Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39748848›Full record

ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)

Emerging Alzheimer's disease treatment paradigms: A late-stage clinical trial review.

Jakub P Hlávka, Andrew T Kinoshita, Divya Jeyasingh, Cheng Huang, Leila Mirsafian, Mireille Jacobson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.). 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
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Jakub P HlávkaHealth Economics, Policy and Innovation Institute, Faculty of Economics and Administration Masaryk University Brno Czech Republic.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2766-390X
Andrew T KinoshitaSol Price School of Public Policy Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics University of Southern California Los Angeles California USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6321-3642
Divya JeyasinghSol Price School of Public Policy Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics University of Southern California Los Angeles California USA.
Cheng HuangLeonard Davis School of Gerontology University of Southern California Los Angeles California USA.
Leila MirsafianLeonard Davis School of Gerontology University of Southern California Los Angeles California USA.
Mireille JacobsonSol Price School of Public Policy Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics University of Southern California Los Angeles California USA.

Funding

Ensuring Access to Novel Alzheimer’s and Dementia Treatments: Evaluating Innovative Payment ApproachesR01AG062277 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI GOLDMAN, DANA P, LAKDAWALLA, DARIUS N. · 2018 to 2021
$2.3M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG062277
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWithout disease-modifying interventions, Medicare and Medicaid spending on Alzheimer's disease (AD) management is expected to reach 637 billion USD annually by 2050. The recent advent of promising AD therapies after decades of a near-total failure rate in clinical trials suggests that more disease-modifying therapies are on the horizon. In this review, we assess the late-stage pipeline of disease-modifying candidates for AD and offer a novel classification of intervention candidates by treatment paradigms-groups of candidates that share an underlying biological mechanism of action and general disease target.

methodsWe extracted data from the National Library of Medicine clinical trials database regarding Phase 2 and 3 trials of disease-modifying AD therapies. We categorized trials into eight unique treatment paradigms, which we defined by combinations of therapy (biologic, small molecule, cell and gene therapy, other) and target (amyloid, tau, other). We analyzed primary endpoints, eligibility criteria including clinical ratings of cognition, trial phase and length, and funding sources.

resultsWe identified 123 unique disease-modifying intervention candidates in 175 late-stage clinical trials. Biologic and small molecule drugs comprised 30% and 54% of trials, respectively. Eligibility criteria favored patients between the ages of 60 and 80 years with mild cognitive impairment. Including multi-phase trials, 81% of studies were engaged in Phase 2 and 27% in Phase 3. Notably, within the Biologic-Amyloid paradigm, 64% of trials were engaged in Phase 3. DISCUSSION: Current studies of disease-modifying therapies for AD comprise a diverse set of approaches to treating the disease. However, effort is largely concentrated in a few treatment paradigms and a narrow patient population, causing varying rates of progress among treatment paradigms in the late-stage clinical trial pipeline. Strategies may be warranted to accelerate successes in the most promising therapeutical paradigms and nurture growth within nascent areas lacking resources but not potential. Highlights: An analysis of Alzheimer's disease trial treatment paradigms was conducted.From April 2021 to March 2023, 175 trials of 123 unique candidates were reviewed.Biologic and small molecule drugs comprised 30% and 54% of trials, respectively.Eligibility criteria favored ages 60 through 80 with mild cognitive impairment.

Indexed as

Alzheimer's diseaseclinical trialsdisease‐modifying therapypharmaceutical pipelinepharmacoeconomics

Identifiers

PMID39748848
PMCPMC11694526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.