View Article

Abstract

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder and the leading cause of dementia worldwide, characterized by cognitive decline, synaptic loss, and neuronal degeneration. Despite extensive research, current therapeutic strategies provide only symptomatic relief and fail to halt disease progression, highlighting the urgent need for disease-modifying interventions. Emerging evidence identifies neuroinflammation and synaptic dysfunction as central and interconnected drivers of AD pathogenesis. Chronic activation of microglia and astrocytes, along with inflammasome signaling and pro-inflammatory cytokine release, contributes to neuronal injury and impaired synaptic plasticity. Concurrently, neurotransmitter imbalance, dendritic spine loss, and mitochondrial dysfunction exacerbate synaptic failure and cognitive deficits. Importantly, bidirectional crosstalk between neuroinflammatory cascades and synaptic pathology creates a self-perpetuating cycle that accelerates neurodegeneration.This review comprehensively discusses the molecular mechanisms underlying neuroinflammation and synaptic dysfunction in AD, emphasizing their synergistic role in disease progression. It further evaluates current pharmacological approaches and their limitations, particularly the failure of single-target strategies. The review highlights emerging multi-target therapeutic paradigms, including immunomodulatory agents, neurotrophic support, gene therapy, and nanotechnology-based drug delivery systems, which aim to simultaneously modulate multiple pathogenic pathways. Additionally, advances in biomarker development and precision medicine approaches are explored for improving early diagnosis, patient stratification, and therapeutic monitoring.Collectively, this review emphasizes the necessity of integrated therapeutic strategies targeting both neuroinflammation and synaptic integrity, offering promising avenues for the development of effective disease-modifying treatments in Alzheimer’s disease.

Keywords

Alzheimer’s disease; multi-targetNeuroinsynapticodysfunction, anddamyloid-?.; Amyloid-?; Mitochondrial dysfunction; Multi-target therapy

Introduction

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most common neurodegenerative disorder and the leading cause of dementia worldwide, accounting for approximately 60–70% of all dementia cases. Its prevalence increases exponentially with age, affecting nearly 5–7% of individuals over 65 years and more than 30% of those above 85 years [1]. With global population ageing, the burden of AD is rising at an alarming rate. According to recent estimates, over 55 million people worldwide are living with dementia, and this number is projected to exceed 130 million by 2050, with Alzheimer’s disease contributing the majority of cases. Low- and middle-income countries are expected to experience the fastest growth, which will further exacerbate existing healthcare disparities [2]. Beyond its clinical impact, AD imposes a profound socioeconomic burden on patients, caregivers, and healthcare systems. The disease is characterized by progressive cognitive decline, memory loss, behavioral disturbances, and functional impairment, ultimately leading to complete dependence. The global economic cost of dementia exceeds USD 1.3 trillion annually, driven by direct medical expenses, long-term institutional care, and substantial informal caregiving costs [3]. Family caregivers often experience significant psychological stress, reduced productivity, and financial strain, highlighting AD as not only a medical condition but also a major public health and societal challenge. Pathologically, Alzheimer’s disease is characterized by distinct and interrelated hallmarks, including extracellular accumulation of amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques, intracellular neurofibrillary tangles composed of hyperphosphorylated tau protein, synaptic dysfunction, and progressive neuronal loss, particularly in the hippocampus and cerebral cortex [4]. These pathological changes are accompanied by chronic neuroinflammation, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, impaired neurotransmission, and disruption of calcium homeostasis [5]. Growing evidence suggests that glial activation, blood–brain barrier dysfunction, and impaired protein clearance mechanisms play critical roles in disease progression, indicating that AD is a multifactorial disorder rather than a single-pathway disease[6]. Despite decades of intensive research, effective disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer’s disease remain elusive. Currently approved pharmacological treatments, including acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists, provide only modest symptomatic relief and do not halt or reverse disease progression [7]. Recent therapeutic strategies targeting amyloid-β and tau pathology have shown limited clinical success and raised concerns regarding safety, cost, and patient selection. Consequently, there is a critical unmet need for novel therapeutic approaches that address multiple pathogenic mechanisms simultaneously, including neuroinflammation, synaptic loss, and neuronal survival [8]. Understanding the complex molecular and cellular pathways underlying Alzheimer’s disease is therefore essential for the development of effective pharmacological interventions [9]. This has driven increasing interest in multi-target-directed drugs, neuroprotective agents, and modulators of inflammatory and oxidative pathways, aiming to slow disease progression and improve quality of life for affected individuals [10].

 

 

 

Figure1: Global Prevalence and Projected Economic Impact of Alzheimer’s Disease. This figure illustrates the global prevalence and projected economic burden of Alzheimer’s disease. Worldwide cases are estimated at 55 million in 2021 and are projected to reach 139 million by 2050, driven largely by population aging. The economic impact includes escalating healthcare and long-term care costs, productivity losses, and societal strain, with global annual costs expected to rise from approximately USD 1 trillion to USD 2.8 trillion by 2050.

 

3. Neuroinflammatory Cascades in Alzheimer’s Disease

Neuroinflammation is a central pathological feature of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and plays a critical role in disease initiation and progression. Persistent activation of innate immune responses within the central nervous system contributes to synaptic dysfunction, neuronal injury, and cognitive decline [11]. Among the key cellular mediators of this process are microglia and astrocytes, whose dysregulated responses amplify inflammatory signaling and exacerbate neurodegeneration. Microglia, the resident immune cells of the brain, are among the earliest responders to amyloid-β (Aβ) accumulation. [12]. In AD, microglial activation is characterized by phenotypic polarization along a spectrum ranging from a pro-inflammatory (classically activated) state to an anti-inflammatory or reparative phenotype. Pro-inflammatory microglia release neurotoxic mediators such as tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin-1β (IL-1β), interleukin-6 (IL-6), reactive oxygen species, and nitric oxide, which promote synaptic loss and neuronal damage. [13]. Conversely, anti-inflammatory microglial phenotypes facilitate Aβ clearance and secrete neurotrophic factors. However, chronic exposure to pathological stimuli skews microglia toward a sustained pro-inflammatory state, impairing phagocytic capacity and accelerating disease progression [14]. Astrocytes also play a pivotal role in shaping neuroinflammatory responses in AD. Reactive astrogliosis is marked by morphological changes, upregulation of glial fibrillary acidic protein, and altered metabolic and signaling functions. Activated astrocytes interact closely with microglia and neurons, forming complex cytokine and chemokine networks [15]. They release pro-inflammatory mediators, including IL-1β, IL-6, and transforming growth factor-β, which further propagate inflammatory signaling and disrupt synaptic homeostasis [16]. Additionally, astrocytic dysfunction contributes to impaired glutamate clearance, oxidative stress, and blood–brain barrier disruption, thereby amplifying neuronal vulnerability. Inflammasome activation represents a crucial molecular link between innate immunity and neurodegeneration in AD [17]. The NLRP3 inflammasome is activated in response to Aβ aggregates and cellular stress, leading to caspase-1 activation and subsequent maturation of IL-1β and IL-18. These cytokines intensify microglial and astrocytic activation, creating a self-perpetuating inflammatory loop [18]. In parallel, aberrant activation of the complement system, particularly components such as C1q and C3, promotes synaptic pruning and neuronal loss. Collectively, these interconnected inflammatory cascades underscore neuroinflammation as a key therapeutic target in Alzheimer’s disease [19].

 

 

 

Diagram 2: Mechanistic Pathway of Amyloid-β–Induced Microglial Activation and Cytokine Release. This schematic depicts the mechanistic pathway of amyloid-β–induced microglial activation and inflammatory signaling in Alzheimer’s disease. Amyloid-β oligomers promote oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction, leading to activation of pattern recognition receptors and the NLRP3 inflammasome. Subsequent release of pro-inflammatory cytokines, including IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α, amplifies microglial and astrocytic activation. These neuroinflammatory cascades exacerbate neuronal injury, synaptic dysfunction, and progressive neurodegeneration.

 

4. Synaptic Pathophysiology in Cognitive Decline

Synaptic dysfunction is a primary correlate of cognitive decline in neurodegenerative disorders, particularly Alzheimer’s disease, and precedes overt neuronal loss. Alterations in synaptic signaling, structure, and energy homeostasis collectively impair neuronal communication and plasticity, ultimately disrupting learning and memory processes [20]. Neurotransmitter imbalance is a hallmark of synaptic pathophysiology in cognitive decline. The cholinergic system, essential for attention and memory, is profoundly impaired due to degeneration of basal forebrain cholinergic neurons and reduced acetylcholine synthesis. This deficit underlies the limited symptomatic efficacy of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors used in current therapy [21]. In parallel, dysregulation of glutamatergic neurotransmission leads to excessive activation of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors, resulting in excitotoxicity. Sustained glutamate signaling increases intracellular calcium influx, activating calcium-dependent enzymes that damage cytoskeletal proteins, membranes, and DNA [22]. Concurrently, inhibitory γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) signaling is often reduced, further shifting the excitatory–inhibitory balance toward neuronal hyperexcitability and synaptic failure.

Structural synaptic alterations also contribute significantly to cognitive impairment [23]. Dendritic spine loss is one of the earliest pathological changes observed in neurodegenerative conditions and closely correlates with cognitive deficits. Soluble amyloid-β oligomers disrupt synaptic adhesion molecules and interfere with long-term potentiation, leading to spine retraction and synaptic weakening [24]. Moreover, aberrant synaptic pruning, mediated in part by activated microglia and complement proteins such as C1q and C3, results in excessive elimination of functional synapses. This maladaptive pruning compromises neural network connectivity and accelerates cognitive decline [25]. Mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress further exacerbate synaptic pathology. Synapses have high energy demands, and impaired mitochondrial dynamics, reduced ATP production, and defective calcium buffering compromise synaptic transmission and plasticity [26]. Accumulation of reactive oxygen species induces lipid peroxidation, protein oxidation, and mitochondrial DNA damage, creating a vicious cycle of energy failure and oxidative injury [27]. Together, neurotransmitter imbalance, synaptic structural degeneration, and mitochondrial dysfunction form an interconnected pathological triad driving synaptic failure and cognitive decline, highlighting synapses as critical targets for therapeutic intervention [28].

