Two Randomized Phase 3 Studies of Aducanumab in Early Alzheimer’s Disease

P.S. Aisen,F. Barkhof,S. Chalkias,T. Chen,S. Cohen,G. Dent,O. Hansson,K. Harrison,C. von Hehn,T. Iwatsubo,C. Mallinckrodt,C.J. Mummery,K.K. Muralidharan,I. Nestorov,L. Nisenbaum,R. Rajagovindan,L. Skordos,Y. Tian,C.H. van Dyck,B. Vellas,S. Wu,Y. Zhu,A. Sandrock,S. Budd Haeberlein

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2022.30

2022-01-01

Abstract:BackgroundAlzheimer’s disease is a progressive, irreversible, and fatal disease for which accumulation of amyloid beta is thought to play a key role in pathogenesis. Aducanumab is a human monoclonal antibody directed against aggregated soluble and insoluble forms of amyloid beta.ObjectivesWe evaluated the efficacy and safety of aducanumab in early Alzheimer’s disease.DesignEMERGE and ENGAGE were two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, global, phase 3 studies of aducanumab in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease.SettingThese studies involved 348 sites in 20 countries.ParticipantsParticipants included 1638 (EMERGE) and 1647 (ENGAGE) patients (aged 50–85 years, confirmed amyloid pathology) who met clinical criteria for mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease or mild Alzheimer's disease dementia, of which 1812 (55.2%) completed the study.InterventionParticipants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive aducanumab low dose (3 or 6 mg/kg target dose), high dose (10 mg/kg target dose), or placebo via IV infusion once every 4 weeks over 76 weeks.MeasurementsThe primary outcome measure was change from baseline to week 78 on the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), an integrated scale that assesses both function and cognition. Other measures included safety assessments; secondary and tertiary clinical outcomes that assessed cognition, function, and behavior; and biomarker endpoints.ResultsEMERGE and ENGAGE were halted based on futility analysis of data pooled from the first approximately 50% of enrolled patients; subsequent efficacy analyses included data from a larger data set collected up to futility declaration and followed prespecified statistical analyses. The primary endpoint was met in EMERGE (difference of -0.39 for high-dose aducanumab vs placebo [95% CI, -0.69 to -0.09; P=.012; 22% decrease]) but not in ENGAGE (difference of 0.03, [95% CI, -0.26 to 0.33; P=.833; 2% increase]). Results of biomarker substudies confirmed target engagement and dose-dependent reduction in markers of Alzheimer's disease pathophysiology. The most common adverse event was amyloid-related imaging abnormalities-edema.ConclusionsData from EMERGE demonstrated a statistically significant change across all four primary and secondary clinical endpoints. ENGAGE did not meet its primary or secondary endpoints. A dose-and time-dependent reduction in pathophysiological markers of Alzheimer’s disease was observed in both trials.

Landmark Alzheimer’s drug approval confounds research community

Can we learn lessons from the FDA's approval of aducanumab?

Substantial Doubt Remains about the Efficacy of Anti-Amyloid Antibodies

The Problem of Aducanumab for the Treatment of Alzheimer Disease

High-clearance anti-amyloid immunotherapies in Alzheimer's disease. Part 1: Meta-analysis and review of efficacy and safety data, and medico-economical aspects

FDA Considers Alzheimer’s Drug Previously Abandoned for Lack of Effectiveness

Alzheimer's drug approvals create prescribing dilemmas

Lecanemab's Path Forward: Navigating the Future of Alzheimer's Treatment in Europe Amidst the EMA's Rejection

Lessons Learned from Approval of Aducanumab for Alzheimer's Disease

Debate rages over Alzheimer's drug lecanemab as UK limits approval

Monoclonal antibodies for treating early Alzheimer disease—a commentary on recent ‘positive’ trials

Meta‐analysis of high‐clearance anti‐amyloid immunotherapies trials in early Alzheimer’s disease: A significant clinical effect but a low benefit/risk ratio

Physician Perspectives on the Food and Drug Administration's Decision to Grant Accelerated Approval to Aducanumab for Alzheimer's Disease

Support for the Amyloid Cascade Hypothesis in Guiding Further Avenues of Treatment in Alzheimer's Disease

Alzheimer's drug with modest benefits wins backing of FDA advisers

Lecanemab Questions

New Alzheimer's drug clears FDA advisory vote despite unknowns

Current status of the use of monoclonal antibodies for Alzheimer’s disease

ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE DRUG DEVELOPMENT PIPELINE 2020

Two Randomized Phase 3 Studies of Aducanumab in Early Alzheimer’s Disease