This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

35/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 35 out of 100. Digital health tools

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Huntington's disease (HD) is a devastating neuropsychiatric disorder for which therapeutic interventions have been rather fruitless to date, except in a slight symptomatic relief. Even the discovery of the gene related to HD in 1993 has not effectively advanced treatments. This article is essentially a review of available double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of therapy for this condition which also includes relevant open label trials. Unfortunately, HD research has tended to concentrate on the motor aspects of the disorder, whereas the major problems are behavioural (e.g. dementia, depression, psychosis), and the chorea is often least relevant in terms of management. We conclude that there is definitely poor evidence in management of HD. The analysis of the 24 best studies fails to result in a treatment recommendation of clinical relevance. Based on data of open-label studies, or even case reports, we recommend riluzole, olanzapine and amantadine for the treatment of the movement disorders associated with HD, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and mirtazapine for the treatment of depression, and atypical antipsychotic drugs for HD psychosis and behavioural problems. Moreover, adjuvant psychotherapy, physiotherapy and speech therapy should be applied to supply the optimal management. Finally, some cellular mechanisms are discussed in this paper because they are essential for future neuroprotective modalities, such as minocycline, unsaturated fatty acids or riluzole.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Bonelli, R. M., Wenning, G. K., & Kapfhammer, H. P. (2004). Huntington's disease: present treatments and future therapeutic modalities. International clinical psychopharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004850-200403000-00001

Vancouver

Bonelli RM, Wenning GK, Kapfhammer HP. Huntington's disease: present treatments and future therapeutic modalities. International clinical psychopharmacology. 2004. doi:10.1097/00004850-200403000-00001. PMID: 15076012.

BibTeX

@article{bonelli2004-15076012,
  author  = {Bonelli, R. M. and Wenning, G. K. and Kapfhammer, H. P.},
  title   = {{Huntington's disease: present treatments and future therapeutic modalities}},
  journal = {International clinical psychopharmacology},
  year    = {2004},
  doi     = {10.1097/00004850-200403000-00001},
  pmid    = {15076012},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1097/00004850-200403000-00001}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a trial. Participants are assigned to a treatment or a comparison, so the key questions are who was enrolled, whether the comparison group got a placebo or nothing, how long people were followed, and whether the result is on a measure that matters to patients or on a biomarker. Open-label and small trials can overstate benefit.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

We conclude that there is definitely poor evidence in management of HD.
The analysis of the 24 best studies fails to result in a treatment recommendation of clinical relevance.
Based on data of open-label studies, or even case reports, we recommend riluzole, olanzapine and amantadine for the treatment of the movement disorders associated with HD, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and mirtazapine for the treatment of depression, and atypical antipsychotic drugs for HD psychosis and behavioural problems.

Why it matters

This review of Huntington's disease found poor evidence for managing the condition, with no treatment recommendation of clinical relevance from the 24 best studies, and it recommends some drugs only based on open-label studies or case reports. It is about Huntington's disease, not Alzheimer's disease, and does not provide information on treating, curing or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →

Study details

Study designopen-label trial
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 35/100

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.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International clinical psychopharmacology)
Journal's citation record	1 / 4	International Clinical Psychopharmacology: journal h-index 128 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	0 / 12	Design recorded as “open-label trial”, which our rubric does not rank (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	2004 — older than 20 years, still counted
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	4 / 7	Cited 91 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	2 / 5	3.8 citations a year over 24 year(s) since 2004
Impact for its field and year	2 / 6	Cited 2.9× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	0 / 6	No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited	1 / 4	Cited 7 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	2 / 4	Last-listed author Hans‐Peter Kapfhammer: h-index 41 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	1 / 3	Universität Innsbruck: institution h-index 803 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	1 / 3	OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 15076012)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Total	35 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Related studies in Digital health tools from nearby years

Also in Digital health tools

178 studies in the library are filed under Digital health tools with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Digital health tools hub.

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →