ReviewFASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology2026
Anatomy of a Setback: A Taxonomy of Clinical Trial Failures in Alzheimer's Disease and Strategic Lessons for the Future.
Review in FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although Alzheimer's disease (AD) carries the highest clinical trial failure rate of any major therapeutic area, the strategic lessons from more than two decades of negative outcomes remain insufficiently integrated into drug development practice. To date, trial failures have been examined largely in isolation, with limited attention to the recurring patterns that may connect them across therapeutic classes and disease stages. In this perspective, we propose a taxonomy that assigns AD therapeutic failures to five categories according to the primary driver of each negative outcome-namely wrong target, wrong timing, wrong patient, insufficient target engagement, and wrong endpoint. We subsequently applied this framework to a representative set of drugs that entered clinical testing between 2000 and 2025, comprising anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies, β-site amyloid precursor protein-cleaving enzyme 1 inhibitors, tau-directed immunotherapies, neuroimmune-targeting agents, and metabolic repurposing candidates. Analysis across classes showed that the distribution of failure categories shifted progressively over time, from predominantly target-related failures in the mid-to-late 2010s toward patient-selection and endpoint-related failures in the current decade. From these patterns, we formulated strategic recommendations for next-generation trial design-including biomarker-driven patient enrichment, mechanism-specific endpoint validation, and adaptive platform architectures. Because numerous failures examined here replicate the negative outcomes of earlier programs, we conclude that a substantial proportion of late-stage AD trial failures may be structurally predictable and, through systematic classification, at least in part preventable. Despite these promising findings, the proposed taxonomy should be considered a working heuristic requiring external calibration before prospective deployment.
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.