Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trials: Moving Toward Successful Prevention
Open accessAbstract
Despite major academic and industry efforts, Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains the only leading cause of death for which no disease-modifying treatment is available. Disappointing clinical trials over the last several years have led to a growing consensus on the need to intervene earlier in the disease process, before the onset of any clinical symptoms. However, drug development at this stage is challenging given the difficulty of assessing a therapeutic benefit in subjects who are, by definition, clinically healthy. The US FDA recently issued new draft guidance for trials in early AD, which revised the taxonomy of AD by recognizing four stages of the disease, including an expanded view of the predementia stage. These guidelines further advance regulatory support for clinical trials in earlier stages of AD. We discuss the basis for this change and the impact it may have on early-intervention AD trials as well as on stimulating the need for improved biomarkers and outcome measures that will be required for a disease-modifying drug to win approval.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Most clinical trials related to AD have not been successful.
“Even though various novel approaches have been found for symptomatic treatment and numerous disease-modifying therapies are under development, most clinical trials related to AD have not been successful [192].”
From The Multifaceted Role of Neuroprotective Plants in Alzheimer’s Disease Treatment (2022) · cites this paper as [192]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 36 · Cited by 36
- Authors
- Rafii, M. S., & Aisen, P. S.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern California (US)
- Corresponding author
- Rafii, Michael S.
- ORCID
- Rafii, Michael S.
- Venue
- CNS Drugs
- Published
- 2018-12-17
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 99-106
- ISSN
- 1172-7047 (ISSN-L)
- 1179-1934
- PMC
- PMC6367028
- OpenAlex
- W2905272040
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 3.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- CNS Drugs (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Aging (R01AG054029, U24AG057437)
- 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 › Pharmacology › Cholinesterase and Neurodegenerative Diseases
- Keywords
- Alzheimer's disease, disease-modifying drugs, pre-dementia, FDA draft guidance, disease staging, biomarkers, outcome measures, drug development, prevention
- MeSH terms
- Alzheimer Disease, Clinical Trials as Topic, Cognition Disorders, Humans, United States, United States Food and Drug Administration, Biomarkers, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Endpoint Determination, Early Diagnosis
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