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 46 studies in Treatments published 2019 (page 1 of 2) · 28,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 46 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 “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.

INTREPAD: A randomized trial of naproxen to slow progress of presymptomatic Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Neurology 2019-04-05

In cognitively intact individuals at risk, sustained treatment with naproxen sodium 220 mg twice daily increases frequency of adverse health effects but does not reduce apparent progression of presymptomatic AD. 4 key findings →

Participants: 195 Evidence: high

There was no difference in the age (mean [SD], 74.17 [7.96] years), sex (12 women [67%]), or baseline Mini-Mental State Examination score (mean [SD], 19.39 [3.24]) between the crossover (n = 9) and open-label groups (n = 9). 3 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Evidence: high

Comparison of cholinesterase inhibitor safety in real-world practice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) 2019-11-25

Compared with low-dose donepezil, galantamine use was associated with a lower risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.84, 95% confidence interval: 0.60-1.18), cardiovascular serious adverse events (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.78, 95% confidence interval: 0.62-0.98), and entry into a residential care facility (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.72, 95% confidence interval: 0.59-0.89). 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

In our final study sample (N = 21,558), significant difference in survival among index AD medication groups were observed with donepezil being associated with better survival than memantine, and oral and transdermal forms of rivastigmine for both ITT and as-treated analysis. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 21,558 Evidence: moderate

Low dose ω3-PUFA supplementation, either alone or in combination with a multidomain lifestyle intervention comprising physical activity counselling, had no significant effects on muscle strength over 3 years in elderly people. 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,679 Evidence: high

We were unable to detect a difference in HRQOL for screening for ADRD among older adults. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,008 Evidence: high

Risks and benefits of unapproved disease-modifying treatments for neurodegenerative disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. Neurology 2019-12-02

Assignment to active treatment was not beneficial for any of the indications examined and may have been slightly disadvantageous for patients with Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 39,875 Evidence: high

The average age in our 2 groups was 81.1 years, and 61.4% of our population was female. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 300 Evidence: moderate

Blood Pressure Variability and Progression of Clinical Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) 2019-09-23

Blood pressure variability (BPV) has been shown to have predictive value over blood pressure (BP) levels alone in stroke patients. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 460 Evidence: high

Effect of AZD0530 on Cerebral Metabolic Decline in Alzheimer Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2019-10-01

Statistically significant effects of AZD0530 treatment were not found on relative CMRgl reduction in an Alzheimer disease-associated region of interest or on secondary clinical or biomarker measures. 3 key findings →

Participants: 159 Evidence: high

Our analysis extends recent work by revealing specific benefits for instrumental activities of daily living for individuals in the early stages of AD and supports the value of exercise for individuals with cognitive impairment. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Change in occupational performance predicted change in depressive symptoms. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 20 Evidence: high

In terms of efficacy, the review showed a statistically, but not clinically significant, improvement in favor of immunotherapy versus placebo. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Effects of Nilvadipine on Cerebral Blood Flow in Patients With Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) 2019-06-17

Cerebrovascular changes, including reduced cerebral blood flow (CBF), occur early in the development of Alzheimer disease and may accelerate disease progression. 3 key findings →

Evidence: high

This study found no effect of ongoing BDZR use on ADAS-Cog scores in those with mild to moderate AD over 18 months. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 448 Evidence: high

In community-dwelling older persons, the combination of a long-term lifestyle MI and omega-3 supplementation did not reduce frailty level or incidence. 3 key findings →

Participants: 53 Evidence: high

This study investigated the association of statin use with sepsis risk in patients with dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 308 Evidence: moderate

Nutrition is a modifiable factor potentially related to aging. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 661 Evidence: high

Study objectives We investigated the effectiveness of a lighting intervention tailored to maximally affect the circadian system as a nonpharmacological therapy for treating problems with sleep, mood, and behavior in persons with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD). 3 key findings →

Participants: 46 Evidence: high

Benefit-finding reduces depressive symptoms as well as global burden in the long-term and increases psychological well-being in the medium-term. 1 key finding →

Participants: 129 Evidence: high

This study suggests that initiation of a low dose of antihypertensive treatment does not significantly increase the risk of OH in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 255 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 28,980 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 28,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.6%), 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.

1,038 records (3.6% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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