 

 

 

Diagram 3: Pathways Linking Mitochondrial Dysfunction to Synaptic Loss in Alzheimer’s Disease. This figure illustrates pathways linking mitochondrial dysfunction to synaptic loss in Alzheimer’s disease. Amyloid-β oligomers and tau pathology induce mitochondrial impairment, leading to oxidative stress, reduced ATP production, and energy deficiency. Excessive reactive oxygen species cause lipid, protein, and DNA damage, while calcium overload and glutamate-mediated excitotoxicity disrupt synaptic signaling. These events impair postsynaptic receptor function, reduce synaptic plasticity, and promote progressive synaptic degeneration underlying cognitive decline.

 

5. Crosstalk Between Neuroinflammation and Synaptic Dysfunction

Neuroinflammation and synaptic dysfunction are tightly interconnected processes that synergistically drive neurodegeneration and cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders [29]. Rather than acting as independent pathological events, these mechanisms engage in dynamic crosstalk mediated by shared molecular signals, leading to progressive neuronal and network failure [30]. Several molecular mediators operate at the intersection of inflammation and synaptic integrity. Pro-inflammatory cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin-1β (IL-1β), and interleukin-6 (IL-6), released by activated microglia and astrocytes, directly modulate synaptic transmission and plasticity [31]. TNF-α alters the trafficking of AMPA and NMDA receptors, enhancing excitatory signaling and promoting excitotoxicity, while IL-1β disrupts long-term potentiation and memory consolidation. Complement proteins, particularly C1q and C3, represent another critical link, as their upregulation in inflammatory states tags synapses for microglial-mediated elimination, leading to pathological synaptic pruning [32]. Additionally, inflammasome activation amplifies cytokine release, further destabilizing synaptic homeostasis. Bidirectional feedback loops reinforce the relationship between neuroinflammation and synaptic dysfunction [33]. Synaptic damage and neuronal stress release danger-associated molecular patterns, including ATP, HMGB1, and misfolded protein aggregates, which activate pattern recognition receptors on glial cells and perpetuate inflammatory responses [34]. In turn, sustained neuroinflammation exacerbates synaptic loss by impairing neurotransmitter balance, disrupting calcium homeostasis, and inducing oxidative stress. This self-propagating cycle progressively weakens neuronal connectivity and accelerates neurodegeneration [35]. The convergence of inflammatory and synaptic pathways underscores the complexity of neurodegenerative disease progression. Targeting shared molecular mediators and interrupting these maladaptive feedback loops may offer therapeutic advantages over single-target strategies. Consequently, integrated pharmacological approaches that simultaneously modulate neuroinflammation and preserve synaptic function represent a promising direction for disease-modifying interventions [36].

6. Current Therapeutic Approaches and Limitations

Current pharmacological management of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is largely focused on symptomatic relief rather than modification of the underlying disease process [37]. The most widely prescribed agents include acetylcholinesterase inhibitors—such as donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantaminewhich aim to enhance cholinergic neurotransmission by preventing acetylcholine breakdown. These drugs provide modest and temporary improvements in cognition, behavior, and activities of daily living, particularly in mild to moderate stages of the disease [38]. Memantine, an N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist, is used in moderate to severe AD to reduce glutamate-mediated excitotoxicity and improve functional outcomes. However, symptomatic benefits are limited, and treatment efficacy often diminishes as neurodegeneration progresses [39]. Despite extensive research efforts, disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for AD have faced significant challenges. Most DMTs have primarily targeted amyloid-β (Aβ) accumulation through inhibition of its production, aggregation, or enhancement of its clearance [40]. Although monoclonal antibodies against Aβ have demonstrated reductions in amyloid burden, their clinical benefits remain inconsistent, and concerns persist regarding safety, cost, and accessibility [41]. Adverse effects such as amyloid-related imaging abnormalities, including cerebral edema and microhemorrhages, have further limited widespread clinical adoption. Similarly, therapeutic strategies targeting tau pathology have yet to show robust clinical efficacy [42]. A major limitation of existing disease-modifying strategies is their narrow focus on single pathological targets, despite the multifactorial nature of AD. Neuroinflammation, synaptic dysfunction, oxidative stress, and mitochondrial impairment often remain unaddressed [43]. Additionally, late-stage intervention, suboptimal patient stratification, and inadequate biomarkers for early diagnosis contribute to therapeutic failure [44]. Collectively, these shortcomings highlight the urgent need for multi-target and mechanism-based therapeutic approaches capable of intervening earlier in the disease course and addressing the complex pathophysiology of Alzheimer’s disease [45].

7. Emerging Therapeutic Paradigms – 1,200–1,500 words

The growing recognition of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) as a multifactorial disorder has shifted therapeutic research toward innovative strategies that target multiple pathogenic mechanisms simultaneously [46]. Emerging therapeutic paradigms aim not only to slow neurodegeneration but also to restore synaptic function and modify disease progression more effectively than conventional approaches [47]. Anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory agents have gained increasing attention due to the central role of chronic neuroinflammation in AD pathology. Strategies targeting microglial activation, cytokine signaling, and inflammasome pathways are under active investigation [48]. Small-molecule inhibitors of the NLRP3 inflammasome, monoclonal antibodies against pro-inflammatory cytokines, and modulators of microglial phenotypic polarization aim to suppress detrimental inflammatory responses while preserving neuroprotective immune functions [49]. Additionally, immune checkpoint modulation and adaptive immune regulation are being explored to rebalance central and peripheral immune interactions. Synaptic repair and neurotrophic support represent another promising avenue for therapeutic intervention [50]. Approaches enhancing neurotrophic signaling, including brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and nerve growth factor (NGF) pathways, seek to promote synaptic plasticity, neuronal survival, and cognitive resilience [51]. Small molecules, peptides, and gene-based delivery of neurotrophic factors have demonstrated encouraging preclinical results by improving synaptic integrity and memory performance [52]. Pharmacological agents targeting synaptic receptors and scaffolding proteins are also being developed to stabilize synaptic connections and counteract synapse loss. Gene therapy and molecular editing technologies offer transformative potential by directly correcting disease-associated genetic and molecular abnormalities [53]. Viral vector–mediated gene delivery and CRISPR-based genome editing are being investigated to modulate amyloid precursor protein processing, tau phosphorylation, and neuroinflammatory signaling pathways. Although still in early stages, these approaches provide opportunities for long-term and potentially disease-modifying effects [54]. Nanotechnology-based drug delivery systems are increasingly utilized to overcome blood–brain barrier limitations and enhance therapeutic precision [55]. Nanocarriers such as liposomes, polymeric nanoparticles, and exosomes enable targeted delivery, improved bioavailability, and reduced systemic toxicity. Collectively, these emerging paradigms highlight a shift toward integrated, precision-based therapies for Alzheimer’s disease [56].

8. Translational and Clinical Perspectives

Translational research in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) increasingly focuses on bridging mechanistic insights with clinical application to enable earlier diagnosis, improved patient selection, and more effective therapeutic interventions. [57]. Central to this effort is the identification and validation of reliable biomarkers that reflect neuroinflammation and synaptic integrity, two key drivers of disease progression. Biomarkers of neuroinflammation provide valuable tools for monitoring disease activity and therapeutic response. [58]. Positron emission tomography (PET) ligands targeting translocator protein (TSPO) allow in vivo visualization of microglial activation, while emerging tracers aim to distinguish detrimental versus protective glial phenotypes. [59]. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood-based biomarkers, including cytokines such as interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-α, and inflammasome-related components, offer less invasive means of assessing inflammatory status. [60]. Advances in ultrasensitive assays have enabled detection of peripheral inflammatory markers that correlate with central immune activity, facilitating longitudinal monitoring and large-scale screening. Markers of synaptic health are increasingly recognized as strong correlates of cognitive decline. [61]. CSF levels of synaptic proteins such as synaptosomal-associated protein 25 (SNAP-25), neurogranin, and synaptotagmin reflect synaptic degeneration and dysfunction. Neuroimaging techniques, including functional MRI and synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A (SV2A) PET imaging, provide insights into synaptic density and network connectivity. [62]. These biomarkers enhance the ability to track disease progression and evaluate synapse-targeted therapies in clinical trials. Patient stratification and precision medicine approaches are essential for translating emerging therapies into clinical success. [63]. Heterogeneity in genetic background, inflammatory profiles, and disease stage contributes to variable treatment responses. Stratifying patients based on biomarker signatures, genetic risk factors such as APOE genotype, and clinical phenotypes enables the development of tailored therapeutic strategies. [64]. Integrating multi-modal biomarkers with artificial intelligence–driven analytics may further refine precision medicine approaches, ultimately improving clinical outcomes and accelerating the development of disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer’s disease. [65].

9. Future Directions

Future therapeutic strategies for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) must evolve beyond single-target approaches to address the complex and interconnected pathological processes driving disease progression. [66]. Multi-target therapeutic strategies are increasingly recognized as a rational and necessary direction, given the simultaneous involvement of neuroinflammation, synaptic dysfunction, mitochondrial impairment, oxidative stress, and protein misfolding. [67]. Multi-target-directed ligands, drug combinations, and pleiotropic agents aim to modulate several disease-relevant pathways concurrently, thereby enhancing therapeutic efficacy and reducing the likelihood of compensatory mechanisms that undermine treatment success. [68]. Pharmacological agents capable of simultaneously suppressing neuroinflammation, preserving synaptic integrity, and supporting neuronal survival may offer superior disease-modifying potential, particularly when administered during early or prodromal stages of AD. [69]. The integration of multi-omics technologies represents another transformative avenue for advancing AD research and therapy. Genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and epigenomics provide comprehensive insights into disease-associated molecular alterations across different biological levels. [70]. Integrative analysis of these datasets can uncover novel therapeutic targets, identify disease subtypes, and reveal pathway interactions that are not evident from single-layer analyses. Such systems-level understanding is essential for deciphering disease heterogeneity and tailoring personalized interventions. [71]. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning–driven drug discovery is poised to accelerate the translation of multi-omics data into clinically actionable therapies. [72]. AI-based algorithms can predict drug–target interactions, optimize lead compounds, and identify repurposing opportunities by analyzing vast and complex datasets. Moreover, AI-assisted modeling of disease progression and treatment response may guide rational clinical trial design and patient stratification. [73]. Together, multi-target pharmacology combined with multi-omics integration and AI-driven discovery heralds a new era of precision, efficiency, and innovation in the development of effective therapies for Alzheimer’s disease. [74].

