Pharmaceutical company funding of cancer patient advocacy organizations in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) of medical professionals and associated organizations with pharmaceutical companies (pharma) might contribute to the use of low value oncological treatments. Value criteria for oncological drug approvals in the Netherlands have recently become more stringent leading to objections by cancer patient advocacy organizations (cPAOs). Considering the importance of cPAOs input in cancer patient care we analyzed whether pharma funding of cPAOs occurs in the Netherlands. METHODS: The cPAO websites and available annual reports were evaluated for disclosure of pharma funding for the years 2021 and 2022. Also, data from the Dutch Healthcare Transparency Registry (DHTR) were extracted. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 34 (61.8 %) cPAOs received pharma funding (with 20 registered in the DHTR), and for 13 (29.4 %) cPAOs no reporting of pharma funding could be found. Three of the cPAOs disclosed pharma funding directly on their main website. Online educational material was available from 22 cPAOs on their websites with pharma funding disclosed on the educational material in 5. The total registered amount of pharmaceutical funding was €667,232.00 in 2021 and €536,098.00 in 2022. The median (and interquartile ranges) DHTR registered amount of support per cPAO that received funding in the studied period was €23,799.50 (14,823.75-84,663.30). The most common funding category as defined in the DHTR was project sponsorship. CONCLUSIONS: Financial support by the pharmaceutical industry is common for Dutch cPAOs. Given the importance of cPAOs and their objective input in the societal debate on the availability of cancer drugs, the potential influence of pharma sponsoring should be critically evaluated.

Recent and anticipated novel drug approvals (Q2 2024 through Q1 2025).

DISCLAIMER: In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. PURPOSE: Health-system pharmacists play a crucial role in monitoring the pharmaceutical pipeline to manage formularies, allocate resources, and optimize clinical programs for new therapies. This article aims to support pharmacists by providing periodic updates on new and anticipated novel drug approvals. SUMMARY: Selected drug approvals anticipated in the 12-month period covering the second quarter of 2024 through the first quarter of 2025 are reviewed. The analysis emphasizes drugs expected to have significant clinical and financial impact in hospitals and clinics, as selected from 52 novel drugs awaiting US Food and Drug Administration approval. New cellular and gene therapies for cancers continued to strengthen the pipeline, in addition to new drugs targeting previously untreatable conditions. Several novel drugs are being developed for rare and ultra-rare diseases such as hemophilia, Niemann-Pick disease type C, hereditary angioedema, and aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase deficiency. CONCLUSION: The current drug pipeline includes new drugs with various indications for cancers and rare diseases as well as diabetes, acute coronary syndrome, chronic skin disorder, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Making Drug Approval Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty: Cumulative Evidence versus Value of Information.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the criticality and complexity of decision making for novel treatment approval and further research. Our study aims to assess potential decision-making methodologies, an evaluation vital for refining future public health crisis responses. METHODS: We compared 4 decision-making approaches to drug approval and research: the Food and Drug Administration's policy decisions, cumulative meta-analysis, a prospective value-of-information (VOI) approach (using information available at the time of decision), and a reference standard (retrospective VOI analysis using information available in hindsight). Possible decisions were to reject, accept, provide emergency use authorization, or allow access to new therapies only in research settings. We used monoclonal antibodies provided to hospitalized COVID-19 patients as a case study, examining the evidence from September 2020 to December 2021 and focusing on each method's capacity to optimize health outcomes and resource allocation. RESULTS: Our findings indicate a notable discrepancy between policy decisions and the reference standard retrospective VOI approach with expected losses up to $269 billion USD, suggesting suboptimal resource use during the wait for emergency use authorization. Relying solely on cumulative meta-analysis for decision making results in the largest expected loss, while the policy approach showed a loss up to $16 billion and the prospective VOI approach presented the least loss (up to $2 billion). CONCLUSION: Our research suggests that incorporating VOI analysis may be particularly useful for research prioritization and treatment implementation decisions during pandemics. While the prospective VOI approach was favored in this case study, further studies should validate the ideal decision-making method across various contexts. This study's findings not only enhance our understanding of decision-making strategies during a health crisis but also provide a potential framework for future pandemic responses. HIGHLIGHTS: This study reviews discrepancies between a reference standard (retrospective VOI, using hindsight information) and 3 conceivable real-time approaches to research-treatment decisions during a pandemic, suggesting suboptimal use of resources.Of all prospective decision-making approaches considered, VOI closely mirrored the reference standard, yielding the least expected value loss across our study timeline.This study illustrates the possible benefit of VOI results and the need for evidence accumulation accompanied by modeling in health technology assessment for emerging therapies.

