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 48 studies in Treatments published 2015 (page 1 of 2) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Browse by subject, author or institution

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

What “Treatments” covers

Treatments — Drug and non-drug treatment research — what was tested, in whom, and what changed — plus the approvals and coverage decisions that followed.

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.

Memantine monotherapy for Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 83 out of 100. PloS one 2015-04-10

Memantine monotherapy improved cognition, behavior, activities of daily living, global function, and stage of dementia and was well-tolerated by AD patients. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,433 Evidence: high

With the sequential parallel comparison design, 152 patients received dextromethorphan-quinidine and 127 received placebo during the study. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 93 Evidence: high

Among older persons with AMD, oral supplementation with LCPUFAs or lutein/zeaxanthin had no statistically significant effect on cognitive function. 5 key findings →

Participants: 89 Evidence: high

Rivastigmine for Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2015-04-10

Tacrine, the first of the cholinesterase inhibitors to undergo extensive trials for this purpose, was associated with significant adverse effects including hepatotoxicity. 4 key findings →

Participants: 3,232 Evidence: high

Etanercept in Alzheimer disease: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Neurology 2015-05-01

This study showed that subcutaneous etanercept (50 mg/wk) was well tolerated in this small group of patients with Alzheimer disease dementia, but a larger more heterogeneous group needs to be tested before recommending its use for broader groups of patients. 4 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: high

These findings describe solanezumab effects on efficacy/safety measures in a mild AD population. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 659 Evidence: low

In this FTIH study the Fc-inactivated anti-Aβ mAb GSK933776 engaged its target in plasma and CSF without causing brain ARIA-E/H in patients with mild AD or MCI. 1 key finding →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 18 Evidence: low

There was a significant interaction (P = 0.024) between B vitamin treatment and plasma combined ω-3 fatty acids (eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid) on brain atrophy rates. 5 key findings →

Participants: 83 Evidence: low

This trial found no benefit of 24-month multidomain intervention with focus on improvement in lifestyle and vascular risk factors on the incidence of poststroke cognitive decline in comparison with standard stroke care. 1 key finding →

Participants: 101 Evidence: high

Early Statin Use and the Progression of Alzheimer Disease: A Total Population-Based Case-Control Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Medicine 2015-11-01

The protective effect of statin on Alzheimer disease (AD) is still controversial, probably due to the debate about when to start the use of statin and the lack of any large-scale randomized evidence that actually supports the hypothesis. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

ABT-089, an α4β2 neuronal nicotinic receptor partial agonist, was evaluated for efficacy and safety in mild to moderate Alzheimer disease patients receiving stable doses of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 337 Evidence: high

Atraumatic convexal subarachnoid hemorrhage (cSAH) in elderly patients is a rare entity that has been associated with cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) and intracerebral hematomas (ICH). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 22 Evidence: moderate

Risk of pneumonia in new users of cholinesterase inhibitors for dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2015-04-27

The mean age of 35,570 new users of cholinesterase inhibitors (30,174 users of donepezil, 1,176 users of galantamine, 4,220 users of rivastigmine) was 82; 75% were women, and 82% were white. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

BACE1 is a key protease controlling the formation of amyloid β, a peptide hypothesized to play a significant role in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Design: clinical trial Evidence: low

The study will provide evidence for evaluating and understanding the role of electroacupuncture in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →

Participants: 75 Evidence: high

SCarlet RoAD (NCT01224106; WN25203), a Phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-year study of gantenerumab in prodromal AD, was the first global registration-enabling study using biomarker screening for entry and a single clinical endpoint for outcome. 3 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 312 Evidence: high

The objective of this study was to compare the effect of multisensory stimulation environment (MSSE) and one-to-one activity sessions in the symptomatology of elderly individuals with severe dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

RVT-101 is a 5-hydroxytryptamine 6 (5-HT6) receptor antagonist for the treatment of dementia with a number of favorable properties including once daily dosing, lack of food effect, and low potential for drug interactions. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 684 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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