CONCLUSION

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a multifactorial neurodegenerative disorder driven by the intricate interplay between neuroinflammation and synaptic dysfunction. This review emphasizes that chronic glial activation, pro-inflammatory cytokine release, and inflammasome signaling contribute to neuronal damage, while mitochondrial dysfunction, neurotransmitter imbalance, and dendritic spine loss accelerate synaptic failure and cognitive decline. The bidirectional crosstalk between these processes creates a self-perpetuating cycle that worsens disease progression.

Current therapies provide only symptomatic relief and fail to address underlying pathogenic mechanisms, while single-target disease-modifying approaches have shown limited success. Emerging multi-target strategies, including immunomodulation, neurotrophic support, gene therapy, and nanotechnology-based delivery systems, offer promising alternatives by addressing multiple disease pathways simultaneously.

Advances in biomarkers and precision medicine further enhance early diagnosis and personalized treatment approaches. Overall, integrated therapeutic strategies targeting both neuroinflammation and synaptic integrity are essential for developing effective disease-modifying treatments and improving outcomes in Alzheimer’s disease.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

No conflicts of interest to declare.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors assert that they do not have any known financial interests or personal relationships that could be perceived as influencing the work reported in this paper.

Funding

There is no funding agency in this article.

Data availability

Not applicable.

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Shri. Zora Singh, Chairman, DBU, for providing an excellent research platform. This work wouldn’t have been possible without their collective influence.

REFERENCES

  1. Qiu, C., Kivipelto, M., & von Strauss, E. (2009). Epidemiology of Alzheimer's disease: occurrence, determinants, and strategies toward intervention. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 11(2), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2009.11.2/cqiu
  2. Nichols, E., Steinmetz, J. D., Vollset, S. E., Fukutaki, K., Chalek, J., Abd-Allah, F., ... & Liu, X. (2022). Estimation of the global prevalence of dementia in 2019 and forecasted prevalence in 2050: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet Public Health, 7(2), e105-e125.
  3. Zhang N, Chai S and Wang J (2025) Assessing and projecting the global impacts of Alzheimer’s disease. Front. Public Health 12:1453489. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1453489
  4. Yin, X., Qiu, Y., Zhao, C., Zhou, Z., Bao, J., & Qian, W. (2021). The Role of Amyloid-Beta and Tau in the Early Pathogenesis of Alzheimer's Disease. Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 27, e933084. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.933084
  5. Mani, S., Wasnik, S., Shandilya, C., Srivastava, V., Khan, S., & Singh, K. K. (2025). Pathogenic synergy: dysfunctional mitochondria and neuroinflammation in neurodegenerative diseases associated with aging. Frontiers in aging, 6, 1615764. https://doi.org/10.3389/fragi.2025.1615764
  6. Neyra Chauca, J. M., & Robles Martinez, G. G. (2025). Histological and Functional Breakdown of the Blood−Brain Barrier in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Multifactorial Intersection. Neurology International, 17(10), 166. https://doi.org/10.3390/neurolint17100166
  7. Hans-Wolfgang Klafki, Matthias Staufenbiel, Johannes Kornhuber, Jens Wiltfang, Therapeutic approaches to Alzheimer's disease, Brain, Volume 129, Issue 11, November 2006, Pages 2840–2855, https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awl280
  8. Stanciu, G.-D. (2025). Beyond Conventional Pharmacotherapy: Unraveling Mechanisms and Advancing Multi-Target Strategies in Alzheimer’s Disease. Pharmaceuticals, 18(12), 1797. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph18121797
  9. Guo, T., Zhang, D., Zeng, Y., Huang, T. Y., Xu, H., & Zhao, Y. (2020). Molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease. Molecular neurodegeneration, 15(1), 40.
  10. Cavalli, A., Bolognesi, M. L., Minarini, A., Rosini, M., Tumiatti, V., Recanatini, M., & Melchiorre, C. (2008). Multi-target-directed ligands to combat neurodegenerative diseases. Journal of medicinal chemistry, 51(3), 347-372.
  11. Kinney, J. W., Bemiller, S. M., Murtishaw, A. S., Leisgang, A. M., Salazar, A. M., & Lamb, B. T. (2018). Inflammation as a central mechanism in Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions, 4, 575-590.
  12. Muzio, L., Viotti, A., & Martino, G. (2021). Microglia in neuroinflammation and neurodegeneration: from understanding to therapy. Frontiers in neuroscience, 15, 742065.
  13. Varnum, M. M., & Ikezu, T. (2012). The classification of microglial activation phenotypes on neurodegeneration and regeneration in Alzheimer’s disease brain. Archivum immunologiae et therapiae experimentalis, 60(4), 251-266.
  14. Cai, Y., Liu, J., Wang, B., Sun, M., & Yang, H. (2022). Microglia in the neuroinflammatory pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease and related therapeutic targets. Frontiers in immunology, 13, 856376.
  15. Pekny, M., & Pekna, M. (2014). Astrocyte reactivity and reactive astrogliosis: costs and benefits. Physiological reviews.
  16. Zhang, H., Zhang, X., Chai, Y., Wang, Y., Zhang, J., & Chen, X. (2025). Astrocyte-mediated inflammatory responses in traumatic brain injury: Mechanisms and potential interventions. Frontiers in Immunology, 16, 1584577.
  17. Rama Rao, K. V., & Kielian, T. (2015). Neuron–astrocyte interactions in neurodegenerative diseases: Role of neuroinflammation. Clinical and Experimental Neuroimmunology, 6(3), 245-263.
  18. Bai, H., & Zhang, Q. (2021). Activation of NLRP3 inflammasome and onset of Alzheimer’s disease. Frontiers in immunology, 12, 701282.
  19. She, X. (2025). Targeting the Synergistic Interaction of Pathologies in Alzheimer's Disease: Rationale and Prospects for Combination Therapy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.10981.
  20. Koffie, R. M., Hyman, B. T., & Spires-Jones, T. L. (2011). Alzheimer's disease: synapses gone cold. Molecular Neurodegeneration, 6(1), 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1326-6-63
  21. Hampel, H., Mesulam, M. M., Cuello, A. C., Farlow, M. R., Giacobini, E., Grossberg, G. T., ... & Khachaturian, Z. S. (2018). The cholinergic system in the pathophysiology and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Brain, 141(7), 1917-1933.
  22. Carvajal, F. J., Mattison, H. A., & Cerpa, W. (2016). Role of NMDA receptor?mediated glutamatergic signaling in chronic and acute Neuropathologies. Neural plasticity, 2016(1), 2701526.
  23. Cherubini, E., Di Cristo, G., & Avoli, M. (2022). Dysregulation of GABAergic signaling in neurodevelomental disorders: targeting cation-chloride co-transporters to re-establish a proper E/I balance. Frontiers in cellular neuroscience, 15, 813441.
  24. Knobloch, M., Mansuy, I.M. Dendritic Spine Loss and Synaptic Alterations in Alzheimer’s Disease. Mol Neurobiol 37, 73–82 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12035-008-8018-z
  25. omez-Arboledas, A., Acharya, M. M., & Tenner, A. J. (2021). The role of complement in synaptic pruning and neurodegeneration. ImmunoTargets and therapy, 373-386.
  26. Tönnies, E., & Trushina, E. (2017). Oxidative stress, synaptic dysfunction, and Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Alzheimer’s disease, 57(4), 1105-1121.
  27. 27 Perluigi, M., Di Domenico, F., & Butterfield, D. A. (2024). Oxidative damage in neurodegeneration: roles in the pathogenesis and progression of Alzheimer disease. Physiological reviews, 104(1), 103-197.
  28. Moawad, M. H. E. D., Serag, I., Alkhawaldeh, I. M., Abbas, A., Sharaf, A., Alsalah, S., ... & Meshref, M. (2025). Exploring the mechanisms and therapeutic approaches of mitochondrial dysfunction in Alzheimer’s disease: An educational literature review. Molecular Neurobiology, 62(6), 6785-6810.
  29. Bairamian, D., Sha, S., Rolhion, N., Sokol, H., Dorothée, G., Lemere, C. A., & Krantic, S. (2022). Microbiota in neuroinflammation and synaptic dysfunction: a focus on Alzheimer’s disease. Molecular neurodegeneration, 17(1), 19.
  30. Kang, X., Tian, J., Shu, Q., Cheng, T., Wang, S., & Hu, Y. (2025). Microglia-neuron crosstalk in Alzheimer’s disease: an exploration of molecular mechanisms and pathological implications. Neuroscience.
  31. Shafi, A., Akmal, M., Sethi, A., & Chauhdary, Z. (2025). A mechanistic insight of neuro-inflammation signaling pathways and implication in neurodegenerative disorders. Inflammopharmacology, 1-10.
  32. Subramanian, J. (2026). How Do Amyloid Pathology and Aberrant Neuronal Activity Disrupt Plasticity and Memory in Alzheimer’s Disease?. The Neuroscientist, 10738584251414384.
  33. Bairamian, D., Sha, S., Rolhion, N., Sokol, H., Dorothée, G., Lemere, C. A., & Krantic, S. (2022). Microbiota in neuroinflammation and synaptic dysfunction: a focus on Alzheimer’s disease. Molecular neurodegeneration, 17(1), 19.
  34. Klegeris, A. (2021). Regulation of neuroimmune processes by damage-and resolution-associated molecular patterns. Neural regeneration research, 16(3), 423-429.
  35. Liu, X., Luo, Q., Zhao, Y., Ren, P., Jin, Y., & Zhou, J. (2025). The ferroptosis–mitochondrial axis in depression: unraveling the feedforward loop of oxidative stress, metabolic homeostasis dysregulation, and neuroinflammation. Antioxidants, 14(5), 613.
  36. he, X. (2025). Targeting the Synergistic Interaction of Pathologies in Alzheimer's Disease: Rationale and Prospects for Combination Therapy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.10981.
  37. Salomone, S., Caraci, F., Leggio, G. M., Fedotova, J., & Drago, F. (2012). New pharmacological strategies for treatment of Alzheimer's disease: focus on disease modifying drugs. British journal of clinical pharmacology, 73(4), 504-517.
  38. Walczak-Nowicka, ?. J., & Herbet, M. (2021). Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases and the role of acetylcholinesterase in their pathogenesis. International journal of molecular sciences, 22(17), 9290.
  39. Olivares, D., K Deshpande, V., Shi, Y., K Lahiri, D., H Greig, N., T Rogers, J., & Huang, X. (2012). N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists and memantine treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease. Current Alzheimer Research, 9(6), 746-758.
  40. Thawabteh, A. M., Ghanem, A. W., AbuMadi, S., Thaher, D., Jaghama, W., Karaman, D., & Karaman, R. (2024). Recent advances in therapeutics for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Molecules, 29(21), 5131.
  41. Alkhalifa, A. E., Al Mokhlf, A., Ali, H., Al-Ghraiybah, N. F., & Syropoulou, V. (2025). Anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies for alzheimer’s disease: evidence, ARIA risk, and precision patient selection. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 15(9), 437.
  42. Balcerzak, W. (2025). New Biomarkers and Biological Therapies in Alzheimer’s.
  43. Jurc?u, M. C., Andronie-Cioara, F. L., Jurc?u, A., Marcu, F., ?i?, D. M., Pa?cal?u, N., & Nistor-Cseppentö, D. C. (2022). The link between oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction and neuroinflammation in the pathophysiology of Alzheimer’s disease: therapeutic implications and future perspectives. Antioxidants, 11(11), 2167.
  44. Molla, G., & Bitew, M. (2025). The future of cancer diagnosis and treatment: Unlocking the power of biomarkers and personalized molecular-targeted therapies. Journal of Molecular Pathology, 6(3), 20.
  45. Hossain, M. S., & Hussain, M. H. (2025). Multi?Target Drug Design in Alzheimer's Disease Treatment: Emerging Technologies, Advantages, Challenges, and Limitations. Pharmacology Research & Perspectives, 13(4), e70131.
  46. Gong, C. X., Liu, F., & Iqbal, K. (2018). Multifactorial hypothesis and multi-targets for Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 64(s1), S107-S117.
  47. ussain, R., Zubair, H., Pursell, S., & Shahab, M. (2018). Neurodegenerative diseases: regenerative mechanisms and novel therapeutic approaches. Brain sciences, 8(9), 177.
  48. Fornari Laurindo, L., Aparecido Dias, J., Cressoni Araujo, A., Torres Pomini, K., Machado Galhardi, C., Rucco Penteado Detregiachi, C., ... & Maria Barbalho, S. (2024). Immunological dimensions of neuroinflammation and microglial activation: exploring innovative immunomodulatory approaches to mitigate neuroinflammatory progression. Frontiers in immunology, 14, 1305933.
  49. Haseeb, M., Javaid, N., Yasmeen, F., Jeong, U., Han, J. H., Yoon, J., ... & Choi, S. (2022). Novel small-molecule inhibitor of NLRP3 inflammasome reverses cognitive impairment in an Alzheimer’s disease model. ACS Chemical Neuroscience, 13(6), 818-833.
  50. Mahdiabadi, S., Momtazmanesh, S., Perry, G., & Rezaei, N. (2022). Immune modulations and immunotherapies for Alzheimer’s disease: a comprehensive review. Reviews in the Neurosciences, 33(4), 365-381.
  51. icoletti, V. G., Pajer, K., Calcagno, D., Pajenda, G., & Nógrádi, A. (2022). The role of metals in the neuroregenerative action of BDNF, GDNF, NGF and other neurotrophic factors. Biomolecules, 12(8), 1015.
  52. Sidorova, Y. A., & Saarma, M. (2020). Small molecules and peptides targeting glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor receptors for the treatment of neurodegeneration. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 21(18), 6575.
  53. Sharma, A., Mishra, S. S., & Singh, S. (2024). Gene Therapy, OMICS Approaches, and Translational Neurodegenerative Models: Recent Advancements and Future Perspectives. In Neurodegenerative Diseases (pp. 206-223). CRC Press.
  54. Shareena, G., Viswalingam, V., Rajput, M. S., & Kumar, D. (2025). CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing: A new hope for Alzheimer's disease. In Targeted Therapy for the Central Nervous System (pp. 301-323). Academic Press.
  55. oudel, P., & Park, S. (2022). Recent advances in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease using nanoparticle-based drug delivery systems. Pharmaceutics, 14(4), 835.
  56. Gao, L., Wang, J., & Bi, Y. (2025). Nanotechnology for neurodegenerative diseases: recent progress in brain-targeted delivery, stimuli-responsive platforms, and organelle-specific therapeutics. International Journal of Nanomedicine, 11015-11044.
  57. Mihaescu, R., Detmar, S. B., Cornel, M. C., Van der Flier, W. M., Heutink, P., Hol, E. M., ... & Janssens, A. C. J. (2010). Translational research in genomics of Alzheimer's disease: a review of current practice and future perspectives. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 20(4), 967-980.
  58. Mazzucchi, S., Palermo, G., Campese, N., Galgani, A., Della Vecchia, A., Vergallo, A., ... & Baldacci, F. (2020). The role of synaptic biomarkers in the spectrum of neurodegenerative diseases. Expert review of proteomics, 17(7-8), 543-559.
  59. Janssen, B., Vugts, D. J., Windhorst, A. D., & Mach, R. H. (2018). PET imaging of microglial activation—beyond targeting TSPO. Molecules, 23(3), 607.
  60. Zimmermann, M., & Brockmann, K. (2022). Blood and Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarkers of Inflammation in Parkinson's Disease. Journal of Parkinson's disease, 12(s1), S183–S200. https://doi.org/10.3233/JPD-223277
  61. Ciaccio, A. M. (2026). Evaluation and validation of blood-based biomarkers for the early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease: from research to clinical application.
  62. Camporesi, E., Nilsson, J., Brinkmalm, A., Becker, B., Ashton, N. J., Blennow, K., & Zetterberg, H. (2020). Fluid biomarkers for synaptic dysfunction and loss. Biomarker insights, 15, 1177271920950319.
  63. Zhang, B., Li, Y., Li, H., Shen, X., & Zhu, Z. (2025). Therapeutic advances in targeting the amyloid-β pathway for Alzheimer’s disease. Brain Sciences, 15(10), 1101.
  64. Kanda, A., Rani, A., & Mazumder, A. (2025). Exploring precision medicine by utilizing individual genetic information for the management of Alzheimer's disease. Pharmacogenomics, 26(10-12), 455–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/14622416.2025.2560296
  65. Ali, H. (2022). AI in neurodegenerative disease research: Early detection, cognitive decline prediction, and brain imaging biomarker identification. Int J Eng Technol Res Manag, 6(10), 71.
  66. Sharma, A., Rudrawar, S., Bharate, S. B., & Jadhav, H. R. (2025). Recent advancements in the therapeutic approaches for Alzheimer's disease treatment: current and future perspective. RSC medicinal chemistry, 16(2), 652-693.
  67. bbas, K., Mustafa, M., Alam, M., Habib, S., Ahmad, W., Adnan, M., ... & Usmani, N. (2025). Multi-target approach to Alzheimer’s disease prevention and treatment: antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and amyloid-modulating mechanisms. Neurogenetics, 26(1), 39.
  68. Cavalli, A., Bolognesi, M. L., Minarini, A., Rosini, M., Tumiatti, V., Recanatini, M., & Melchiorre, C. (2008). Multi-target-directed ligands to combat neurodegenerative diseases. Journal of medicinal chemistry, 51(3), 347-372.
  69. Vermunt, L., Sikkes, S. A. M., van den Hout, A., Handels, R., Bos, I., van der Flier, W. M., Kern, S., Ousset, P. J., Maruff, P., Skoog, I., Verhey, F. R. J., Freund-Levi, Y., Tsolaki, M., Wallin, Å. K., Olde Rikkert, M., Soininen, H., Spiru, L., Zetterberg, H., Blennow, K., Scheltens, P., … ICTUS/DSA study groups (2019). Duration of preclinical, prodromal, and dementia stages of Alzheimer's disease in relation to age, sex, and APOE genotype. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 15(7), 888–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2019.04.001
  70. Cardillo, M., Katam, K., & Suravajhala, P. (2025). Advancements in multi-omics research to address challenges in Alzheimer’s disease: a systems biology approach utilizing molecular biomarkers and innovative strategies. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 17, 1591796.
  71. Mukherjee, A., Abraham, S., Singh, A., Balaji, S., & Mukunthan, K. S. (2025). From data to cure: a comprehensive exploration of multi-omics data analysis for targeted therapies. Molecular biotechnology, 67(4), 1269-1289.
  72. Ali, H. (2023). Artificial intelligence in multi-omics data integration: Advancing precision medicine, biomarker discovery and genomic-driven disease interventions. Int J Sci Res Arch, 8(1), 1012-30.
  73. Serrano, D. R., Luciano, F. C., Anaya, B. J., Ongoren, B., Kara, A., Molina, G., Ramirez, B. I., Sánchez-Guirales, S. A., Simon, J. A., Tomietto, G., Rapti, C., Ruiz, H. K., Rawat, S., Kumar, D., & Lalatsa, A. (2024). Artificial Intelligence (AI) Applications in Drug Discovery and Drug Delivery: Revolutionizing Personalized Medicine. Pharmaceutics, 16(10), 1328. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics16101328
  74. Paerhati, Y., Aikebaier, A., Dilimulati, D., Baishan, A., Yusufujiang, N., Qiu, X., ... & Zhou, W. (2026). Rethinking Nature’s Pharmacy: AI Era and Natural Product Drug Discovery. Pharmaceuticals, 19(2), 301.

    Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most common neurodegenerative disorder and the leading cause of dementia worldwide, accounting for approximately 60–70% of all dementia cases. Its prevalence increases exponentially with age, affecting nearly 5–7% of individuals over 65 years and more than 30% of those above 85 years [1]. With global population ageing, the burden of AD is rising at an alarming rate. According to recent estimates, over 55 million people worldwide are living with dementia, and this number is projected to exceed 130 million by 2050, with Alzheimer’s disease contributing the majority of cases. Low- and middle-income countries are expected to experience the fastest growth, which will further exacerbate existing healthcare disparities [2]. Beyond its clinical impact, AD imposes a profound socioeconomic burden on patients, caregivers, and healthcare systems. The disease is characterized by progressive cognitive decline, memory loss, behavioral disturbances, and functional impairment, ultimately leading to complete dependence. The global economic cost of dementia exceeds USD 1.3 trillion annually, driven by direct medical expenses, long-term institutional care, and substantial informal caregiving costs [3]. Family caregivers often experience significant psychological stress, reduced productivity, and financial strain, highlighting AD as not only a medical condition but also a major public health and societal challenge. Pathologically, Alzheimer’s disease is characterized by distinct and interrelated hallmarks, including extracellular accumulation of amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques, intracellular neurofibrillary tangles composed of hyperphosphorylated tau protein, synaptic dysfunction, and progressive neuronal loss, particularly in the hippocampus and cerebral cortex [4]. These pathological changes are accompanied by chronic neuroinflammation, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, impaired neurotransmission, and disruption of calcium homeostasis [5]. Growing evidence suggests that glial activation, blood–brain barrier dysfunction, and impaired protein clearance mechanisms play critical roles in disease progression, indicating that AD is a multifactorial disorder rather than a single-pathway disease[6]. Despite decades of intensive research, effective disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer’s disease remain elusive. Currently approved pharmacological treatments, including acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists, provide only modest symptomatic relief and do not halt or reverse disease progression [7]. Recent therapeutic strategies targeting amyloid-β and tau pathology have shown limited clinical success and raised concerns regarding safety, cost, and patient selection. Consequently, there is a critical unmet need for novel therapeutic approaches that address multiple pathogenic mechanisms simultaneously, including neuroinflammation, synaptic loss, and neuronal survival [8]. Understanding the complex molecular and cellular pathways underlying Alzheimer’s disease is therefore essential for the development of effective pharmacological interventions [9]. This has driven increasing interest in multi-target-directed drugs, neuroprotective agents, and modulators of inflammatory and oxidative pathways, aiming to slow disease progression and improve quality of life for affected individuals [10].

     

     

     

    Figure1: Global Prevalence and Projected Economic Impact of Alzheimer’s Disease. This figure illustrates the global prevalence and projected economic burden of Alzheimer’s disease. Worldwide cases are estimated at 55 million in 2021 and are projected to reach 139 million by 2050, driven largely by population aging. The economic impact includes escalating healthcare and long-term care costs, productivity losses, and societal strain, with global annual costs expected to rise from approximately USD 1 trillion to USD 2.8 trillion by 2050.

     

    3. Neuroinflammatory Cascades in Alzheimer’s Disease

    Neuroinflammation is a central pathological feature of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and plays a critical role in disease initiation and progression. Persistent activation of innate immune responses within the central nervous system contributes to synaptic dysfunction, neuronal injury, and cognitive decline [11]. Among the key cellular mediators of this process are microglia and astrocytes, whose dysregulated responses amplify inflammatory signaling and exacerbate neurodegeneration. Microglia, the resident immune cells of the brain, are among the earliest responders to amyloid-β (Aβ) accumulation. [12]. In AD, microglial activation is characterized by phenotypic polarization along a spectrum ranging from a pro-inflammatory (classically activated) state to an anti-inflammatory or reparative phenotype. Pro-inflammatory microglia release neurotoxic mediators such as tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin-1β (IL-1β), interleukin-6 (IL-6), reactive oxygen species, and nitric oxide, which promote synaptic loss and neuronal damage. [13]. Conversely, anti-inflammatory microglial phenotypes facilitate Aβ clearance and secrete neurotrophic factors. However, chronic exposure to pathological stimuli skews microglia toward a sustained pro-inflammatory state, impairing phagocytic capacity and accelerating disease progression [14]. Astrocytes also play a pivotal role in shaping neuroinflammatory responses in AD. Reactive astrogliosis is marked by morphological changes, upregulation of glial fibrillary acidic protein, and altered metabolic and signaling functions. Activated astrocytes interact closely with microglia and neurons, forming complex cytokine and chemokine networks [15]. They release pro-inflammatory mediators, including IL-1β, IL-6, and transforming growth factor-β, which further propagate inflammatory signaling and disrupt synaptic homeostasis [16]. Additionally, astrocytic dysfunction contributes to impaired glutamate clearance, oxidative stress, and blood–brain barrier disruption, thereby amplifying neuronal vulnerability. Inflammasome activation represents a crucial molecular link between innate immunity and neurodegeneration in AD [17]. The NLRP3 inflammasome is activated in response to Aβ aggregates and cellular stress, leading to caspase-1 activation and subsequent maturation of IL-1β and IL-18. These cytokines intensify microglial and astrocytic activation, creating a self-perpetuating inflammatory loop [18]. In parallel, aberrant activation of the complement system, particularly components such as C1q and C3, promotes synaptic pruning and neuronal loss. Collectively, these interconnected inflammatory cascades underscore neuroinflammation as a key therapeutic target in Alzheimer’s disease [19].

     

     

     

    Diagram 2: Mechanistic Pathway of Amyloid-β–Induced Microglial Activation and Cytokine Release. This schematic depicts the mechanistic pathway of amyloid-β–induced microglial activation and inflammatory signaling in Alzheimer’s disease. Amyloid-β oligomers promote oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction, leading to activation of pattern recognition receptors and the NLRP3 inflammasome. Subsequent release of pro-inflammatory cytokines, including IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α, amplifies microglial and astrocytic activation. These neuroinflammatory cascades exacerbate neuronal injury, synaptic dysfunction, and progressive neurodegeneration.

     

    4. Synaptic Pathophysiology in Cognitive Decline

    Synaptic dysfunction is a primary correlate of cognitive decline in neurodegenerative disorders, particularly Alzheimer’s disease, and precedes overt neuronal loss. Alterations in synaptic signaling, structure, and energy homeostasis collectively impair neuronal communication and plasticity, ultimately disrupting learning and memory processes [20]. Neurotransmitter imbalance is a hallmark of synaptic pathophysiology in cognitive decline. The cholinergic system, essential for attention and memory, is profoundly impaired due to degeneration of basal forebrain cholinergic neurons and reduced acetylcholine synthesis. This deficit underlies the limited symptomatic efficacy of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors used in current therapy [21]. In parallel, dysregulation of glutamatergic neurotransmission leads to excessive activation of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors, resulting in excitotoxicity. Sustained glutamate signaling increases intracellular calcium influx, activating calcium-dependent enzymes that damage cytoskeletal proteins, membranes, and DNA [22]. Concurrently, inhibitory γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) signaling is often reduced, further shifting the excitatory–inhibitory balance toward neuronal hyperexcitability and synaptic failure.

    Structural synaptic alterations also contribute significantly to cognitive impairment [23]. Dendritic spine loss is one of the earliest pathological changes observed in neurodegenerative conditions and closely correlates with cognitive deficits. Soluble amyloid-β oligomers disrupt synaptic adhesion molecules and interfere with long-term potentiation, leading to spine retraction and synaptic weakening [24]. Moreover, aberrant synaptic pruning, mediated in part by activated microglia and complement proteins such as C1q and C3, results in excessive elimination of functional synapses. This maladaptive pruning compromises neural network connectivity and accelerates cognitive decline [25]. Mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress further exacerbate synaptic pathology. Synapses have high energy demands, and impaired mitochondrial dynamics, reduced ATP production, and defective calcium buffering compromise synaptic transmission and plasticity [26]. Accumulation of reactive oxygen species induces lipid peroxidation, protein oxidation, and mitochondrial DNA damage, creating a vicious cycle of energy failure and oxidative injury [27]. Together, neurotransmitter imbalance, synaptic structural degeneration, and mitochondrial dysfunction form an interconnected pathological triad driving synaptic failure and cognitive decline, highlighting synapses as critical targets for therapeutic intervention [28].

     

     

     

    Diagram 3: Pathways Linking Mitochondrial Dysfunction to Synaptic Loss in Alzheimer’s Disease. This figure illustrates pathways linking mitochondrial dysfunction to synaptic loss in Alzheimer’s disease. Amyloid-β oligomers and tau pathology induce mitochondrial impairment, leading to oxidative stress, reduced ATP production, and energy deficiency. Excessive reactive oxygen species cause lipid, protein, and DNA damage, while calcium overload and glutamate-mediated excitotoxicity disrupt synaptic signaling. These events impair postsynaptic receptor function, reduce synaptic plasticity, and promote progressive synaptic degeneration underlying cognitive decline.

     

    5. Crosstalk Between Neuroinflammation and Synaptic Dysfunction

    Neuroinflammation and synaptic dysfunction are tightly interconnected processes that synergistically drive neurodegeneration and cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders [29]. Rather than acting as independent pathological events, these mechanisms engage in dynamic crosstalk mediated by shared molecular signals, leading to progressive neuronal and network failure [30]. Several molecular mediators operate at the intersection of inflammation and synaptic integrity. Pro-inflammatory cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin-1β (IL-1β), and interleukin-6 (IL-6), released by activated microglia and astrocytes, directly modulate synaptic transmission and plasticity [31]. TNF-α alters the trafficking of AMPA and NMDA receptors, enhancing excitatory signaling and promoting excitotoxicity, while IL-1β disrupts long-term potentiation and memory consolidation. Complement proteins, particularly C1q and C3, represent another critical link, as their upregulation in inflammatory states tags synapses for microglial-mediated elimination, leading to pathological synaptic pruning [32]. Additionally, inflammasome activation amplifies cytokine release, further destabilizing synaptic homeostasis. Bidirectional feedback loops reinforce the relationship between neuroinflammation and synaptic dysfunction [33]. Synaptic damage and neuronal stress release danger-associated molecular patterns, including ATP, HMGB1, and misfolded protein aggregates, which activate pattern recognition receptors on glial cells and perpetuate inflammatory responses [34]. In turn, sustained neuroinflammation exacerbates synaptic loss by impairing neurotransmitter balance, disrupting calcium homeostasis, and inducing oxidative stress. This self-propagating cycle progressively weakens neuronal connectivity and accelerates neurodegeneration [35]. The convergence of inflammatory and synaptic pathways underscores the complexity of neurodegenerative disease progression. Targeting shared molecular mediators and interrupting these maladaptive feedback loops may offer therapeutic advantages over single-target strategies. Consequently, integrated pharmacological approaches that simultaneously modulate neuroinflammation and preserve synaptic function represent a promising direction for disease-modifying interventions [36].

