Cited by 162Alzheimer's disease research and treatmentsDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchBiomedical Ethics and Regulation

Revisiting FDA Approval of Aducanumab

Open access
Alexander, G. Caleb, Knopman, David S., Emerson, Scott S., Ovbiagele, Bruce, Kryscio, Richard J., Perlmutter, Joel S., Kesselheim, Aaron S.·2021·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

Interview with Dr. Gil Rabinovici on the FDA’s controversial approval of a new treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. (16:39)Download Given the scientific, regulatory, and clinical implications of the accelerated FDA approval of aducanumab for Alzheimer’s disease, it’s essential to consider beta-amyloid’s suitability as a surrogate end point. Doing so casts doubt on the wisdom of the decision.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmp2110468

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Aducanumab received accelerated approval based on reduction of amyloid plaque as a surrogate endpoint that had not been validated as predicting clinical benefit.

    “This decision was based on the effects of aducanumab on the surrogate endpoint of reduction of amyloid plaque in the brain of patients with AD, which at that point was not validated as being predictive of clinical benefit”
  • The FDA granted accelerated approval to aducanumab and stated that reduction of amyloid is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit.

    “The FDA has controversially granted accelerated approval to aducanumab and has opined that the reduction of amyloid is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit 7,9,[98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107] .”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alexander, G. C., Knopman, D. S., Emerson, S. S., Ovbiagele, B., Kryscio, R. J., Perlmutter, J. S., & Kesselheim, A. S.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2021-08-26
Volume
385
Issue
9
Pages
769-771
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W3185118626
Cited by
162
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 16
FWCI
20.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (RF1NS075321, R01NS103957, R01NS107281, R01NS075321)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
Keywords
aducanumab, FDA drug approval, Alzheimer's disease, amyloid-beta, surrogate endpoints, accelerated approval, anti-amyloid therapy, regulatory decision-making
MeSH terms
Alzheimer Disease, Humans, Time Factors, United States, United States Food and Drug Administration, Biomarkers, Amyloid beta-Peptides, Drug Approval, Advisory Committees, Plaque, Amyloid, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review