ReviewCureus2023
Attempts to Develop Vaccines Against Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review of Ongoing and Completed Vaccination Trials in Humans.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Alzheimer disease: Amyloid peptide controversies and challenges of anti-Aβ immunotherapy.The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics · 2025Review
- Vaccines for Alzheimer's disease: a brief scoping review.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025Article
- Exploring the role of T cells in Alzheimer's and other neurodegenerative diseases: Emerging therapeutic insights from the T Cells in the Brain symposium.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Article
- Recent Advances in Therapeutics for the Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this systematic review, we evaluate the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of vaccination efforts against Alzheimer's disease (AD) in human subjects from both ongoing and completed vaccination trials. Databases like PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were used to identify relevant articles on completed vaccination trials whereas the clinicaltrials.gov database was used for identifying ongoing clinical trials for vaccination against AD in humans until January 2022. Only interventional randomized or non-randomized clinical trials which reported on the safety and immunogenicity of vaccine against AD in humans were included. Cochrane risk of bias tool-2 (RoB-2) or risk of bias in non-randomized studies- of intervention (ROBINS-I) was used for risk of bias assessment as appropriate. A narrative descriptive synthesis of the findings was done. Sixteen randomized/non-randomized clinical trials (phase I: six and phase II: 10) for seven different types of vaccines against AD were identified comprising a total of 2080 participants. Apart from the development of meningoencephalitis in 6% of patients receiving AN1792 in an interrupted phase II trial, the rest of the trial reported promising results on the safety and immunogenicity of vaccines. While only a subset of reported adverse events was treatment related, none of the fatalities reported during the trial were considered related to vaccine administration. The serological response rate ranged from 100% (4/16 trials) to 19.7% in an interrupted trial. Although current trials show promising results, adequately powered phase III studies are needed to conclusively establish the safety, immunogenicity and therapeutic efficacy of vaccines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.