    6. Current Therapeutic Approaches and Limitations

    Current pharmacological management of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is largely focused on symptomatic relief rather than modification of the underlying disease process [37]. The most widely prescribed agents include acetylcholinesterase inhibitors—such as donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantaminewhich aim to enhance cholinergic neurotransmission by preventing acetylcholine breakdown. These drugs provide modest and temporary improvements in cognition, behavior, and activities of daily living, particularly in mild to moderate stages of the disease [38]. Memantine, an N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist, is used in moderate to severe AD to reduce glutamate-mediated excitotoxicity and improve functional outcomes. However, symptomatic benefits are limited, and treatment efficacy often diminishes as neurodegeneration progresses [39]. Despite extensive research efforts, disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for AD have faced significant challenges. Most DMTs have primarily targeted amyloid-β (Aβ) accumulation through inhibition of its production, aggregation, or enhancement of its clearance [40]. Although monoclonal antibodies against Aβ have demonstrated reductions in amyloid burden, their clinical benefits remain inconsistent, and concerns persist regarding safety, cost, and accessibility [41]. Adverse effects such as amyloid-related imaging abnormalities, including cerebral edema and microhemorrhages, have further limited widespread clinical adoption. Similarly, therapeutic strategies targeting tau pathology have yet to show robust clinical efficacy [42]. A major limitation of existing disease-modifying strategies is their narrow focus on single pathological targets, despite the multifactorial nature of AD. Neuroinflammation, synaptic dysfunction, oxidative stress, and mitochondrial impairment often remain unaddressed [43]. Additionally, late-stage intervention, suboptimal patient stratification, and inadequate biomarkers for early diagnosis contribute to therapeutic failure [44]. Collectively, these shortcomings highlight the urgent need for multi-target and mechanism-based therapeutic approaches capable of intervening earlier in the disease course and addressing the complex pathophysiology of Alzheimer’s disease [45].

    7. Emerging Therapeutic Paradigms – 1,200–1,500 words

    The growing recognition of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) as a multifactorial disorder has shifted therapeutic research toward innovative strategies that target multiple pathogenic mechanisms simultaneously [46]. Emerging therapeutic paradigms aim not only to slow neurodegeneration but also to restore synaptic function and modify disease progression more effectively than conventional approaches [47]. Anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory agents have gained increasing attention due to the central role of chronic neuroinflammation in AD pathology. Strategies targeting microglial activation, cytokine signaling, and inflammasome pathways are under active investigation [48]. Small-molecule inhibitors of the NLRP3 inflammasome, monoclonal antibodies against pro-inflammatory cytokines, and modulators of microglial phenotypic polarization aim to suppress detrimental inflammatory responses while preserving neuroprotective immune functions [49]. Additionally, immune checkpoint modulation and adaptive immune regulation are being explored to rebalance central and peripheral immune interactions. Synaptic repair and neurotrophic support represent another promising avenue for therapeutic intervention [50]. Approaches enhancing neurotrophic signaling, including brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and nerve growth factor (NGF) pathways, seek to promote synaptic plasticity, neuronal survival, and cognitive resilience [51]. Small molecules, peptides, and gene-based delivery of neurotrophic factors have demonstrated encouraging preclinical results by improving synaptic integrity and memory performance [52]. Pharmacological agents targeting synaptic receptors and scaffolding proteins are also being developed to stabilize synaptic connections and counteract synapse loss. Gene therapy and molecular editing technologies offer transformative potential by directly correcting disease-associated genetic and molecular abnormalities [53]. Viral vector–mediated gene delivery and CRISPR-based genome editing are being investigated to modulate amyloid precursor protein processing, tau phosphorylation, and neuroinflammatory signaling pathways. Although still in early stages, these approaches provide opportunities for long-term and potentially disease-modifying effects [54]. Nanotechnology-based drug delivery systems are increasingly utilized to overcome blood–brain barrier limitations and enhance therapeutic precision [55]. Nanocarriers such as liposomes, polymeric nanoparticles, and exosomes enable targeted delivery, improved bioavailability, and reduced systemic toxicity. Collectively, these emerging paradigms highlight a shift toward integrated, precision-based therapies for Alzheimer’s disease [56].

    8. Translational and Clinical Perspectives

    Translational research in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) increasingly focuses on bridging mechanistic insights with clinical application to enable earlier diagnosis, improved patient selection, and more effective therapeutic interventions. [57]. Central to this effort is the identification and validation of reliable biomarkers that reflect neuroinflammation and synaptic integrity, two key drivers of disease progression. Biomarkers of neuroinflammation provide valuable tools for monitoring disease activity and therapeutic response. [58]. Positron emission tomography (PET) ligands targeting translocator protein (TSPO) allow in vivo visualization of microglial activation, while emerging tracers aim to distinguish detrimental versus protective glial phenotypes. [59]. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood-based biomarkers, including cytokines such as interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-α, and inflammasome-related components, offer less invasive means of assessing inflammatory status. [60]. Advances in ultrasensitive assays have enabled detection of peripheral inflammatory markers that correlate with central immune activity, facilitating longitudinal monitoring and large-scale screening. Markers of synaptic health are increasingly recognized as strong correlates of cognitive decline. [61]. CSF levels of synaptic proteins such as synaptosomal-associated protein 25 (SNAP-25), neurogranin, and synaptotagmin reflect synaptic degeneration and dysfunction. Neuroimaging techniques, including functional MRI and synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A (SV2A) PET imaging, provide insights into synaptic density and network connectivity. [62]. These biomarkers enhance the ability to track disease progression and evaluate synapse-targeted therapies in clinical trials. Patient stratification and precision medicine approaches are essential for translating emerging therapies into clinical success. [63]. Heterogeneity in genetic background, inflammatory profiles, and disease stage contributes to variable treatment responses. Stratifying patients based on biomarker signatures, genetic risk factors such as APOE genotype, and clinical phenotypes enables the development of tailored therapeutic strategies. [64]. Integrating multi-modal biomarkers with artificial intelligence–driven analytics may further refine precision medicine approaches, ultimately improving clinical outcomes and accelerating the development of disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer’s disease. [65].

    9. Future Directions

    Future therapeutic strategies for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) must evolve beyond single-target approaches to address the complex and interconnected pathological processes driving disease progression. [66]. Multi-target therapeutic strategies are increasingly recognized as a rational and necessary direction, given the simultaneous involvement of neuroinflammation, synaptic dysfunction, mitochondrial impairment, oxidative stress, and protein misfolding. [67]. Multi-target-directed ligands, drug combinations, and pleiotropic agents aim to modulate several disease-relevant pathways concurrently, thereby enhancing therapeutic efficacy and reducing the likelihood of compensatory mechanisms that undermine treatment success. [68]. Pharmacological agents capable of simultaneously suppressing neuroinflammation, preserving synaptic integrity, and supporting neuronal survival may offer superior disease-modifying potential, particularly when administered during early or prodromal stages of AD. [69]. The integration of multi-omics technologies represents another transformative avenue for advancing AD research and therapy. Genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and epigenomics provide comprehensive insights into disease-associated molecular alterations across different biological levels. [70]. Integrative analysis of these datasets can uncover novel therapeutic targets, identify disease subtypes, and reveal pathway interactions that are not evident from single-layer analyses. Such systems-level understanding is essential for deciphering disease heterogeneity and tailoring personalized interventions. [71]. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning–driven drug discovery is poised to accelerate the translation of multi-omics data into clinically actionable therapies. [72]. AI-based algorithms can predict drug–target interactions, optimize lead compounds, and identify repurposing opportunities by analyzing vast and complex datasets. Moreover, AI-assisted modeling of disease progression and treatment response may guide rational clinical trial design and patient stratification. [73]. Together, multi-target pharmacology combined with multi-omics integration and AI-driven discovery heralds a new era of precision, efficiency, and innovation in the development of effective therapies for Alzheimer’s disease. [74].

    CONCLUSION

    Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a multifactorial neurodegenerative disorder driven by the intricate interplay between neuroinflammation and synaptic dysfunction. This review emphasizes that chronic glial activation, pro-inflammatory cytokine release, and inflammasome signaling contribute to neuronal damage, while mitochondrial dysfunction, neurotransmitter imbalance, and dendritic spine loss accelerate synaptic failure and cognitive decline. The bidirectional crosstalk between these processes creates a self-perpetuating cycle that worsens disease progression.

    Current therapies provide only symptomatic relief and fail to address underlying pathogenic mechanisms, while single-target disease-modifying approaches have shown limited success. Emerging multi-target strategies, including immunomodulation, neurotrophic support, gene therapy, and nanotechnology-based delivery systems, offer promising alternatives by addressing multiple disease pathways simultaneously.

    Advances in biomarkers and precision medicine further enhance early diagnosis and personalized treatment approaches. Overall, integrated therapeutic strategies targeting both neuroinflammation and synaptic integrity are essential for developing effective disease-modifying treatments and improving outcomes in Alzheimer’s disease.

    Ethics approval and consent to participate

    Not applicable.

    Consent for publication

    Not applicable.

    Availability of data and materials

    Not applicable.

    Conflict of interest

    No conflicts of interest to declare.

    Declaration of Competing Interest

    The authors assert that they do not have any known financial interests or personal relationships that could be perceived as influencing the work reported in this paper.

    Funding

    There is no funding agency in this article.

    Data availability

    Not applicable.

    Acknowledgements

    Special thanks to Shri. Zora Singh, Chairman, DBU, for providing an excellent research platform. This work wouldn’t have been possible without their collective influence.

