Cited by 109Alzheimer's disease research and treatmentsDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchBlood transfusion and management

Safety, Tolerability, and Feasibility of Young Plasma Infusion in the Plasma for Alzheimer Symptom Amelioration Study: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Sha, Sharon J., Deutsch, Gayle K., Tian, Lu, Richardson, Kara, Coburn, Maria, Gaudioso, Jennifer L., Marcal, Tatiana, Solomon, Ethan +11 more·2019·JAMA Neurology

Abstract

Importance: Young mouse plasma restores memory in aged mice, but, to our knowledge, the effects are unknown in patients with Alzheimer disease (AD). Objective: To assess the safety, tolerability, and feasibility of infusions of young fresh frozen plasma (yFFP) from donors age 18 to 30 years in patients with AD. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Plasma for Alzheimer Symptom Amelioration (PLASMA) study randomized 9 patients under a double-blind crossover protocol to receive 4 once-weekly infusions of either 1 unit (approximately 250 mL) of yFFP from male donors or 250 mL of saline, followed by a 6-week washout and crossover to 4 once-weekly infusions of an alternate treatment. Patients and informants were masked to treatment and subjective measurements. After an open-label amendment, 9 patients received 4 weekly yFFP infusions only and their subjective measurements were unmasked. Patients were enrolled solely at Stanford University, a tertiary academic medical center, from September 2014 to December 2016, when enrollment reached its target. Eighteen consecutive patients with probable mild to moderate AD dementia, a Mini-Mental State Examination (score of 12 to 24 inclusive), and an age of 50 to 90 years were enrolled. Thirty-one patients were screened and 13 were excluded: 11 failed the inclusion criteria and 2 declined to participate. Interventions: One unit of yFFP from male donors/placebo infused once weekly for 4 weeks. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcomes were the safety, tolerability, and feasibility of 4 weekly yFFP infusions. Safety end point analyses included all patients who received the study drug/placebo. Results: There was no difference in the age (mean [SD], 74.17 [7.96] years), sex (12 women [67%]), or baseline Mini-Mental State Examination score (mean [SD], 19.39 [3.24]) between the crossover (n = 9) and open-label groups (n = 9). There were no related serious adverse events. One patient discontinued participation because of urticaria and another because of an unrelated stroke. There was no statistically significant difference between the plasma (17 [94.4%]) and placebo (9 [100.0%]) cohorts for other adverse events, which were mild to moderate in severity. The most common adverse events in the plasma group included hypertension (3 [16.7%]), dizziness (2 [11.1%]), sinus bradycardia (3 [16.7%]), headache (3 [16.7%]), and sinus tachycardia (3 [16.7%]). The mean visit adherence (n = 18) was 86% (interquartile range, 87%-100%) and adherence, accounting for a reduction in the total visit requirement due to early patient discontinuation, was 96% (interquartile range, 89%-100%). Conclusions and Relevance: The yFFP treatment was safe, well tolerated, and feasible. The study's limitations were the small sample size, short duration, and change in study design. The results warrant further exploration in larger, double-blinded placebo-controlled clinical trials. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02256306.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.3288

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Two recent clinical trials involving young plasma infusion in patients with AD and PD, respectively, have further validated this intervention strategy for neurodegenerative diseases.

    “Two recent clinical trials involving young plasma infusion in patients with AD and PD, respectively, have further validated this intervention strategy for neurodegenerative diseases.73,74”
  • AD patients who received four weekly infusions of young fresh frozen plasma showed promising outcomes, supporting further exploration of long-term plasma therapy.

    “AD patients who received four weekly infusions of young fresh frozen plasma showed promising outcomes, supporting further exploration of long-term plasma therapy.73”
  • A completed phase 1 trial of weekly infusions of 1 unit of young fresh frozen plasma from male donors versus saline in mild to moderate Alzheimer disease for 4 weeks was mostly well tolerated.

    “A completed phase 1 trial of weekly infusions of 1 unit of young fresh frozen plasma from male donors (age 18-30) vs saline in patients with mild to moderate AD for total of 4 weeks demonstrated the intervention was mostly well tolerated (Sha et al., 2019).”

    From Alzheimer Disease: An Update on Pathobiology and Treatment Strategies (2019) · cites this paper as Sha et al., 2019

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sha, S. J., Deutsch, G. K., Tian, L., Richardson, K., Coburn, M., Gaudioso, J. L., Marcal, T., Solomon, E., Boumis, A., Bet, A., Mennes, M., van Oort, E., Beckmann, C. F., Braithwaite, S. P., Jackson, S., Nikolich, K., Stephens, D., Kerchner, G. A., & Wyss-Coray, T.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, California
  • Science37, San Francisco, California
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • SBGneuro Ltd, Oxford, England
  • Alkahest, Inc. (United States) (US)
  • Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California
Corresponding author
Sha, Sharon J.
Venue
JAMA Neurology
Published
2019-01-01
Volume
76
Issue
1
Pages
35
ISSN
2168-6149 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2899249431
Cited by
109
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 1
FWCI
7.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (P50AG047366, R01AG048076)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Biochemistry › Blood transfusion and management
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease, plasma therapy, safety and tolerability, feasibility, mild to moderate dementia, adverse events, age-related memory decline, double-blind crossover trial, open-label extension, urticaria, stroke, executive function, quality of life, caregiver burden
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alzheimer Disease, Double-Blind Method, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Plasma, Treatment Outcome, Blood Component Transfusion, Cross-Over Studies, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review