Skip to main content

Longitudinal clinical outcomes after amyloid clearance in aducanumab phase 3 studies

Journal
Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association (Q1)
Published
1 October 2026
Study design
Randomized controlled trial
Evidence level
Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
Authors
Menglan Pang, Holly M Brothers, John O'Gorman, Jennifer Murphy, Yuval Zabar, Tyler Lasky, et al.
PMID
42841310
DOI
10.1002/alz.71758

Why clinicians should know about it

  • Picked for Neurology (clinical) (paper of the day, 9 October 2026): Phase III RCT, practice-changing for adjuvant therapy

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Anti-amyloid antibody clinical trials with a high proportion of participants reaching treatment-related amyloid clearance (TRAC) had positive clinical outcomes. We evaluated the aducanumab phase 3 program to determine whether TRAC during the double-blind period was likewise associated with clinical benefit. METHODS: We pooled ENGAGE and EMERGE (E/E) aducanumab-treated participants in the amyloid positron emission tomography substudy who continued into the long-term extension ≤ 134 weeks (continuously treated population) and/or returned to the EMBARK redosing study 0.7 to 2.5 years after termination of E/E (treatment gap population). Clinical outcomes were stratified by week 78 TRAC status. RESULTS: TRAC participants had less clinical decline at week 78, week 134, and EMBARK baseline than non-TRAC participants. Post-TRAC, clinical decline was heterogeneous; approximately two thirds of TRAC participants had annualized decline of < 1 point on Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes. DISCUSSION: In these exploratory analyses, week 78 TRAC status was associated with better clinical outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02484547, NCT02477800, NCT04241068.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.