Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40880087›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

The Evolution of Randomized Clinical Trial Designs to Assess Therapeutics in Alzheimer Disease.

Etienne Aumont, Joseph Therriault, Angela T H Kwan, Giovanna Carello-Collar, Saman Arfaie, Brandon J Hall, João-Pedro Ferrari-Souza, Marcel S Woo, Arthur C Macedo, Cécile Tissot and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Using CA1 rather than the whole hippocampus to capture tau-PET Braak stage II.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  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

19 authors.

Etienne AumontMcGill University Research Centre for Studies in Aging, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Joseph TherriaultMcGill University Research Centre for Studies in Aging, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Angela T H KwanMcGill University Research Centre for Studies in Aging, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Giovanna Carello-CollarGraduate Program in Biological Sciences: Biochemistry, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Saman ArfaieMcGill University Research Centre for Studies in Aging, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Brandon J HallMcGill University Research Centre for Studies in Aging, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
João-Pedro Ferrari-SouzaGraduate Program in Biological Sciences: Biochemistry, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Marcel S WooMcGill University Research Centre for Studies in Aging, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Arthur C MacedoMcGill University Research Centre for Studies in Aging, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Cécile TissotMcGill University Research Centre for Studies in Aging, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Lydia TrudelMcGill University Research Centre for Studies in Aging, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Nesrine RahmouniMcGill University Research Centre for Studies in Aging, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Stijn ServaesMcGill University Research Centre for Studies in Aging, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Paolo VitaliMcGill University Research Centre for Studies in Aging, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Jean-Paul SoucyDepartment of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Tharick A PascoalDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Eduardo R ZimmerGraduate Program in Biological Sciences: Biochemistry, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Serge GauthierMcGill University Research Centre for Studies in Aging, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Pedro Rosa-NetoMcGill University Research Centre for Studies in Aging, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The success of recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for Alzheimer disease (AD), particularly those focusing on anti-amyloid therapies, has been discussed at length. However, the evolution of RCT design features for AD that preceded this success remain underexplored. Objective: To describe temporal changes in the features of RCT design for interventions in AD. Evidence Review: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched in January 2025 for phase 2 and 3 AD RCTs published between January 1992 and December 2024. RCTs that investigated an intervention for AD, with a placebo or standard-of-care control group, were included. Four assessors independently reviewed full-text articles to capture study characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures: The number of participants and the duration of RCTs as well as the target population, outcomes, and funding were extracted from published reports. These features were analyzed with respect to time using linear regression and χ2 analyses. Results: The study included 203 RCTs with 79 589 participants testing interventions in AD. From 1992 to 2024, the mean sample size increased by 464% for phase 2 RCTs (from 42 to 237), and 50% for phase 3 RCTs (from 632 to 951), while the mean trial duration increased by 188% (from 16 to 46 weeks) for phase 2, and 256% (from 20 to 71 weeks) for phase 3 RCTs. This longer duration of RCTs may be partially attributed by a greater share of disease-modifying rather than symptomatic treatments. Similarly, more recent trials required AD biomarker evidence for enrollment (from 1 of 36 [2.7%] before 2006 to 40 of 76 [52.6%] since 2019). A substantial difference in the type of therapeutics researched was observed, with anti-amyloid and anti-tau RCTs being more likely to be funded by the pharmaceutical industry compared with neurotransmitter or other RCTs (anti-amyloid or anti-tau, 68 of 71 [95.8%]; neurotransmitter, 52 of 69 [77.6%]; other, 33 of 52 [63.5%]). RCT transparency improved, with more frequent data accessibility statements, registered reports, and better reporting on race and ethnicity. Conclusions and Relevance: This methodology research of AD RCTs highlights substantial changes in key features of AD clinical trials from 1992 to 2024. AD RCTs have become larger and longer, such that they are powered to detect smaller clinical differences. The increased sample sizes and duration should enable the detection of smaller and more slowly occurring outcomes, which may lead to successful RCTs of therapies with slower and more subtle efficacy.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignHumans

Identifiers

PMID40880087
PMCPMC12397894

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.