Pathway to Approval of Innovative Radiopharmaceuticals in China.

Since the late 1950s, radiopharmaceuticals have been used for diagnosis and treatment in clinical nuclear medicine in China. Over the decades, China has successfully established a relatively sophisticated system for radiopharmaceutical production and management, supported by state-of-the-art facilities. With the rapid growth of the national economy, the radiopharmaceutical market in China is expanding at a remarkable pace. This burgeoning market has led to an escalating demand for clinical-stage radiopharmaceuticals, either produced domestically or imported. Despite this positive trajectory, the development and application of radiopharmaceuticals in China have been hindered by several challenges that persist, such as inadequate research, insufficient investment, limited availability of radionuclides, shortage of trained personnel in related fields, and imperfections in policies and regulations. In an exciting development, the regulation reforms implemented since 2015 have positively affected China's drug regulatory system. The introduction of the "Mid- and Long-Term Development Plan (2021-2035) for Medical Isotopes" created concurrently an opportune environment for the advancement of innovative radiopharmaceuticals. In this review, we aim to provide an overview of the approval process for novel radiopharmaceuticals by the National Medical Products Administration and the status of radiopharmaceuticals in research and development in China. Preclinical development and clinical translation of radiopharmaceuticals are undergoing rapid evolution in China. As practitioners in the field in China, we provide several practical suggestions to stimulate open discussions and thoughtful consideration.

A descriptive study of new drug approvals during 2017-2021 and disease morbidity and mortality patterns in India.

Aim: Studies show the presence of a mismatch between drug research and disease burden. A study conducted in the European Union found that new drug development was restricted to certain diseases. A study of biosimilar approvals in India found that 87% of drugs were for treating noncommunicable diseases. This study aimed to determine the new drugs approved in India from 2017 to 2021 and the top ten causes of morbidity and mortality and detect the presence of any discordance between these. Methods: A descriptive study was conducted using data on new drug approvals accessed from the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization website. The top ten causes of mortality and morbidity in India from 2015 to 2019 were identified from the Global Burden of Diseases database. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the drug approvals and the leading diseases. Results: One hundred twenty-six drugs were approved during the study period. Antineoplastic drugs constituted 19.84% of the approvals, antimicrobials 18.25%, and cardiovascular drugs 9.52%. Ischemic heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were the two leading causes of morbidity and mortality. Diarrheal diseases, lower respiratory tract infection, and drug-susceptible tuberculosis were among the top ten causes. Ten antibacterials, including four antitubercular drugs, were approved during this period. Two drugs were approved for rare diseases. Conclusion: Our study showed that the drugs approved were largely in line with the prevalent disease burden, and there was no significant discordance observed. Some diseases, such as ischemic stroke/intracranial hemorrhage, require further efforts in bringing forth newer pharmacotherapy options.

Emerging pharmacotherapy for the treatment of cannabis use disorder.

