Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26188654›Full record

ArticleCNS drugs2015

Prevention studies in Alzheimer's disease: progress towards the development of new therapeutics.

Nicola Coley, Adeline Gallini, Sandrine Andrieu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in CNS drugs, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Nicola ColeyInserm UMR1027, 31073, Toulouse, France.
Adeline Gallini
Sandrine Andrieu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia and is a major cause of disability and dependency amongst older people. AD drugs approved so far are symptomatic treatments and are not thought to affect the underlying disease process. Trials conducted with agents aiming to slow or stop disease progression in patients with AD have all failed, perhaps because they were tested too late in the disease process. Therefore, there has been a move towards prevention of AD. This paper presents an overview of trials testing pharmacological interventions for sporadic AD prevention. Those tested to date were initially developed for the treatment of AD or for the treatment of other conditions, rather than being specifically developed for AD prevention. Associated issues, such as evidence of 'proof-of-concept,' doses and safety, are discussed. A major shift has taken place in the methodology of AD prevention trials since the results of the first trials were published in the 1990s. New directions that are currently being considered in ongoing or future prevention trials are discussed, in terms of endpoints, target populations, and study design. The use of AD-specific drugs to prevent AD in high-risk individuals is currently limited by a lack of validated predictive and surrogate markers. Population approaches, such as lifestyle changes, are an alternative strategy that could be of public health interest, but may provide only limited benefits for individuals. The best chance of preventing AD may come from a combination of individual and population prevention approaches.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicAlzheimer DiseaseHumansNeuroprotective AgentsPsychotropic DrugsResearch DesignNeuroprotective AgentsPsychotropic Drugs

Identifiers

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.