    REFERENCES

  75. Qiu, C., Kivipelto, M., & von Strauss, E. (2009). Epidemiology of Alzheimer's disease: occurrence, determinants, and strategies toward intervention. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 11(2), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2009.11.2/cqiu
  76. Nichols, E., Steinmetz, J. D., Vollset, S. E., Fukutaki, K., Chalek, J., Abd-Allah, F., ... & Liu, X. (2022). Estimation of the global prevalence of dementia in 2019 and forecasted prevalence in 2050: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet Public Health, 7(2), e105-e125.
  77. Zhang N, Chai S and Wang J (2025) Assessing and projecting the global impacts of Alzheimer’s disease. Front. Public Health 12:1453489. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1453489
  78. Yin, X., Qiu, Y., Zhao, C., Zhou, Z., Bao, J., & Qian, W. (2021). The Role of Amyloid-Beta and Tau in the Early Pathogenesis of Alzheimer's Disease. Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 27, e933084. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.933084
  79. Mani, S., Wasnik, S., Shandilya, C., Srivastava, V., Khan, S., & Singh, K. K. (2025). Pathogenic synergy: dysfunctional mitochondria and neuroinflammation in neurodegenerative diseases associated with aging. Frontiers in aging, 6, 1615764. https://doi.org/10.3389/fragi.2025.1615764
  80. Neyra Chauca, J. M., & Robles Martinez, G. G. (2025). Histological and Functional Breakdown of the Blood−Brain Barrier in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Multifactorial Intersection. Neurology International, 17(10), 166. https://doi.org/10.3390/neurolint17100166
  81. Hans-Wolfgang Klafki, Matthias Staufenbiel, Johannes Kornhuber, Jens Wiltfang, Therapeutic approaches to Alzheimer's disease, Brain, Volume 129, Issue 11, November 2006, Pages 2840–2855, https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awl280
  82. Stanciu, G.-D. (2025). Beyond Conventional Pharmacotherapy: Unraveling Mechanisms and Advancing Multi-Target Strategies in Alzheimer’s Disease. Pharmaceuticals, 18(12), 1797. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph18121797
  83. Guo, T., Zhang, D., Zeng, Y., Huang, T. Y., Xu, H., & Zhao, Y. (2020). Molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease. Molecular neurodegeneration, 15(1), 40.
  84. Cavalli, A., Bolognesi, M. L., Minarini, A., Rosini, M., Tumiatti, V., Recanatini, M., & Melchiorre, C. (2008). Multi-target-directed ligands to combat neurodegenerative diseases. Journal of medicinal chemistry, 51(3), 347-372.
  85. Kinney, J. W., Bemiller, S. M., Murtishaw, A. S., Leisgang, A. M., Salazar, A. M., & Lamb, B. T. (2018). Inflammation as a central mechanism in Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions, 4, 575-590.
  86. Muzio, L., Viotti, A., & Martino, G. (2021). Microglia in neuroinflammation and neurodegeneration: from understanding to therapy. Frontiers in neuroscience, 15, 742065.
  87. Varnum, M. M., & Ikezu, T. (2012). The classification of microglial activation phenotypes on neurodegeneration and regeneration in Alzheimer’s disease brain. Archivum immunologiae et therapiae experimentalis, 60(4), 251-266.
  88. Cai, Y., Liu, J., Wang, B., Sun, M., & Yang, H. (2022). Microglia in the neuroinflammatory pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease and related therapeutic targets. Frontiers in immunology, 13, 856376.
  89. Pekny, M., & Pekna, M. (2014). Astrocyte reactivity and reactive astrogliosis: costs and benefits. Physiological reviews.
  90. Zhang, H., Zhang, X., Chai, Y., Wang, Y., Zhang, J., & Chen, X. (2025). Astrocyte-mediated inflammatory responses in traumatic brain injury: Mechanisms and potential interventions. Frontiers in Immunology, 16, 1584577.
  91. Rama Rao, K. V., & Kielian, T. (2015). Neuron–astrocyte interactions in neurodegenerative diseases: Role of neuroinflammation. Clinical and Experimental Neuroimmunology, 6(3), 245-263.
  92. Bai, H., & Zhang, Q. (2021). Activation of NLRP3 inflammasome and onset of Alzheimer’s disease. Frontiers in immunology, 12, 701282.
  93. She, X. (2025). Targeting the Synergistic Interaction of Pathologies in Alzheimer's Disease: Rationale and Prospects for Combination Therapy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.10981.
  94. Koffie, R. M., Hyman, B. T., & Spires-Jones, T. L. (2011). Alzheimer's disease: synapses gone cold. Molecular Neurodegeneration, 6(1), 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1326-6-63
  95. Hampel, H., Mesulam, M. M., Cuello, A. C., Farlow, M. R., Giacobini, E., Grossberg, G. T., ... & Khachaturian, Z. S. (2018). The cholinergic system in the pathophysiology and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Brain, 141(7), 1917-1933.
  96. Carvajal, F. J., Mattison, H. A., & Cerpa, W. (2016). Role of NMDA receptor?mediated glutamatergic signaling in chronic and acute Neuropathologies. Neural plasticity, 2016(1), 2701526.
  97. Cherubini, E., Di Cristo, G., & Avoli, M. (2022). Dysregulation of GABAergic signaling in neurodevelomental disorders: targeting cation-chloride co-transporters to re-establish a proper E/I balance. Frontiers in cellular neuroscience, 15, 813441.
  98. Knobloch, M., Mansuy, I.M. Dendritic Spine Loss and Synaptic Alterations in Alzheimer’s Disease. Mol Neurobiol 37, 73–82 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12035-008-8018-z
  99. omez-Arboledas, A., Acharya, M. M., & Tenner, A. J. (2021). The role of complement in synaptic pruning and neurodegeneration. ImmunoTargets and therapy, 373-386.
  100. Tönnies, E., & Trushina, E. (2017). Oxidative stress, synaptic dysfunction, and Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Alzheimer’s disease, 57(4), 1105-1121.
  101. 27 Perluigi, M., Di Domenico, F., & Butterfield, D. A. (2024). Oxidative damage in neurodegeneration: roles in the pathogenesis and progression of Alzheimer disease. Physiological reviews, 104(1), 103-197.
  102. Moawad, M. H. E. D., Serag, I., Alkhawaldeh, I. M., Abbas, A., Sharaf, A., Alsalah, S., ... & Meshref, M. (2025). Exploring the mechanisms and therapeutic approaches of mitochondrial dysfunction in Alzheimer’s disease: An educational literature review. Molecular Neurobiology, 62(6), 6785-6810.
  103. Bairamian, D., Sha, S., Rolhion, N., Sokol, H., Dorothée, G., Lemere, C. A., & Krantic, S. (2022). Microbiota in neuroinflammation and synaptic dysfunction: a focus on Alzheimer’s disease. Molecular neurodegeneration, 17(1), 19.
  104. Kang, X., Tian, J., Shu, Q., Cheng, T., Wang, S., & Hu, Y. (2025). Microglia-neuron crosstalk in Alzheimer’s disease: an exploration of molecular mechanisms and pathological implications. Neuroscience.
  105. Shafi, A., Akmal, M., Sethi, A., & Chauhdary, Z. (2025). A mechanistic insight of neuro-inflammation signaling pathways and implication in neurodegenerative disorders. Inflammopharmacology, 1-10.
  106. Subramanian, J. (2026). How Do Amyloid Pathology and Aberrant Neuronal Activity Disrupt Plasticity and Memory in Alzheimer’s Disease?. The Neuroscientist, 10738584251414384.
  107. Bairamian, D., Sha, S., Rolhion, N., Sokol, H., Dorothée, G., Lemere, C. A., & Krantic, S. (2022). Microbiota in neuroinflammation and synaptic dysfunction: a focus on Alzheimer’s disease. Molecular neurodegeneration, 17(1), 19.
  108. Klegeris, A. (2021). Regulation of neuroimmune processes by damage-and resolution-associated molecular patterns. Neural regeneration research, 16(3), 423-429.
  109. Liu, X., Luo, Q., Zhao, Y., Ren, P., Jin, Y., & Zhou, J. (2025). The ferroptosis–mitochondrial axis in depression: unraveling the feedforward loop of oxidative stress, metabolic homeostasis dysregulation, and neuroinflammation. Antioxidants, 14(5), 613.
  110. he, X. (2025). Targeting the Synergistic Interaction of Pathologies in Alzheimer's Disease: Rationale and Prospects for Combination Therapy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.10981.
  111. Salomone, S., Caraci, F., Leggio, G. M., Fedotova, J., & Drago, F. (2012). New pharmacological strategies for treatment of Alzheimer's disease: focus on disease modifying drugs. British journal of clinical pharmacology, 73(4), 504-517.
  112. Walczak-Nowicka, ?. J., & Herbet, M. (2021). Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases and the role of acetylcholinesterase in their pathogenesis. International journal of molecular sciences, 22(17), 9290.
  113. Olivares, D., K Deshpande, V., Shi, Y., K Lahiri, D., H Greig, N., T Rogers, J., & Huang, X. (2012). N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists and memantine treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease. Current Alzheimer Research, 9(6), 746-758.
  114. Thawabteh, A. M., Ghanem, A. W., AbuMadi, S., Thaher, D., Jaghama, W., Karaman, D., & Karaman, R. (2024). Recent advances in therapeutics for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Molecules, 29(21), 5131.
  115. Alkhalifa, A. E., Al Mokhlf, A., Ali, H., Al-Ghraiybah, N. F., & Syropoulou, V. (2025). Anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies for alzheimer’s disease: evidence, ARIA risk, and precision patient selection. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 15(9), 437.
  116. Balcerzak, W. (2025). New Biomarkers and Biological Therapies in Alzheimer’s.
  117. Jurc?u, M. C., Andronie-Cioara, F. L., Jurc?u, A., Marcu, F., ?i?, D. M., Pa?cal?u, N., & Nistor-Cseppentö, D. C. (2022). The link between oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction and neuroinflammation in the pathophysiology of Alzheimer’s disease: therapeutic implications and future perspectives. Antioxidants, 11(11), 2167.
  118. Molla, G., & Bitew, M. (2025). The future of cancer diagnosis and treatment: Unlocking the power of biomarkers and personalized molecular-targeted therapies. Journal of Molecular Pathology, 6(3), 20.
  119. Hossain, M. S., & Hussain, M. H. (2025). Multi?Target Drug Design in Alzheimer's Disease Treatment: Emerging Technologies, Advantages, Challenges, and Limitations. Pharmacology Research & Perspectives, 13(4), e70131.
  120. Gong, C. X., Liu, F., & Iqbal, K. (2018). Multifactorial hypothesis and multi-targets for Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 64(s1), S107-S117.
  121. ussain, R., Zubair, H., Pursell, S., & Shahab, M. (2018). Neurodegenerative diseases: regenerative mechanisms and novel therapeutic approaches. Brain sciences, 8(9), 177.
  122. Fornari Laurindo, L., Aparecido Dias, J., Cressoni Araujo, A., Torres Pomini, K., Machado Galhardi, C., Rucco Penteado Detregiachi, C., ... & Maria Barbalho, S. (2024). Immunological dimensions of neuroinflammation and microglial activation: exploring innovative immunomodulatory approaches to mitigate neuroinflammatory progression. Frontiers in immunology, 14, 1305933.
  123. Haseeb, M., Javaid, N., Yasmeen, F., Jeong, U., Han, J. H., Yoon, J., ... & Choi, S. (2022). Novel small-molecule inhibitor of NLRP3 inflammasome reverses cognitive impairment in an Alzheimer’s disease model. ACS Chemical Neuroscience, 13(6), 818-833.
  124. Mahdiabadi, S., Momtazmanesh, S., Perry, G., & Rezaei, N. (2022). Immune modulations and immunotherapies for Alzheimer’s disease: a comprehensive review. Reviews in the Neurosciences, 33(4), 365-381.
  125. icoletti, V. G., Pajer, K., Calcagno, D., Pajenda, G., & Nógrádi, A. (2022). The role of metals in the neuroregenerative action of BDNF, GDNF, NGF and other neurotrophic factors. Biomolecules, 12(8), 1015.
  126. Sidorova, Y. A., & Saarma, M. (2020). Small molecules and peptides targeting glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor receptors for the treatment of neurodegeneration. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 21(18), 6575.
  127. Sharma, A., Mishra, S. S., & Singh, S. (2024). Gene Therapy, OMICS Approaches, and Translational Neurodegenerative Models: Recent Advancements and Future Perspectives. In Neurodegenerative Diseases (pp. 206-223). CRC Press.
  128. Shareena, G., Viswalingam, V., Rajput, M. S., & Kumar, D. (2025). CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing: A new hope for Alzheimer's disease. In Targeted Therapy for the Central Nervous System (pp. 301-323). Academic Press.
  129. oudel, P., & Park, S. (2022). Recent advances in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease using nanoparticle-based drug delivery systems. Pharmaceutics, 14(4), 835.
  130. Gao, L., Wang, J., & Bi, Y. (2025). Nanotechnology for neurodegenerative diseases: recent progress in brain-targeted delivery, stimuli-responsive platforms, and organelle-specific therapeutics. International Journal of Nanomedicine, 11015-11044.
  131. Mihaescu, R., Detmar, S. B., Cornel, M. C., Van der Flier, W. M., Heutink, P., Hol, E. M., ... & Janssens, A. C. J. (2010). Translational research in genomics of Alzheimer's disease: a review of current practice and future perspectives. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 20(4), 967-980.
  132. Mazzucchi, S., Palermo, G., Campese, N., Galgani, A., Della Vecchia, A., Vergallo, A., ... & Baldacci, F. (2020). The role of synaptic biomarkers in the spectrum of neurodegenerative diseases. Expert review of proteomics, 17(7-8), 543-559.
  133. Janssen, B., Vugts, D. J., Windhorst, A. D., & Mach, R. H. (2018). PET imaging of microglial activation—beyond targeting TSPO. Molecules, 23(3), 607.
  134. Zimmermann, M., & Brockmann, K. (2022). Blood and Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarkers of Inflammation in Parkinson's Disease. Journal of Parkinson's disease, 12(s1), S183–S200. https://doi.org/10.3233/JPD-223277
  135. Ciaccio, A. M. (2026). Evaluation and validation of blood-based biomarkers for the early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease: from research to clinical application.
  136. Camporesi, E., Nilsson, J., Brinkmalm, A., Becker, B., Ashton, N. J., Blennow, K., & Zetterberg, H. (2020). Fluid biomarkers for synaptic dysfunction and loss. Biomarker insights, 15, 1177271920950319.
  137. Zhang, B., Li, Y., Li, H., Shen, X., & Zhu, Z. (2025). Therapeutic advances in targeting the amyloid-β pathway for Alzheimer’s disease. Brain Sciences, 15(10), 1101.
  138. Kanda, A., Rani, A., & Mazumder, A. (2025). Exploring precision medicine by utilizing individual genetic information for the management of Alzheimer's disease. Pharmacogenomics, 26(10-12), 455–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/14622416.2025.2560296
  139. Ali, H. (2022). AI in neurodegenerative disease research: Early detection, cognitive decline prediction, and brain imaging biomarker identification. Int J Eng Technol Res Manag, 6(10), 71.
  140. Sharma, A., Rudrawar, S., Bharate, S. B., & Jadhav, H. R. (2025). Recent advancements in the therapeutic approaches for Alzheimer's disease treatment: current and future perspective. RSC medicinal chemistry, 16(2), 652-693.
  141. bbas, K., Mustafa, M., Alam, M., Habib, S., Ahmad, W., Adnan, M., ... & Usmani, N. (2025). Multi-target approach to Alzheimer’s disease prevention and treatment: antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and amyloid-modulating mechanisms. Neurogenetics, 26(1), 39.
  142. Cavalli, A., Bolognesi, M. L., Minarini, A., Rosini, M., Tumiatti, V., Recanatini, M., & Melchiorre, C. (2008). Multi-target-directed ligands to combat neurodegenerative diseases. Journal of medicinal chemistry, 51(3), 347-372.
  143. Vermunt, L., Sikkes, S. A. M., van den Hout, A., Handels, R., Bos, I., van der Flier, W. M., Kern, S., Ousset, P. J., Maruff, P., Skoog, I., Verhey, F. R. J., Freund-Levi, Y., Tsolaki, M., Wallin, Å. K., Olde Rikkert, M., Soininen, H., Spiru, L., Zetterberg, H., Blennow, K., Scheltens, P., … ICTUS/DSA study groups (2019). Duration of preclinical, prodromal, and dementia stages of Alzheimer's disease in relation to age, sex, and APOE genotype. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 15(7), 888–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2019.04.001
  144. Cardillo, M., Katam, K., & Suravajhala, P. (2025). Advancements in multi-omics research to address challenges in Alzheimer’s disease: a systems biology approach utilizing molecular biomarkers and innovative strategies. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 17, 1591796.
  145. Mukherjee, A., Abraham, S., Singh, A., Balaji, S., & Mukunthan, K. S. (2025). From data to cure: a comprehensive exploration of multi-omics data analysis for targeted therapies. Molecular biotechnology, 67(4), 1269-1289.
  146. Ali, H. (2023). Artificial intelligence in multi-omics data integration: Advancing precision medicine, biomarker discovery and genomic-driven disease interventions. Int J Sci Res Arch, 8(1), 1012-30.
  147. Serrano, D. R., Luciano, F. C., Anaya, B. J., Ongoren, B., Kara, A., Molina, G., Ramirez, B. I., Sánchez-Guirales, S. A., Simon, J. A., Tomietto, G., Rapti, C., Ruiz, H. K., Rawat, S., Kumar, D., & Lalatsa, A. (2024). Artificial Intelligence (AI) Applications in Drug Discovery and Drug Delivery: Revolutionizing Personalized Medicine. Pharmaceutics, 16(10), 1328. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics16101328
  148. Paerhati, Y., Aikebaier, A., Dilimulati, D., Baishan, A., Yusufujiang, N., Qiu, X., ... & Zhou, W. (2026). Rethinking Nature’s Pharmacy: AI Era and Natural Product Drug Discovery. Pharmaceuticals, 19(2), 301.

