Abstract
PURPOSE: We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate clinically meaningful benefits and harms of monoclonal antibodies targeting amyloid in patients with Alzheimer dementia. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and 5 trial registries, as well as the reference lists of identified studies. We included randomized controlled trials comparing a monoclonal antibody with placebo at a dose consistent with that used in phase 3 trials or for Food and Drug Administration approval. Studies had to report at least 1 clinically relevant benefit or harm. Data were extracted independently by at least 2 researchers for random effects meta-analysis. Changes in cognitive and functional scales were compared between groups, and each difference was assessed to determine if it met the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). RESULTS: We identified 19 publications with 23,202 total participants that evaluated 8 anti-amyloid antibodies. There were small improvements over placebo in the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS)-Cog-11 to -14 score (standardized mean difference = -0.07; 95% CI, -0.10 to -0.04), Mini Mental State Examination score (0.32 points; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.50), and Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes scale score (mean difference =-0.18 points; 95% CI, -0.34 to -0.03), and the combined functional scores (standardized mean difference = 0.09; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.13). None of the changes, including those for lecanemab, aducanumab, and donanemab, exceeded the MCID. Harms included significantly increased risks of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA)-edema (relative risk [RR] = 10.29; number needed to harm [NNH] = 9), ARIA-hemorrhage (RR = 1.74; NNH = 13), and symptomatic ARIA-edema (RR = 24.3; NNH = 86). CONCLUSIONS: Although monoclonal antibodies targeting amyloid provide small benefits on cognitive and functional scales in patients with Alzheimer dementia, these improvements are far below the MCID for each outcome and are accompanied by clinically meaningful harms.