Home › Research › Clinical trials
Cassava Sciences Topline Phase 3 Data Did Not Meet Co-Primary Endpoints (ReThink-ALZ)
Cassava Sciences, Inc. (company press release of trial results). GlobeNewswire (company press release); trial registered as NCT04994483, 2024-11-25
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
This was the pivotal, large-scale trial meant to prove whether simufilam, a controversial experimental Alzheimer's drug, actually works. It did not: people taking the drug declined at essentially the same rate as those on placebo on both the cognitive test and the daily-function test, and it missed every pre-specified endpoint, cognitive, functional, and biomarker.
Key findings
- 804 participants randomized 1:1 to simufilam or placebo
- No significant difference on ADAS-Cog12 (p=0.43) or ADCS-ADL (p=0.40)
- Failed all pre-specified co-primary, secondary, and exploratory biomarker endpoints
- Company reported an 'overall favorable safety profile' for simufilam despite the efficacy failure
- Came after years of research-misconduct allegations regarding the preclinical/biomarker data underlying the drug's development (see related SEC and retraction records)
Why it matters
This was the pivotal, large-scale trial meant to prove whether simufilam, a controversial experimental Alzheimer's drug, actually works, and it did not: people taking the drug declined at essentially the same rate as those on placebo on both the cognitive test and the daily-function test. It missed every pre-specified endpoint, cognitive, functional, and biomarker.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Registered clinical trials →
Study details
- Study designphase-3-trial
- Participants804
- Effect sizeADAS-Cog12: -2.8 (simufilam) vs -3.2 (placebo) points, difference -0.39, p=0.43; ADCS-ADL: -3.3 vs -3.8 points, difference 0.51, p=0.40
- Evidence strengthNull-result
Limitations
Findings are from a company topline press release, not yet a peer-reviewed publication with full statistical methods and pre-specified analysis plan detail; given the documented history of data-manipulation allegations tied to this drug's supporting science, extra scrutiny of any future full publication is warranted.
How this study scored 16/100
Press release — not a study. It scored 44 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for randomised / blinded and indexed in PubMed because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, 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 29 of the 66 points we could judge it on, which is 44 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (GlobeNewswire (company press release); trial registered as NCT04994483) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A large phase 3 trial |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “null-result” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 1 / 10 | Press release — not a study. Named source is a company press release. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 804 participants |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| 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 | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| 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 | 0 / 2 | No PubMed ID and no DOI — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 29 / 66 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 66 points we could judge it on is 44 out of 100. |
| Total | 44 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
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. This record has no DOI, so the citation leaves it out. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Sciences, C. (2024). Cassava Sciences Topline Phase 3 Data Did Not Meet Co-Primary Endpoints (ReThink-ALZ). GlobeNewswire (company press release); trial registered as NCT04994483.
Vancouver
Sciences C. Cassava Sciences Topline Phase 3 Data Did Not Meet Co-Primary Endpoints (ReThink-ALZ). GlobeNewswire (company press release); trial registered as NCT04994483. 2024.
BibTeX
@article{sciences2024-e69e4b94,
author = {Sciences, Cassava},
title = {{Cassava Sciences Topline Phase 3 Data Did Not Meet Co-Primary Endpoints (ReThink-ALZ)}},
journal = {GlobeNewswire (company press release); trial registered as NCT04994483},
year = {2024}
}