Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33207605›Full record

ReviewPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland)2020

Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease and Blood-Brain Barrier Drug Delivery.

William M Pardridge

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

87 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Recent Advances in Oral Drug Delivery Systems for BCS III Drugs.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

27 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author.

William M PardridgeDepartment of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2664-1338

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the enormity of the societal and health burdens caused by Alzheimer's disease (AD), there have been no FDA approvals for new therapeutics for AD since 2003. This profound lack of progress in treatment of AD is due to dual problems, both related to the blood-brain barrier (BBB). First, 98% of small molecule drugs do not cross the BBB, and ~100% of biologic drugs do not cross the BBB, so BBB drug delivery technology is needed in AD drug development. Second, the pharmaceutical industry has not developed BBB drug delivery technology, which would enable industry to invent new therapeutics for AD that actually penetrate into brain parenchyma from blood. In 2020, less than 1% of all AD drug development projects use a BBB drug delivery technology. The pathogenesis of AD involves chronic neuro-inflammation, the progressive deposition of insoluble amyloid-beta or tau aggregates, and neural degeneration. New drugs that both attack these multiple sites in AD, and that have been coupled with BBB drug delivery technology, can lead to new and effective treatments of this serious disorder.

Indexed as

Alzheimer’s diseaseblood–brain barrierbrain drug deliverydrug targetingendotheliumneurotrophinstherapeutic antibodiesTNF inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID33207605
PMCPMC7697739

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.