Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 34 studies in Drug development of type systematic review or meta-analysis (page 1 of 2) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 34 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

What “Drug development” covers

Drug development — Candidate treatments on their way through the pipeline, from the laboratory to early human trials.

A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.

We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.

The systematic review and NMA includes 493 168 participants from 869 trials (adding 53 trials since October 2022) reporting data for 13 drug classes (63 drugs) and 26 outcomes of interest. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 168 Evidence: high

Our analysis encompassed 22 RCTs involving 138,282 participants (mean age 64.8 years, 36.4% female). 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 138,282 Evidence: high

GLP-1 RA therapy did not alter amyloid-β and tau biomarkers nor show improvements in cognition but showed potential metabolic and neuroprotective benefits. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Participants: 1,444 Evidence: high

Newer GLDs were associated with a decreased risk of all-cause dementia in people with T2D. Because of the observational nature and significant heterogeneity between studies, the results should be interpreted with caution. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 819,511 Evidence: high

This analysis indicated that patients with type 2 diabetes under treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors presented with the lowest risk of dementia, followed by those treated with metformin and thiazolidinedione, while treatment with insulin was associated with the highest risk. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 530,355 Evidence: high

Emerging evidence suggests that treatment with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) could be an interesting treatment strategy to reduce neurological complications such as stroke, cognitive impairment, and peripheral neuropathy. 3 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 19 Evidence: high

A total of seven studies were included. The forest plot results showed that taking lithium therapy reduced the risk of AD (RR 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.78) and is also protective in reducing the risk of dementia (RR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.56-0.77). 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

This study (registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018085967) compares the efficacy (i.e. pro-cognitive effects) and acceptability of antidiabetic agents for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 4,855 Evidence: high

We aimed to summarise current evidence on different antidiabetic drugs to delay cognitive impairment, including mild cognitive impairment, dementia, Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia, among subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

While most studies to date have been cross-sectional, limiting the establishment of causal relationships, the potential benefits of trace lithium for suicide prevention and dementia prevention are notable, especially in the absence of radical treatments for suicide and dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

The results showed that intestinal expression of GLP-1 1 could reduce the intestinal pathogenic genus such as Enterobacteriaceae and was obviously associated with a greater number of beneficial genera such as Lactobacillus and Akkermansia. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Anticancer drugs repurposed for Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Alzheimer's research & therapy 2021-05-05

Based on a structured search on the ClinicalTrials.gov and the EudraCT databases, we identified 13 clinical trials testing 11 different approved anticancer agents (five tyrosine kinase inhibitors, two retinoid X receptor agonists, two immunomodulatory agents, one histone deacetylase inhibitor, and one monoclonal antibody) in the AD continuum. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

There is a lack of midlife specific data, limited data on VaD, and a lack of geographical representation for many risk factors for dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

GLP-1's role in neuroprotection: a systematic review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Brain injury 2019-04-02

Recent literature shows that GLP-1 and its agonists, DPP-4 inhibitors and combined GLP-1/GIP molecules are effective in partially or fully reversing the effects of neurotoxic compounds, neurovascular complications of diabetes, neuropathological changes related with Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease or vascular occlusion. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

↑ Change the filters

Where “Free full text” comes from

Free full text links and the Full text may need a subscription label come from Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex records of free copies, checked 10 Oct 2026. A study with neither is unknown, not paywalled. Show only studies that are free to read

How the 0–100 score works — and why some entries are capped

This is alzhub's own score. It is not an official metric, not an impact factor, and no journal, publisher or ranking body endorses it. We built it so that a reader who is not a scientist can tell a landmark trial from a conference abstract without having to already know the difference. Every point comes from one of 20 components, all of them printed on the study itself, so you can disagree with our arithmetic rather than having to trust the total.

  • Journal tier up to 10 pts
  • Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
  • Study design up to 12 pts
  • Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
  • Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
  • How recent up to 5 pts
  • Sample size up to 4 pts
  • Effect reported up to 3 pts
  • Studied in people up to 3 pts
  • Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
  • Times cited up to 7 pts
  • Citations per year up to 5 pts
  • Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
  • Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
  • Still being cited up to 4 pts
  • Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
  • Institution's track record up to 3 pts
  • Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
  • Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
  • Free to read up to 2 pts

Journals are placed in ordered tiers, never given a numeric impact factor — we could not verify current impact factors from a source we control, and an invented one would be worse than none. Tier 1 is the top-tier general journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA, Nature, Science, Nature Medicine); tier 2 is the leading specialty journals; tier 3 is every other peer-reviewed journal. A separate part scores how much the journal's own papers are cited, which tells the tier-3 journals apart.

Two rules we don't bend. First, we never fill in a missing value: if a record does not state a sample size or a design, that component scores zero, and if we simply have no data for a part, such as a citation count, that part is left out and the study is scored on the parts we could check. The study card says which. Second, anything that is not a peer-reviewed article is capped at 16/100 and carries a warning chip — so a conference abstract or a company press release can never outrank a peer-reviewed paper, no matter how good it looks.

We rank a rigorous null result — a good trial showing that something does not work — above an early positive finding. Someone deciding whether to buy a supplement is served by that, and the rigour is already counted by the design and journal components.

The score is computed from the published data alone and is reproducible: the same file always yields the same numbers.

See the whole rubric drawn out → — four charts covering all 27,780 studies: how the scores are spread and where the cap bites, which of the 20 components the library is strong and weak on, which subjects rest on stronger evidence, and what kinds of study each subject is actually built from.

What this library is — and isn't

This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), plus smaller pulls from PubMed, Crossref and medRxiv. If a study, a drug, or a finding isn't here, that is not evidence it doesn't exist in the literature — it may simply not have been pulled in yet.

1,034 records (3.7% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 of those are preprints posted before any journal review, and the rest are conference abstracts, regulatory notices and reports. Every study card on this page states its status plainly, and the score above is capped for anything that isn't a peer-reviewed article.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed