Home › Research › Treatments
Immunotherapy for Alzheimer's disease
Morgan D.. Journal of internal medicine, 2011-01-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
In the year 1999, a vaccine approach was found to reduce amyloid deposits in transgenic mice overproducing the amyloid precursor protein. This was followed closely by demonstrations that vaccines or passive immunotherapy could rescue memory deficits in these mice. Initial human clinical trials revealed apparent autoimmune reactions in a subset of patients, but also some cases of cognitive benefit and amyloid clearance. Further work with passive immunotherapy in mouse models confirmed exceptional clearing abilities of anti-amyloid antibodies even in older mice. However, in parallel with parenchymal amyloid clearance was the appearance of microhaemorrhages and increased vascular amyloid deposition. Additional clinical trials with passive immunotherapy confirmed occasional appearance of microhaemorrhage and occurrence of vasogenic oedema in some patients, particularly those with the apolipoprotein E4 genotype. Recent data with positron emission tomography demonstrates trial participants passively immunized with anti-Aß antibodies have reduced signals with amyloid binding ligands after 18 months of therapy. Several anti-Aß immunotherapies have reached phase 3 testing, and immunotherapy is likely to be the first test of the amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer's disease. Identifying antibody variants that retain amyloid clearance with fewer adverse reactions remains a major focus of translational research in this area.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Morgan, D. (2011). Immunotherapy for Alzheimer's disease. Journal of internal medicine. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2010.02315.x
Vancouver
Morgan D. Immunotherapy for Alzheimer's disease. Journal of internal medicine. 2011. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2796.2010.02315.x. PMID: 21158978.
BibTeX
@article{morgan2011-21158978,
author = {Morgan, D.},
title = {{Immunotherapy for Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Journal of internal medicine},
year = {2011},
doi = {10.1111/j.1365-2796.2010.02315.x},
pmid = {21158978},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2010.02315.x}
}
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
- Initial human clinical trials revealed apparent autoimmune reactions in a subset of patients, but also some cases of cognitive benefit and amyloid clearance.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designclinical trial
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of internal medicine) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | Design recorded as “clinical 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 | 2011 — 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 21158978) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 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 in Treatments
172 studies in the library are filed under Treatments with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Treatments hub.