Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34117127›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2021

Novel drug candidates targeting Alzheimer's disease: ethical challenges with identifying the relevant patient population.

Erik Gustavsson, Pauline Raaschou, Gerd Lärfars, Lars Sandman, Niklas Juth

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Erik GustavssonCentre for Applied Ethics, Department of Culture and Society, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden erik.gustavsson@liu.se.ORCID 0000-0001-5448-9209
Pauline RaaschouClinical Pharmacology Unit, Clinical Epidemiology Division, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Gerd LärfarsHealth and Medical Care Administration, Region Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden.
Lars SandmanNational Centre for Priorities in Health, Department of Health, Medicine and Caring sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Niklas JuthStockholm Centre of Healthcare Ethics, LIME, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Karolinska Institutet · SELinköping University · SEStockholm Health Care Services · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intensive research is carried out to develop a disease-modifying drug for Alzheimer's disease (AD). The development of drug candidates that reduce Aß or tau in the brain seems particularly promising. However, these drugs target people at risk for AD, who must be identified before they have any, or only moderate, symptoms associated with the disease. There are different strategies that may be used to identify these individuals (eg, population screening, cascade screening, etc). Each of these strategies raises different ethical challenges. In this paper, we analyse these challenges in relation to the risk stratification for AD necessary for using these drugs. We conclude that the new drugs must generate large health benefits for people at risk of developing AD to justify the ethical costs associated with current risk stratification methods, benefits much larger than current drug candidates have. This conclusion raises a new set of ethical questions that should be further discussed.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseasePharmaceutical PreparationsBrainHumansMoralsPharmaceutical Preparationsautonomydementiadrugs and drug Industryethics

Identifiers

PMID34117127
PMCPMC8394767
OpenAlexW3170850436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.