Home › Research › Treatments
Phosphodiesterase inhibitors as a target for cognition enhancement in aging and Alzheimer's disease: a translational overview
Heckman PR, Wouters C, Prickaerts J.. Current pharmaceutical design, 2015-01-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Phosphodiesterase inhibitors (PDE-Is) enhance cAMP and/or cGMP signaling via reducing the degradation of these cyclic nucleotides. Since both cAMP and cGMP signaling are essential in a variety of cellular functions, including neuroplasticity and neuroprotection, PDE-Is are receiving increased attention as possible targets for treatment of age-related cognitive decline as well as Alzheimer's disease (AD). In this review we will give a translational overview of the preclinical and clinical data on PDE-Is and cognition enhancement focusing on aging and AD. PDE2, 4 and 5 inhibitors improved memory performance in both aged animals and models of AD. Treatment with a PDE3-I or PDE7-I has not been tested in aged animals yet, but in mouse models of AD both PDE-Is improved memory performance. Unfortunately, there are no peer-reviewed studies on the effects of PDE-I treatment in aged human subjects except the possible positive effect on memory impairment of the PDE1-I vinpocetine. Three other types of PDE-Is have been tested on cognition in mild to moderate AD patients: the PDE3-I cilostazol is being tested as a co-treatment to the acetylcholinesterase inhibitor donepezil, but with inconsistent results; the PDE4-I MK-0952 has been tested, although the outcome has not been disclosed yet; and the PDE9-I PF- 04447943 was reported to have no effects on cognition. Obviously, the demonstration of clinical proof of concept for cognition enhancing effects of PDE-Is and the generation of isoform selective PDE-Is are the final hurdles to overcome in developing safe and efficacious novel PDE-Is for the treatment of age-associated cognitive decline or AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Heckman, P. R., Wouters, C., & Prickaerts, J. (2015). Phosphodiesterase inhibitors as a target for cognition enhancement in aging and Alzheimer's disease: a translational overview. Current pharmaceutical design. https://doi.org/10.2174/1381612820666140826114601
Vancouver
Heckman PR, Wouters C, Prickaerts J. Phosphodiesterase inhibitors as a target for cognition enhancement in aging and Alzheimer's disease: a translational overview. Current pharmaceutical design. 2015. doi:10.2174/1381612820666140826114601. PMID: 25159073.
BibTeX
@article{heckman2015-25159073,
author = {Heckman, P. R. and Wouters, C. and Prickaerts, J.},
title = {{Phosphodiesterase inhibitors as a target for cognition enhancement in aging and Alzheimer's disease: a translational overview}},
journal = {Current pharmaceutical design},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.2174/1381612820666140826114601},
pmid = {25159073},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2174/1381612820666140826114601}
}
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
- Three other types of PDE-Is have been tested on cognition in mild to moderate AD patients: the PDE3-I cilostazol is being tested as a co-treatment to the acetylcholinesterase inhibitor donepezil, but with inconsistent results; the PDE4-I MK-0952 has been tested, although the outcome has not been disclosed yet; and the PDE9-I PF- 04447943 was reported to have no effects on cognition.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- 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 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 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 (Current pharmaceutical design) |
| 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 | 2015 — 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 25159073) |
| 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 tagged “target”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “target”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.