ArticleDementia & neuropsychologia2026
Evaluating the safety of investigational anti-Alzheimer's drugs: a comprehensive meta-analysis in the past to current decade.
Article in Dementia & neuropsychologia, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease is a progressive illness that results in the degeneration of neurons with considerable burden. The pharmacological treatments for Alzheimer's disease include cholinesterase inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, NMDA receptor antagonists despite having different adverse drug reactions (ADR) alongside the health benefits. Limited data exists for the complete safety evaluation across different classes of anti-Alzheimer's drugs. Objective: The meta-analysis evaluated the severity, frequency and variability of ADR as a result of Alzheimer's drugs to determine relative safety across various classes. Methods: This meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines with studies derived from the United States National Library of Medicine (PubMed), Embase, Scopus and ClinicalTrials.gov that focus on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies which detailed ADRs of anti-Alzheimer's drugs. Jeffrey's Amazing Statistics Program (JASP) software was used to conduct heterogeneity assessment (I2), risk ratio (RR) and publication bias analysis in addition to meta-regression. Results: 31 studies were utilized. The studies with cholinesterase inhibitors exhibited more gastrointestinal ADRs and monoclonal antibodies exhibited amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA-H and E). The BACE1 inhibitors showed liver toxicity that led to increased patient drug discontinuation. A random-effects model was used for the analysis due to heterogeneity (I Conclusion: The research demonstrates considerable variations in the safety of Alzheimer's drugs that need tailored treatment supported by post-approval monitoring systems. The literature needs extended investigations of safety evaluation as well as practical treatment investigations in actual clinical settings. Unlike conventional reviews focusing solely on currently approved therapies, this study provides a cross-generational analysis of adverse drug reactions across both historical and investigational anti-Alzheimer's agents, offering insights into mechanism-related safety patterns that may inform the development and clinical use of emerging therapies.
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.