Home › Research › Treatments
Cholinesterase Inhibitors for Alzheimer's Disease: Multitargeting Strategy Based on Anti-Alzheimer's Drugs Repositioning
Md Tanvir Kabir, Md Sahab Uddin, Mst Marium Begum, Shanmugam Thangapandiyan, Md Sohanur Rahman, Lotfi Aleya, Bijo Mathew, Muniruddin Ahmed et al.. Current pharmaceutical design, 2019
Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety
In the brain, acetylcholine (ACh) is regarded as one of the major neurotransmitters. During the advancement of Alzheimer's disease (AD) cholinergic deficits occur and this can lead to extensive cognitive dysfunction and decline. Acetylcholinesterase (AChE) remains a highly feasible target for the symptomatic improvement of AD. Acetylcholinesterase (AChE) remains a highly viable target for the symptomatic improvement in AD because cholinergic deficit is a consistent and early finding in AD. The treatment approach of inhibiting peripheral AChE for myasthenia gravis had effectively proven that AChE inhibition was a reachable therapeutic target. Subsequently tacrine, donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine were developed and approved for the symptomatic treatment of AD. Since then, multiple cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) have been continued to be developed. These include newer ChEIs, naturally derived ChEIs, hybrids, and synthetic analogues. In this paper, we summarize the different types of ChEIs which are under development and their respective mechanisms of actions.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Kabir, M. T., Uddin, M. S., Begum, M. M., Thangapandiyan, S., Rahman, M. S., Aleya, L., et al. (2019). Cholinesterase Inhibitors for Alzheimer's Disease: Multitargeting Strategy Based on Anti-Alzheimer's Drugs Repositioning. Current pharmaceutical design. https://doi.org/10.2174/1381612825666191008103141
Vancouver
Kabir MT, Uddin MS, Begum MM, Thangapandiyan S, Rahman MS, Aleya L, et al. Cholinesterase Inhibitors for Alzheimer's Disease: Multitargeting Strategy Based on Anti-Alzheimer's Drugs Repositioning. Current pharmaceutical design. 2019. doi:10.2174/1381612825666191008103141. PMID: 31593530.
BibTeX
@article{kabir2019-31593530,
author = {Kabir, Md Tanvir and Uddin, Md Sahab and Begum, Mst Marium and Thangapandiyan, Shanmugam and Rahman, Md Sohanur and Aleya, Lotfi and Mathew, Bijo and Ahmed, Muniruddin and others},
title = {{Cholinesterase Inhibitors for Alzheimer's Disease: Multitargeting Strategy Based on Anti-Alzheimer's Drugs Repositioning}},
journal = {Current pharmaceutical design},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.2174/1381612825666191008103141},
pmid = {31593530},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2174/1381612825666191008103141}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The treatment approach of inhibiting peripheral AChE for myasthenia gravis had effectively proven that AChE inhibition was a reachable therapeutic target.
- Subsequently tacrine, donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine were developed and approved for the symptomatic treatment of AD.
- Since then, multiple cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) have been continued to be developed.
- These include newer ChEIs, naturally derived ChEIs, hybrids, and synthetic analogues.
- In this paper, we summarize the different types of ChEIs which are under development and their respective mechanisms of actions.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 39/100
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 22 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 39 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Current pharmaceutical design) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 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 31593530) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 22 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 39 out of 100. |
| Total | 39 / 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 “repurposing”
234 studies in the library carry the topic tag “repurposing”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 234 tagged studies.