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.

43/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety

Plain-language summary

The prevalence of neurocognitive disorders (NCD) increases every year as the population continues to age, leading to significant global health concerns. Overcoming this challenge requires identifying biomarkers, risk factors, and effective therapeutic interventions that might provide meaningful clinical benefits. For Alzheimer's disease (AD), one of the most studied NCD, approved drugs include acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (rivastigmine, donepezil, and galantamine), an NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine), and anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies (aducanumab and lecanemab). These drugs offer limited relief, targeting singular pathological processes of the AD. Given the multifactorial nature of the NCDs, a poly-pharmacological strategy may lead to improved outcomes compared to the current standard of care. In this regard, phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE5) inhibitors emerged as promising drug candidates for the treatment of neurocognitive disorders. These inhibitors increase cGMP levels and CREB signaling, thus enhancing learning, memory and neuroprotection, while reducing Aβ deposition, tau phosphorylation, oxidative stress, and neuroinflammation. In the present article, we evaluate the therapeutic potential of different PDE5 inhibitors to outline their multifaceted impact in the NCDs.

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

APA 7th

Kumar, A., Kim, F., Song, D.-K., & Choung, J. J. (2024). Polypharmacological Potential of Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors for the Treatment of Neurocognitive Disorders. Aging and disease. https://doi.org/10.14336/ad.2023.1129

Vancouver

Kumar A, Kim F, Song D.-K, Choung JJ. Polypharmacological Potential of Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors for the Treatment of Neurocognitive Disorders. Aging and disease. 2024. doi:10.14336/ad.2023.1129. PMID: 38270120.

BibTeX

@article{kumar2024-38270120,
  author  = {Kumar, Ashish and Kim, Fred and Song, Dong-Keun and Choung, Jai Jun},
  title   = {{Polypharmacological Potential of Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors for the Treatment of Neurocognitive Disorders}},
  journal = {Aging and disease},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.14336/ad.2023.1129},
  pmid    = {38270120},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.14336/ad.2023.1129}
}

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 narrative review. It summarises a field without a fixed search method, so it shows how authors read the evidence rather than measuring it. Use it to find the primary studies, not as a result in itself.
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

The prevalence of neurocognitive disorders (NCD) increases every year as the population continues to age, leading to significant global health concerns.
Given the multifactorial nature of the NCDs, a poly-pharmacological strategy may lead to improved outcomes compared to the current standard of care.

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

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 43/100

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, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Aging and 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	4 / 5	2024 — within 3 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 38270120)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	24 / 56	Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100.
Total	43 / 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 Treatments from nearby years

Also tagged “acetylcholinesterase”

234 studies in the library carry the topic tag “acetylcholinesterase”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 234 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Treatments

See all studies in Treatments →