INTRODUCTION: About one-fifth of cannabis users, the most commonly used illicit substance, have cannabis use disorder (CUD). Psychiatric disorders and suicide are more common in these patients, and the disability-adjusted life years were reported to be 0.69 million. Pharmacotherapy for CUD is an unmet public health need, as current evidence-based therapies have limited efficacy. AREAS COVERED: After explaining the pathophysiology of CUD, the effects of emerging pharmacological interventions in its treatment obtained from randomized controlled trials were reviewed in light of mechanisms of action. Superiority over control of cannabidiol, gabapentin, galantamine, nabilone plus zolpidem, nabiximols, naltrexone, PF-04457845, quetiapine, varenicline, and topiramate were observed through the cannabinoid, glutamatergic, γ-aminobutyric acidergic, serotonergic, noradrenergic, dopaminergic, opioidergic, and cholinergic systems. All medications were reported to be safe and tolerable. EXPERT OPINION: Adding pharmacotherapy to psychotherapy is the optimal treatment for CUD on a case-by-case basis. Drug development to add to psychotherapy is the main path, but time and cost suggest repurposing and repositioning existing drugs. Considering sample size, follow-up, and effect size, further studies using objective tools are necessary. The future of CUD treatment is promising.

Characteristics, clinical benefit and reimbursement of new authorisations for oncohaematology drugs in Spain between 2017 and 2020. / Características, beneficio clínico y financiación de las nuevas autorizaciones de fármacos oncohematológicos en España entre 2017 y 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the authorisations and funding resolutions for new onco-hematological drugs in Spain between 2017 and 2020, as well as the results of their main trials. METHODS: Observational, cross-sectional, descriptive study conducted between October and December 2022. Onco-hematology drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency between 2017 and 2020 were included, according to EFPIA patients W.A.I.T Indicator 2021 Survey. Authorisation information was obtained from the main study of the European Public Assessment Report (EPAR). Data were collected on medicines, their authorisation and main study, benefit shown, cost, and status and time to reimbursement. RESULTS: Forty-one new drugs authorised for 49 indications were identified. More than half (58.5%) were targeted therapies, and 61.2% were for the treatment of solid tumors (61.2%). Most had palliative intent (71.4%) and were indicated in relapsed or refractory disease (55.1%). Of the clinical trials, 57.1% were phase III and 63.3% were randomised. The primary endpoint was overall survival in 16.3%, increasing to 25.8% among randomised clinical trials. Regarding licensed drugs based on response rate, the median response rate was 56.4% (IQI 40.0-66.3). In those authorised on the basis of surrogate time-to-event endpoints, the median Hazard Ratio was 0.54 (IQI 0.38-0.57), and among those using overall survival was 0.71 (IQI 0.59-0.77). Globally, 22.4% had shown benefit in overall survival, with a median gain of 4 months (IQI 3.6-16.7). One third (33.3%) of the indications evaluable according to the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale showed substantial clinical benefit. Of the indications, 75.5% were funded, half (48.6%; 36.7% of the total) with restrictions. The median time to funding was 19.5 months (IQI 11.4-29.3). CONCLUSIONS: Most main clinical trials of new onco-haematology drugs approved in Spain used surrogate primary endpoint and, at the time of authorisation, few had shown to prolong overall survival. More than a third were uncontrolled clinical trials.

Different Development Strategies Affecting Japan's Drug lag between Japan-Based and Foreign-Based Companies.

We examined the development strategies of new molecular entities approved during a 10-year period (fiscal years of 2012-2021) in Japan to determine the differences in drug lag between Japan and foreign companies. The results demonstrated a clear difference in development strategies. For example, products were usually developed through a "only-Japan" strategy by Japan companies (51.1% of products), compared to a "MRCT (multi-regional clinical trials)" strategy by foreign companies (54.9% of products). Regarding types of licenses, for Japan companies, the percentage of original products was higher in the category of less drug lag, such as "no approval in the US and EU" (59.1%), whereas the percentage of "license-in" products was markedly higher in the "drug lag ≥ 5 years" category (52.5%). Such differences were not observed for products developed by foreign companies. Of 64 license-in products developed by Japan companies with a drug lag > 5 years, 51 (79.7%) had already been approved in the US or EU at initiation of clinical development in Japan. The origin of approximately half (34) of the products was from the emerging companies (non-member foreign companies of the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacture Association). These results suggest that more global cooperation of Japan companies, particularly with emerging foreign companies, is necessary in terms of the earlier timing of license-in and development strategies of products to promote drug development without drug lag or drug loss in Japan.

