Home › Research › Drug development
One for All? Hitting Multiple Alzheimer's Disease Targets with One Drug
Hughes RE, Nikolic K, Ramsay RR.. Frontiers in neuroscience, 2016-04-25
Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety
HIGHLIGHTS Many AD target combinations are being explored for multi-target drug design.New databases and models increase the potential of computational drug designLiraglutide and other antidiabetics are strong candidates for repurposing to AD.Donecopride a dual 5-HT/AChE inhibitor shows promise in pre-clinical studies Alzheimer's Disease is a complex and multifactorial disease for which the mechanism is still not fully understood. As new insights into disease progression are discovered, new drugs must be designed to target those aspects of the disease that cause neuronal damage rather than just the symptoms currently addressed by single target drugs. It is becoming possible to target several aspects of the disease pathology at once using multi-target drugs (MTDs). Intended as an introduction for non-experts, this review describes the key MTD design approaches, namely structure-based, in silico, and data-mining, to evaluate what is preventing compounds progressing through the clinic to the market. Repurposing current drugs using their off-target effects reduces the cost of development, time to launch, and the uncertainty associated with safety and pharmacokinetics. The most promising drugs currently being investigated for repurposing to Alzheimer's Disease are rasagiline, originally developed for the treatment of Parkinson's Disease, and liraglutide, an antidiabetic. Rational drug design can combine pharmacophores of multiple drugs, systematically change functional groups, and rank them by virtual screening. Hits confirmed experimentally are rationally modified to generate an effective multi-potent lead compound. Examples from this approach are ASS234 with properties similar to rasagiline, and donecopride, a hybrid of an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor and a 5-HT4 receptor agonist with pro-cognitive effects. Exploiting these interdisciplinary approaches, public-private collaborative lead factories promise faster delivery of new drugs to the clinic.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Hughes, R. E., Nikolic, K., & Ramsay, R. R. (2016). One for All? Hitting Multiple Alzheimer's Disease Targets with One Drug. Frontiers in neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2016.00177
Vancouver
Hughes RE, Nikolic K, Ramsay RR. One for All? Hitting Multiple Alzheimer's Disease Targets with One Drug. Frontiers in neuroscience. 2016. doi:10.3389/fnins.2016.00177. PMID: 27199640.
BibTeX
@article{hughes2016-27199640,
author = {Hughes, R. E. and Nikolic, K. and Ramsay, R. R.},
title = {{One for All? Hitting Multiple Alzheimer's Disease Targets with One Drug}},
journal = {Frontiers in neuroscience},
year = {2016},
doi = {10.3389/fnins.2016.00177},
pmid = {27199640},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2016.00177}
}
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
- Repurposing current drugs using their off-target effects reduces the cost of development, time to launch, and the uncertainty associated with safety and pharmacokinetics.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
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 (Frontiers in neuroscience) |
| 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 | 2016 — 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 27199640) |
| 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 Drug development
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.