Home › Research › Treatments
What lessons can be learned from failed Alzheimer's disease trials?
Jeremy Toyn. Expert review of clinical pharmacology, 2015-04-10
Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety
Trials missing primary efficacy end points raise the question of whether the choice of drug or the limitations of disease biology were at fault. In some trials, drugs appear not to have achieved biochemical effect thresholds sufficient for clinical benefit. This suggests the need for improved drugs that are more active at tolerated doses. In other trials, it is unclear how the observed biomarker changes are related to potential efficacy. However, hints of efficacy from exploratory analyses support the idea that starting treatment earlier in the course of the disease might be more effective. A closer look at the failed trials will help de-risk future trials.
Key findings
- In some trials, drugs appear not to have achieved biochemical effect thresholds sufficient for clinical benefit.
- This suggests the need for improved drugs that are more active at tolerated doses.
- In other trials, it is unclear how the observed biomarker changes are related to potential efficacy.
- However, hints of efficacy from exploratory analyses support the idea that starting treatment earlier in the course of the disease might be more effective.
- A closer look at the failed trials will help de-risk future trials.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 38/100
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 21 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Expert review of clinical pharmacology) |
| 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) |
| 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 25860157) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 21 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100. |
| Total | 38 / 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
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.
APA 7th
Toyn, J. (2015). What lessons can be learned from failed Alzheimer's disease trials? Expert review of clinical pharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1586/17512433.2015.1034690
Vancouver
Toyn J. What lessons can be learned from failed Alzheimer's disease trials? Expert review of clinical pharmacology. 2015. doi:10.1586/17512433.2015.1034690. PMID: 25860157.
BibTeX
@article{toyn2015-25860157,
author = {Toyn, Jeremy},
title = {{What lessons can be learned from failed Alzheimer's disease trials?}},
journal = {Expert review of clinical pharmacology},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1586/17512433.2015.1034690},
pmid = {25860157},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1586/17512433.2015.1034690}
}
Related studies in Treatments
Also tagged “aducanumab”
332 studies in the library carry the topic tag “aducanumab”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 332 tagged studies.