Home › Research › Clinical trials
Bapineuzumab
Geoffrey A Kerchner, Adam L Boxer. Expert opinion on biological therapy, 2010-07
Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety
IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD: Alzheimer's disease is the leading cause of dementia in the elderly, and there is no disease-modifying therapy yet available. Immunotherapy directed against the beta-amyloid peptide may be capable of slowing the rate of disease progression. Bapineuzumab, an anti-beta-amyloid monoclonal antibody, will be the first such agent to emerge from Phase III clinical trials. AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW: The primary literature on bapineuzumab from 2009 and 2010 is reviewed in its entirety, along with the literature on AN1792, a first-generation anti-beta-amyloid vaccine, from 2003 to 2009. Other Alzheimer's disease immunotherapeutics currently in development, according to www.clinicaltrials.gov , are also discussed. WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN: In addition to a critical appraisal of the Phase II trial results for bapineuzumab, this review considers the broader field of immunotherapy for Alzheimer's disease as a whole, including the challenges ahead. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Bapineuzumab appears capable of reducing the cerebral beta-amyloid peptide burden in patients with Alzheimer's disease. However, particularly in APOE 4 carriers, its ability to slow disease progression remains uncertain, and vasogenic edema - a dose-limiting and potentially severe adverse reaction - may limit its clinical applicability.
Key findings
- WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN: In addition to a critical appraisal of the Phase II trial results for bapineuzumab, this review considers the broader field of immunotherapy for Alzheimer's disease as a whole, including the challenges ahead.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Registered clinical trials →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 38/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Expert opinion on biological therapy) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2010 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 20497044) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 21 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100. |
| Total | 38 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Kerchner, G. A., & Boxer, A. L. (2010). Bapineuzumab. Expert opinion on biological therapy. https://doi.org/10.1517/14712598.2010.493872
Vancouver
Kerchner GA, Boxer AL. Bapineuzumab. Expert opinion on biological therapy. 2010. doi:10.1517/14712598.2010.493872. PMID: 20497044.
BibTeX
@article{kerchner2010-20497044,
author = {Kerchner, Geoffrey A and Boxer, Adam L},
title = {{Bapineuzumab}},
journal = {Expert opinion on biological therapy},
year = {2010},
doi = {10.1517/14712598.2010.493872},
pmid = {20497044},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1517/14712598.2010.493872}
}