Home › Research › Drug development
Repurposing Proteostasis-Modifying Drugs to Prevent or Treat Age-Related Dementia: A Systematic Review
Daniel S Heard, Camilla S L Tuttle, Nicola T Lautenschlager, Andrea B Maier. Frontiers in physiology, 2018-10-30
Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety
Overall 47 trials, 38 animal and 9 human, were isolated for inclusion in this review. Drugs tested in animals and humans included lithium, rapamycin, rifampicin, and tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Drugs tested only in animals included Macrophage and Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony Stimulating Factors, methylene blue, dantrolene, geranylgeranylacetone, minocycline and phenylbutyric acid. Lithium (n = 10 animal, n = 6 human) and rapamycin (n = 12 animal, n = 1 human) were the most studied proteostasis modifying drugs influencing cognition. Nine of ten animal studies of lithium showed a statistically significant benefit in Alzheimer's models. Rapamycin demonstrated a significant benefit in models of vascular dementia, aging, and Alzheimer's, but may not be effective in treating established Alzheimer's pathology. Lithium and nilotinib had positive outcomes in human studies including Alzheimer's and Parkinson's patients respectively, while a human study of rifampicin in Alzheimer's failed to demonstrate benefit. Microdose lithium showed a strongly significant benefit in both animals and humans. While the risk of bias was relatively low in human studies, the risk of bias in animal studies was largely unclear. Overall, the collective findings support the hypothesis that targeting proteostasis for treatment of dementia may be beneficial, and therefore future studies in humans with repurposed proteostasis modifying drugs are warranted. Larger human clinical trials focusing on safety, efficacy, tolerability, and reproducibility are required to translate these therapeutics into clinical practice.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Heard, D. S., Tuttle, C. S. L., Lautenschlager, N. T., & Maier, A. B. (2018). Repurposing Proteostasis-Modifying Drugs to Prevent or Treat Age-Related Dementia: A Systematic Review. Frontiers in physiology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.01520
Vancouver
Heard DS, Tuttle CSL, Lautenschlager NT, Maier AB. Repurposing Proteostasis-Modifying Drugs to Prevent or Treat Age-Related Dementia: A Systematic Review. Frontiers in physiology. 2018. doi:10.3389/fphys.2018.01520. PMID: 30425653.
BibTeX
@article{heard2018-30425653,
author = {Heard, Daniel S and Tuttle, Camilla S L and Lautenschlager, Nicola T and Maier, Andrea B},
title = {{Repurposing Proteostasis-Modifying Drugs to Prevent or Treat Age-Related Dementia: A Systematic Review}},
journal = {Frontiers in physiology},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.3389/fphys.2018.01520},
pmid = {30425653},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.01520}
}
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
- Overall 47 trials, 38 animal and 9 human, were isolated for inclusion in this review.
- Drugs tested in animals and humans included lithium, rapamycin, rifampicin, and tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
- Drugs tested only in animals included Macrophage and Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony Stimulating Factors, methylene blue, dantrolene, geranylgeranylacetone, minocycline and phenylbutyric acid.
- Lithium (n = 10 animal, n = 6 human) and rapamycin (n = 12 animal, n = 1 human) were the most studied proteostasis modifying drugs influencing cognition.
- Nine of ten animal studies of lithium showed a statistically significant benefit in Alzheimer's models.
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 (Frontiers in physiology) |
| 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 | 2018 — 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 30425653) |
| 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 Drug development
Also tagged “cholinesterase”
271 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cholinesterase”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 271 tagged studies.