[Translated article] Current situation and evolution of the availability of drugs in the pediatric population in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the characteristics of the new medicines approved in the pediatric population in the last 3 years, both those with studies only in the pediatric population and those that extend their indication in this population group, as well as the current situation in relation to their marketing and financing. METHODS: Descriptive observational study of all drugs that include an indication in the pediatric population in Spain (by extension of the indications of drugs already authorized or because they are new drugs that already include an indication in this population group), from January 2019 to March 2022. RESULTS: During the study period, 129 drugs included their indication in the pediatric population. 13.9% of them are not marketed, 46.5% are in a situation of non-financing, under study or without a request for financing, and 4.6% are financed for a specific pediatric subpopulation. 52.7% are original drugs, 4.7% are generic, 38.8% are biological, 3.8% are biosimilar, and 17.8% are orphan drugs. 57.36% of these medicines obtain the pediatric indication due to extension of the indication and 42.64% obtain it because they are new medicines that already include their studies in the pediatric population. CONCLUSIONS: Drugs with authorized indications are increasingly available in the pediatric population and the trend is to extend the indication of authorized drugs to the adult population. However, barriers in terms of financing and marketing need to be expedite and overcome to facilitate access to them.

Cancer drug indication approvals in China and the United States: a comparison of approval times and clinical benefit, 2001-2020.

Background: Perceived delays in cancer drug approvals have been a major concern for policymakers in China. Policies have been implemented to accelerate the launch of new cancer drugs and indications. This study aimed to assess similarities and differences between China and the United States in the approvals, timing, and clinical benefit evidence of cancer drug indications between 2001 and 2020. Methods: This study retrospectively identified all cancer drugs and indications approved in both China and the United States from January 1st, 2001 to December 31, 2020, and described differences in approval times as well as in submission and review times. Information on the availability of overall survival benefit evidence by December 31, 2020, was collected. Univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were used to assess whether evidence of benefit and other factors affected the propensity and timing of approvals of cancer drug indications in China. Findings: Between 2001 and 2020, 229 indications corresponding to 145 cancer drugs approved in the United States were identified. Of those, 80 indications (34.9%) were also approved in China by the end of 2020. Cancer drug indications were approved in China at a median of 1273.5 days after approval in the United States. The median submission and review time differences for cancer drug indications in China were 1198.0 days and 180.0 days respectively. Submission time differences accounted for most of the approval time differences (p < 0.001). Indications supported by overall survival benefit evidence had shorter median review time differences (145.0 days) than those without such evidence (235.0 days, p = 0.008). Indications with overall survival benefit evidence were 3.94 times more likely to be approved in China compared to those without such evidence (p = 0.001), controlling for approval year, cancer type, and the prevalence of cancer by site. Interpretation: FDA-approved cancer drug indications demonstrating a survival benefit were more likely to receive approvals in China with shorter regulatory review times compared to indications without such evidence. Given that manufacturer submission times were the main driver of cancer drug approval times in China, factors influencing submission timing should be explored. Funding: No funding.

An empirical analysis of overall survival in drug approvals by the US FDA (2006-2023).

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the use of surrogate markers in drugs approved for oncology/hematology indications. This has likely resulted in a greater number of approvals and possibly drugs coming to market faster, but it is unknown whether these drugs also improve overall survival (OS) for patients taking them. METHODS: We sought to estimate the percentage of oncology drugs that have shown to improve OS in a cross-sectional analysis of US FDA oncology drug approvals (2006-2023). We searched for OS data in registration trials and the peer-reviewed literature. RESULTS: We found 392 oncology drug approvals. Eighty-seven (22%) drug approvals were based on OS, 147 drug approvals were later tested for OS benefit (38% of all approvals and 48% of drugs approved on a surrogate), and 130 (33%) have yet to be tested for OS benefit. Of the 147 drug approvals later tested for OS, 109 (28% of all approvals and 74% of drugs later tested for OS) have yet to show OS benefit, whereas 38 (10% of all approvals and 26% of drugs later tested for OS benefit) were later shown to have OS benefit. In total, 125 out of 392 (32%) drugs approved for any indication have been shown to improve OS benefit at some point, and 267 (68%) have yet to show approval. CONCLUSION: About 32% of all oncology drug approvals have evidence for an improvement in OS. Higher standards are needed in drug regulation to ensure that approved drugs are delivering better patient outcomes, specifically in regards to survival.

