Home › Research › End-of-life care
Drugs for Alzheimer's disease: are they effective?
David Casey, Demetra E. Antimisiaris, James G. O’Brien. PubMed Central, 2010-04-01
Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety
Alzheimer’s disease (AD), a devastating neurodegenerative disorder, is the leading cause of dementia in the U.S. and in other developed countries. Patients experience progressive, disabling cognitive impairment and eventually require constant care and supervision. Approximately 96% of AD patients are elderly, but the absolute number of patients younger than 65 years of age has grown with the arrival of the “baby-boomer” generation (those born between 1946 and 1964) to the cusp of old age.1 AD is the sixth leading cause of death for all ages and the fifth leading cause of death for those 65 years of age and older in the U.S.1,2 This disorder affects approximately 5% of people 65 to 74 years of age and almost 50% of people older than 85 years of age, at an annual cost of approximately $148 billion in the U.S. alone.1 The problem will become much greater as baby-boomers age. An estimated 5.3 million persons in the U.S. have AD. This figure is projected to grow to 13.2 million by 2050.1 Given the impact of AD, there is an urgent need for effective therapies. Currently, five drugs have been approved by the FDA for use in AD, including four cholinesterase inhibitors and one N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist (see Drug Therapy). The five medications are widely utilized, and several respected organizations have endorsed their use.3 As of this writing, no alternatives to these medications are available. These five drugs are supportive or palliative rather than curative or disease-modifying therapies, and they do not appear to alter the final outcome of the disease.3 The total dollars expended on these treatments in the U.S. alone exceeds $1 billion annually, and these therapies continue to be heavily promoted by their respective manufacturers.4 Nevertheless, the ongoing debate over their effectiveness continues, especially in view of the costs incurred.5 In this article, we review the evidence supporting the use of these agents and explore the controversies involved. This discussion is timely in view of the national debate on health care reform, because it involves the need to balance costs and benefits on an enormous scale. Similar debates may be expected in many other areas of medicine.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Casey, D., Antimisiaris, D. E., & O’Brien, J. G. (2010). Drugs for Alzheimer's disease: are they effective? PubMed Central.
Vancouver
Casey D, Antimisiaris DE, O’Brien JG. Drugs for Alzheimer's disease: are they effective? PubMed Central. 2010. PMID: 20498822.
BibTeX
@article{casey2010-20498822,
author = {Casey, David and Antimisiaris, Demetra E. and O’Brien, James G.},
title = {{Drugs for Alzheimer's disease: are they effective?}},
journal = {PubMed Central},
year = {2010},
pmid = {20498822}
}
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.
Key findings
- Currently, five drugs have been approved by the FDA for use in AD, including four cholinesterase inhibitors and one N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist (see Drug Therapy).
- The five medications are widely utilized, and several respected organizations have endorsed their use.3 As of this writing, no alternatives to these medications are available.
- These five drugs are supportive or palliative rather than curative or disease-modifying therapies, and they do not appear to alter the final outcome of the disease.3 The total dollars expended on these treatments in the U.S. alone exceeds $1 billion annually, and these therapies continue to be heavily promoted by their respective manufacturers.4 Nevertheless, the ongoing debate over their effectiveness continues, especially in view of the costs incurred.5 In this article, we review the evidence supporting the use of these agents and explore the controversies involved.
- This discussion is timely in view of the national debate on health care reform, because it involves the need to balance costs and benefits on an enormous scale.
- Similar debates may be expected in many other areas of medicine.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 40/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / 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 and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (PubMed Central) |
| 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) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 20498822) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 23 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100. |
| Total | 40 / 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 End-of-life care
Also tagged “cholinesterase”
271 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cholinesterase”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 271 tagged studies.