Reference

  1. Qiu, C., Kivipelto, M., & von Strauss, E. (2009). Epidemiology of Alzheimer's disease: occurrence, determinants, and strategies toward intervention. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 11(2), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2009.11.2/cqiu
  2. Nichols, E., Steinmetz, J. D., Vollset, S. E., Fukutaki, K., Chalek, J., Abd-Allah, F., ... & Liu, X. (2022). Estimation of the global prevalence of dementia in 2019 and forecasted prevalence in 2050: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet Public Health, 7(2), e105-e125.
  3. Zhang N, Chai S and Wang J (2025) Assessing and projecting the global impacts of Alzheimer’s disease. Front. Public Health 12:1453489. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1453489
  4. Yin, X., Qiu, Y., Zhao, C., Zhou, Z., Bao, J., & Qian, W. (2021). The Role of Amyloid-Beta and Tau in the Early Pathogenesis of Alzheimer's Disease. Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 27, e933084. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.933084
  5. Mani, S., Wasnik, S., Shandilya, C., Srivastava, V., Khan, S., & Singh, K. K. (2025). Pathogenic synergy: dysfunctional mitochondria and neuroinflammation in neurodegenerative diseases associated with aging. Frontiers in aging, 6, 1615764. https://doi.org/10.3389/fragi.2025.1615764
  6. Neyra Chauca, J. M., & Robles Martinez, G. G. (2025). Histological and Functional Breakdown of the Blood−Brain Barrier in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Multifactorial Intersection. Neurology International, 17(10), 166. https://doi.org/10.3390/neurolint17100166
  7. Hans-Wolfgang Klafki, Matthias Staufenbiel, Johannes Kornhuber, Jens Wiltfang, Therapeutic approaches to Alzheimer's disease, Brain, Volume 129, Issue 11, November 2006, Pages 2840–2855, https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awl280
  8. Stanciu, G.-D. (2025). Beyond Conventional Pharmacotherapy: Unraveling Mechanisms and Advancing Multi-Target Strategies in Alzheimer’s Disease. Pharmaceuticals, 18(12), 1797. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph18121797
  9. Guo, T., Zhang, D., Zeng, Y., Huang, T. Y., Xu, H., & Zhao, Y. (2020). Molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease. Molecular neurodegeneration, 15(1), 40.
  10. Cavalli, A., Bolognesi, M. L., Minarini, A., Rosini, M., Tumiatti, V., Recanatini, M., & Melchiorre, C. (2008). Multi-target-directed ligands to combat neurodegenerative diseases. Journal of medicinal chemistry, 51(3), 347-372.
  11. Kinney, J. W., Bemiller, S. M., Murtishaw, A. S., Leisgang, A. M., Salazar, A. M., & Lamb, B. T. (2018). Inflammation as a central mechanism in Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions, 4, 575-590.
  12. Muzio, L., Viotti, A., & Martino, G. (2021). Microglia in neuroinflammation and neurodegeneration: from understanding to therapy. Frontiers in neuroscience, 15, 742065.
  13. Varnum, M. M., & Ikezu, T. (2012). The classification of microglial activation phenotypes on neurodegeneration and regeneration in Alzheimer’s disease brain. Archivum immunologiae et therapiae experimentalis, 60(4), 251-266.
  14. Cai, Y., Liu, J., Wang, B., Sun, M., & Yang, H. (2022). Microglia in the neuroinflammatory pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease and related therapeutic targets. Frontiers in immunology, 13, 856376.
  15. Pekny, M., & Pekna, M. (2014). Astrocyte reactivity and reactive astrogliosis: costs and benefits. Physiological reviews.
  16. Zhang, H., Zhang, X., Chai, Y., Wang, Y., Zhang, J., & Chen, X. (2025). Astrocyte-mediated inflammatory responses in traumatic brain injury: Mechanisms and potential interventions. Frontiers in Immunology, 16, 1584577.
  17. Rama Rao, K. V., & Kielian, T. (2015). Neuron–astrocyte interactions in neurodegenerative diseases: Role of neuroinflammation. Clinical and Experimental Neuroimmunology, 6(3), 245-263.
  18. