Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19595897›Full record

ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association2006

Challenges to demonstrating disease-modifying effects in Alzheimer's disease clinical trials.

Jeffrey L Cummings

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. What should convince a clinician of disease modification in Alzheimer's disease clinical trials?Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
    Review
  7. Constructing the Framework for Disease Modification in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Platelet biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease.World journal of psychiatry · 2012
    Review
  15. Optimum Design of Disease-modifying Trials on Alzheimer's Disease.Statistics in biopharmaceutical research · 2012
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jeffrey L CummingsDepartment of Neurology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and Reed Neurological Research Center, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1769, USA. jcummings@mednet.ucla.edu

Funding

UCLA ALZHEIMERS DISEASE RESEARCH CENTERP50AG016570 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI BREDESEN, DALE E. · 1999 to 2014
$25.9M
NIA NIH HHS P50 AG016570
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Progress in understanding the molecular biology of Alzheimer's disease (AD) has provided a number of plausible therapeutic targets for disease-modifying interventions. To advance these agents toward eventual US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and incorporation into clinical practice by physicians and acceptance by patients and caregivers it is necessary to reach consensus on the meaning of disease modification and on what information is needed to provide a compelling factual basis for distinguishing disease modification from symptomatic treatment effects. Disease modification requires that the intervention have an impact of underlying pathology and pathophysiology of AD; disease course modification, illness modification or disability sparing are alternate terminologies that could be applied to symptomatic agents that do not affect the underlying neurobiology of AD. A variety of trial designs have been proposed to provide information supporting disease modification including change from baseline designs, survival type designs, staggered start designs, and staggered withdrawal designs. Each of these has shortcomings, and by themselves trial designs are not likely to provide sufficient information to conclusively prove that disease modification has occurred. Incorporation of a biomarker into clinical trials will support the claim for disease modification. Such a surrogate marker ideally should respond to the intervention, predict the clinical response to the intervention, and be compellingly related to the neurobiology of AD in the pathway affected by the intervention. A third axis of information supportive of disease modification is derived from observation of the effect of treatment in animal models of AD. The triad of a clinical outcome consistent with disease modification, support from a surrogate marker incorporated into the clinical trial, and basic science information indicating the effect of the therapy on a model of AD would combine to make a convincing case for disease modification.

Identifiers

PMID19595897
PMCPMC5854177

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.