Home › Research › Treatments
Can we do better in developing new drugs for Alzheimer's disease?
Serge Gauthier, Philip Scheltens. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2009-11
Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety
The past 30 years have seen multiple attempts at demonstrating the safety and efficacy of drugs for Alzheimer's disease (AD), predominantly to improve symptoms. Only five drugs (tacrine, donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine, memantine) have obtained regulatory approval in most countries. Their cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective has not been universally recognized, and anybody who thinks these drugs are useful for individual patients will have to agree that the improvement above the starting point of treatment is moderate. Most of the benefit has been in slowing down progression of symptoms rather than a readily detectable improvement above baseline. There have also been attempts at arresting progression of AD, but all have failed until now. Should we change our approach to developing new drugs for AD so as to move forward? This review will highlight some options to consider in the development of future drugs for AD, with emphasis on strategies to prevent AD or arrest its progression.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Gauthier, S., & Scheltens, P. (2009). Can we do better in developing new drugs for Alzheimer's disease? Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2009.09.002
Vancouver
Gauthier S, Scheltens P. Can we do better in developing new drugs for Alzheimer's disease? Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2009. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2009.09.002. PMID: 19896588.
BibTeX
@article{gauthier2009-19896588,
author = {Gauthier, Serge and Scheltens, Philip},
title = {{Can we do better in developing new drugs for Alzheimer's disease?}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
year = {2009},
doi = {10.1016/j.jalz.2009.09.002},
pmid = {19896588},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2009.09.002}
}
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.
Key findings
- Their cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective has not been universally recognized, and anybody who thinks these drugs are useful for individual patients will have to agree that the improvement above the starting point of treatment is moderate.
- Most of the benefit has been in slowing down progression of symptoms rather than a readily detectable improvement above baseline.
- There have also been attempts at arresting progression of AD, but all have failed until now.
- Should we change our approach to developing new drugs for AD so as to move forward?
- This review will highlight some options to consider in the development of future drugs for AD, with emphasis on strategies to prevent AD or arrest its progression.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a leading specialty 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 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association) |
| 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 | 2009 — 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 19896588) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 23 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 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.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Treatments
Also tagged “galantamine”
271 studies in the library carry the topic tag “galantamine”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 271 tagged studies.