Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Drug development

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

Recent evidence indicates that inflammation may significantly contribute to the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Since the apo A-I mimetic peptide D-4F has been shown to inhibit atherosclerotic lesion formation and regress already existing lesions (in the presence of pravastatin) and the peptide also decreases brain arteriole inflammation, we undertook a study to evaluate the efficacy of oral D-4F co-administered with pravastatin on cognitive function and amyloid beta (A beta) burden in the hippocampus of APPSwe-PS1 Delta E9 mice. Three groups of male mice were administered D-4F and pravastatin, Scrambled D-4F (ScD-4F, a control peptide) and pravastatin in drinking water, while drinking water alone served as control. The escape latency in the Morris Water Maze test was significantly shorter for the D-4F+statin administered animals compared to the other two groups. While the hippocampal region of the brain was covered with 4.2+/-0.5 and 3.8+/-0.6% of A beta load in the control and ScD-4F+statin administered groups, in the D-4F+statin administered group A beta load was only 1.6+/-0.1%. Furthermore, there was a significant decrease in the number of activated microglia (p<0.05 vs the other two groups) and activated astrocytes (p<0.05 vs control) upon oral D-4F+statin treatment. Inflammatory markers TNFalpha and IL-1 beta levels were decreased significantly in the D-4F+statin group compared to the other two groups (for IL-1 beta p<0.01 vs the other two groups and for TNF-alpha p<0.001 vs control) and the expression of MCP-1 were also less in D-4F+statin administered group compared to the other two groups. These results suggest that the apo A-I mimetic peptide inhibits amyloid beta deposition and improves cognitive function via exerting anti-inflammatory properties in the brain.

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

APA 7th

Handattu, S. P., Garber, D. W., Monroe, C. E., van Groen, T., Kadish, I., Nayyar, G., et al. (2009). Oral apolipoprotein A-I mimetic peptide improves cognitive function and reduces amyloid burden in a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. Neurobiology of disease. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbd.2009.03.007

Vancouver

Handattu SP, Garber DW, Monroe CE, van Groen T, Kadish I, Nayyar G, et al. Oral apolipoprotein A-I mimetic peptide improves cognitive function and reduces amyloid burden in a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. Neurobiology of disease. 2009. doi:10.1016/j.nbd.2009.03.007. PMID: 19344763.

BibTeX

@article{handattu2009-19344763,
  author  = {Handattu, S. P. and Garber, D. W. and Monroe, C. E. and van Groen, T. and Kadish, I. and Nayyar, G. and Cao, D. and Palgunachari, M. N. and others},
  title   = {{Oral apolipoprotein A-I mimetic peptide improves cognitive function and reduces amyloid burden in a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease}},
  journal = {Neurobiology of disease},
  year    = {2009},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.nbd.2009.03.007},
  pmid    = {19344763},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbd.2009.03.007}
}

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

Study details

How this study scored 40/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomized / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multicenter collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 23 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 40 of 100. Total 40 of 100.23 of the 58 points we could judge = 40 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size 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.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neurobiology of disease)
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 2009 — 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 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 0 / 3 Laboratory or animal study (title names “mouse”) — scores zero
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 19344763)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
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.

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

Related studies in Drug development from nearby years

Also tagged “oral”

6 studies in the library carry the topic tag “oral”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 6 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Drug development

See all studies in Drug development →