Disease-modifying treatment strategies for Alzheimer disease (AD) are still under extensive research. Nowadays, only symptomatic treatments exist for this disease, all trying to counterbalance the neurotransmitter disturbance: 3 cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine. To block the progression of the disease, therapeutic agents are supposed to interfere with the pathogenic steps responsible for the clinical symptoms, classically including the deposition of extracellular amyloid β plaques and intracellular neurofibrillary tangle formation. Other underlying mechanisms are targeted by neuroprotective, anti-inflammatory, growth factor promotive, metabolic efficacious agents and stem cell therapies. Recent therapies have integrated multiple new features such as novel biomarkers, new neuropsychological outcomes, enrollment of earlier populations in the course of the disease, and innovative trial designs. In the near future different specific agents for every patient might be used in a “precision medicine” context, where aberrant biomarkers accompanied with a particular pattern of neuropsychological and neuroimaging findings could determine a specific treatment regimen within a customized therapeutic framework. In this review, we discuss potential disease-modifying therapies that are currently being studied and potential individualized therapeutic frameworks that can be proved beneficial for patients with AD.

Alzheimer’s dementia (AD) is increasingly being recognized as one of the most important medical and social problems in older people in industrialized and non-industrialized nations. To date, only symptomatic treatments exist for this disease, all trying to counterbalance the neurotransmitter disturbance. Three cholinesterase inhibitors (CIs) are currently available and have been approved for the treatment of mild to moderate AD. A further therapeutic option available for moderate to severe AD is memantine, an N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor noncompetitive antagonist. Treatments capable of stopping or at least effectively modifying the course of AD, referred to as ‘disease-modifying’ drugs, are still under extensive research. To block the progression of the disease they have to interfere with the pathogenic steps responsible for the clinical symptoms, including the deposition of extracellular amyloid β plaques and intracellular neurofibrillary tangle formation, inflammation, oxidative damage, iron deregulation and cholesterol metabolism. In this review we discuss current symptomatic treatments and new potential disease-modifying therapies for AD that are currently being studied in phase I–III trials.

Despite all scientific efforts and many protracted and expensive clinical trials, no new drug has been approved by FDA for treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD) since 2003. Indeed, more than 200 investigational programs have failed or have been abandoned in the last decade. The most probable explanations for failures of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for AD may include late initiation of treatments during the course of AD development, inappropriate drug dosages, erroneous selection of treatment targets, and mainly an inadequate understanding of the complex pathophysiology of AD, which may necessitate combination treatments rather than monotherapy. Clinical trials’ methodological issues have also been criticized. Drug-development research for AD is aimed to overcome these drawbacks. Preclinical and prodromal AD populations, as well as traditionally investigated populations representing all the clinical stages of AD, are included in recent trials. Systematic use of biomarkers in staging preclinical and prodromal AD and of a single primary outcome in trials of prodromal AD are regularly integrated. The application of amyloid, tau, and neurodegeneration biomarkers, including new biomarkers—such as Tau positron emission tomography, neurofilament light chain (blood and Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarker of axonal degeneration) and neurogranin (CSF biomarker of synaptic functioning)—to clinical trials allows more precise staging of AD. Additionally, use of Bayesian statistics, modifiable clinical trial designs, and clinical trial simulators enrich the trial methodology. Besides, combination therapy regimens are assessed in clinical trials. The above-mentioned diagnostic and statistical advances, which have been recently integrated in clinical trials, are relevant to the recent failures of studies of disease-modifying treatments. Their experiential rather than theoretical origins may better equip potentially successful drug-development strategies.

Despite all scientific efforts and many protracted and expensive clinical trials, no new drug has been approved by FDA for treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD) since 2003. Indeed, more than 200 investigational programs have failed or have been abandoned in the last decade. The most probable explanations for failures of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for AD may include late initiation of treatments during the course of AD development, inappropriate drug dosages, erroneous selection of treatment targets, and mainly an inadequate understanding of the complex pathophysiology of AD, which may necessitate combination treatments rather than monotherapy. Clinical trials’ methodological issues have also been criticized. Current drug-development research for AD is aimed to overcome these drawbacks. Preclinical and prodromal AD populations, as well as traditionally investigated populations representing all the clinical stages of AD, are included in recent trials. Systematic use of biomarkers in staging preclinical and prodromal AD and of a single primary outcome in trials of prodromal AD are regularly integrated. The application of amyloid, tau, and neurodegeneration biomarkers, including new biomarkers—such as Tau positron emission tomography, neurofilament light chain (blood and CSF biomarker of axonal degeneration) and neurogranin (CSF biomarker of synaptic functioning)—to clinical trials allows more precise staging of AD. Additionally, use of the Bayesian statistics, modifiable clinical trial designs, and clinical trial simulators enrich the trial methodology. Besides, combination therapy regimens are currently assessed in clinical trials. The abovementioned diagnostic and statistical advances, which have been recently integrated in clinical trials, are consequential to the recent failures of studies of disease-modifying treatments. Their experiential rather than theoretical origins may better equip potentially successful drug-development strategies.

Electrical injury can affect any system and organ. Central nervous system (CNS) complications are especially well recognised, causing an increased risk of morbidity, while peripheral nervous system (PNS) complications, neurourological and cognitive and psychological abnormalities are less predictable after electrical injuries. PubMed was searched for English language clinical observational, retrospective, review and case studies published in the last 30 years using the key words: electrical injury, electrocution, complications, sequelae, neurological, cognitive, psychological, urological, neuropsychological, neurourological, neurogenic, and bladder. In this review, the broad spectrum of neurological, cognitive, psychological and neurourological consequences of electrical trauma are discussed, and clinical features characteristic of an underlying neurological, psychological or neurourological disorder are identified. The latest information about the most recently discovered forms of nervous system disorders secondary to electrical trauma, such as the presentation of neurological sequelae years after electrocution, in other words long-term sequelae, are presented. Unexpected central nervous system or muscular complications such as hydrocephalus, brain venous thrombosis, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis are described. Common and uncommon neuropsychological syndromes after electrical trauma are defined. Neurourological sequelae secondary to spinal cord or brain trauma or as independent consequences of electrical shock are also highlighted. Electrical injury can affect any system and organ. Central nervous system (CNS) complications are especially well recognised, causing an increased risk of morbidity, while peripheral nervous system (PNS) complications, neurourological and cognitive and psychological abnormalities are less predictable after electrical injuries. PubMed was searched for English language clinical observational, retrospective, review and case studies published in the last 30 years using the key words: electrical injury, electrocution, complications, sequelae, neurological, cognitive, psychological, urological, neuropsychological, neurourological, neurogenic, and bladder. In this review, the broad spectrum of neurological, cognitive, psychological and neurourological consequences of electrical trauma are discussed, and clinical features characteristic of an underlying neurological, psychological or neurourological disorder are identified. The latest information about the most recently discovered forms of nervous system disorders secondary to electrical trauma, such as the presentation of neurological sequelae years after electrocution, in other words long-term sequelae, are presented. Unexpected central nervous system or muscular complications such as hydrocephalus, brain venous thrombosis, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis are described. Common and uncommon neuropsychological syndromes after electrical trauma are defined. Neurourological sequelae secondary to spinal cord or brain trauma or as independent consequences of electrical shock are also highlighted.