Toward Patient-Centered Drug Approval for Treatment of Rare Diseases.

OBJECTIVES: This commentary seeks to improve the design and analysis of trials undertaken to obtain approval of drugs for treatment of rare diseases. METHODS: Methodological analysis reveals that use of hypothesis testing in the Food and Drug Administration drug approval process is harmful. Conventional asymmetric error probabilities bias the approval process against approval of new drugs. Hypothesis testing is inattentive to the relative magnitudes of losses to patient welfare when types 1 and 2 errors occur. Requiring the sample size to be large enough to guarantee the specified statistical power particularly inhibits the development of new drugs for treating rare diseases. Rarity of a disease makes it difficult to enroll the number of trial subjects needed to meet the statistical power standards for drug approval. RESULTS: Use of statistical decision theory in drug approval would overcome these serious deficiencies of hypothesis testing. Sample size would remain relevant to drug approval, but the criterion used to evaluate sample size would change. Rather than judging sample size by statistical power, the Food and Drug Administration could require a sample to be large enough to provide a specified nearness to optimality of the approval decision. CONCLUSIONS: Using nearness to optimality to set sample size and making approval decisions to minimize distance from optimality would particularly benefit the evaluation of drugs for treatment of rare diseases. It would enable a dramatic reduction in sample size relative to current norms, without compromising the clinical informativeness of trials.

Regulatory Considerations in the Approval of Rezafungin (REZZAYO) for the Treatment of Candidemia and Invasive Candidiasis in Adults.

On March 22, 2023, the FDA approved rezafungin (REZZAYO) for the treatment of candidemia and invasive candidiasis in adults with limited or no alternative treatment options. Rezafungin is an echinocandin that supports weekly dosing, enabling outpatient parenteral treatment that potentially avoids the need for a central venous catheter. Approval of rezafungin was based on a single adequate and well-controlled phase 3 study designed with a Day 30 all-cause mortality primary endpoint and 20% noninferiority margin, which demonstrated that rezafungin is noninferior to the comparator echinocandin. Nonclinical studies of rezafungin in non-human primates identified a neurotoxicity safety signal; however, rezafungin's safety profile in the completed clinical studies was similar to other FDA-approved echinocandins. Here we describe the rationale for this approval and important considerations during the review process for a flexible development program intended to expedite the availability of antimicrobial therapies to treat serious infections in patients with limited treatment options.

Approval status of essential therapeutic drugs for systemic sclerosis versus that of drugs for rheumatoid arthritis.

Objective: Systemic sclerosis, a rare disease characterized by chronic multisystem fibrosis, requires lifelong management, necessitating enough insurance coverage for the patient. Official drug approval is the first step to ensuring that the drug is covered by insurance. In this study, we investigated the approval status of essential therapeutic drugs for systemic sclerosis across eight countries and compared it with that of drugs for rheumatoid arthritis. Methods: The essential therapeutic drug lists for systemic sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis were taken from the guidelines of the American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology. Official drug approval status for the selected drugs was confirmed by searching representative Internet databases from eight countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Switzerland, Japan, and the Republic of Korea. Results: A total of 21 and 16 drugs were selected for systemic sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis, respectively. The drug approval rates of the 21 drugs for systemic sclerosis varied among countries. Most drugs used to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension, which were developed recently and are expensive, are approved by most countries; however, most older drugs-which are still essential for management of Raynaud's phenomenon, digital ulcers, interstitial lung disease, and skin fibrosis-are not approved by most countries. By contrast, almost all of the 16 drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, whether old or new, are approved by most countries. Conclusion: Approval rates for drugs used to treat systemic sclerosis, a rare disease, are much lower than those for drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis. Thus, approval rates of essential therapeutic drugs for systemic sclerosis need to improve, which will benefit patients by increasing the number of drugs covered by insurance.

