Home › Research › Drug development
Repurposed agents in the Alzheimer's disease drug development pipeline
Justin Bauzon, Garam Lee, Jeffrey Cummings. Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2020-08-17
Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety
We identified 53 clinical trials involving 58 FDA-approved agents. Seventy-eight percent of the agents in trials had putative disease-modifying mechanisms of action. Of the repurposed drugs in the pipeline 20% are hematologic-oncologic agents, 18% are drugs derived from cardiovascular indications, 14% are agents with psychiatric uses, 12% are drug used to treat diabetes, 10% are neurologic agents, and the remaining 26% of drugs fall under other conditions. Intellectual property strategies utilized in these programs included using the same drug but altering doses, routes of administration, or formulations. Most repurposing trials were supported by Academic Medical Centers and were not funded through the biopharmaceutical industry. We compared our results to a European trial registry and found results similar to those derived from ClinicalTrials.gov. Drug repurposing is a common approach to AD drug development and represents 39% of trials in the current AD pipeline. Therapies from many disease areas provide agents potentially useful in AD. Most of the repurposed agents are generic and a variety of intellectual property strategies have been adopted to enhance their economic value.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Bauzon, J., Lee, G., & Cummings, J. (2020). Repurposed agents in the Alzheimer's disease drug development pipeline. Alzheimer's research & therapy. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-020-00662-x
Vancouver
Bauzon J, Lee G, Cummings J. Repurposed agents in the Alzheimer's disease drug development pipeline. Alzheimer's research & therapy. 2020. doi:10.1186/s13195-020-00662-x. PMID: 32807237.
BibTeX
@article{bauzon2020-32807237,
author = {Bauzon, Justin and Lee, Garam and Cummings, Jeffrey},
title = {{Repurposed agents in the Alzheimer's disease drug development pipeline}},
journal = {Alzheimer's research \& therapy},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1186/s13195-020-00662-x},
pmid = {32807237},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-020-00662-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
- We identified 53 clinical trials involving 58 FDA-approved agents.
- Seventy-eight percent of the agents in trials had putative disease-modifying mechanisms of action.
- Of the repurposed drugs in the pipeline 20% are hematologic-oncologic agents, 18% are drugs derived from cardiovascular indications, 14% are agents with psychiatric uses, 12% are drug used to treat diabetes, 10% are neurologic agents, and the remaining 26% of drugs fall under other conditions.
- Intellectual property strategies utilized in these programs included using the same drug but altering doses, routes of administration, or formulations.
- Most repurposing trials were supported by Academic Medical Centers and were not funded through the biopharmaceutical industry.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 39/100
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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 39 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer's research & therapy) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 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 32807237) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 22 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 39 out of 100. |
| Total | 39 / 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 “monoclonal”
332 studies in the library carry the topic tag “monoclonal”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 332 tagged studies.