Financial conflicts of interest among presenters, panellists and moderators at haematology and oncology FDA workshops.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the characteristics and financial conflicts of interest of presenters, panellists and moderators at haematology and oncology workshops held jointly with or hosted by the US FDA. SETTING: We included information on all publicly available haematology or oncology FDA workshop agendas held between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2022. EXPOSURE: General and research payments reported on Open Payments, industry funding to patient advocacy organizations reported on their webpages or 990 tax forms and employment in both pharmaceutical and regulatory settings. RESULTS: Among physicians eligible for payments, 78% received at least one payment from the industry between 2017 and 2021. The mean general payment amount was $82,170 for all years ($16,434 per year) and the median was $14,906 for all years ($2981 per year). Sixty-nine per cent of patient advocacy speakers were representing organizations that received financial support from the pharmaceutical industry. Among those representing regulatory agencies or pharmaceutical companies, 16% had worked in both settings during their careers. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our findings in this cross-sectional study show a majority of US-based physician presenters at haematology and oncology workshops held jointly with members of the US FDA have some financial conflict of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. These findings support the need for clear disclosures and suggest that a more balanced selection of presenters with fewer conflicts may help to limit bias in discussions between multiple stakeholders.

The role of real-world evidence for regulatory and public health decision-making for Accelerated Vaccine Deployment- a meeting report.

The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the need for rapid evidence generation to inform public health decisions beyond the limitations of conventional clinical trials. This report summarises presentations and discussions from a conference on the role of Real-World Evidence (RWE) in expediting vaccine deployment. Attended by regulatory bodies, public health entities, and industry experts, the gathering was a collaborative exchange of experiences and recommendations for leveraging RWE for vaccine deployment. RWE proved instrumental in refining decision-making processes to optimise dosing regimens, enhance guidance on target populations, and steer vaccination strategies against emerging variants. Participants felt that RWE was successfully integrated into lifecycle management, encompassing boosters and safety considerations. However, challenges emerged, prompting a call for improvements in data quality, standardisation, and availability, acknowledging the variability and potential inaccuracies in data across diverse healthcare systems. Regulatory transparency should also be prioritised to foster public trust, and improved collaborations with governments are needed to streamline data collection and navigate data privacy regulations. Moreover, building and sustaining resources, expertise, and infrastructure in LMICs emerged as imperative for RWE-generating capabilities. Continued stakeholder collaboration and securing adequate funding emerged as vital pillars for advancing the use of RWE in shaping responsive and effective public health strategies.

Recent and anticipated novel drug approvals for 2024.

PURPOSE: Health-system pharmacists play a crucial role in monitoring the pharmaceutical pipeline to manage formularies, allocate resources, and optimize clinical programs for new therapies. This article aims to support pharmacists by providing periodic updates on new and anticipated novel drug approvals. SUMMARY: Selected drug approvals anticipated in the 12-month period covering the first quarter of 2024 through the fourth quarter of 2024 are reviewed. The analysis emphasizes drugs expected to have significant clinical and financial impact in hospitals and clinics, as selected from 59 novel drugs awaiting US Food and Drug Administration approval. This year's pipeline includes recently added drugs with various indications including oncology, infectious diseases, genetic disorders, and rare diseases. New cellular and gene therapies are rapidly evolving and being studied for several rare diseases and cancers. CONCLUSION: More oncology agents, including gene therapies, oral agents, and monoclonal antibodies, are in the pipeline this year. Additional diseases targeted by new novel drugs, including cellular and gene therapies, are hemophilia, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, Alzheimer's disease, and rare diseases such as galactosemia and epidermolysis bullosa.

Clinically Important Benefits and Harms of Monoclonal Antibodies Targeting Amyloid for the Treatment of Alzheimer Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

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.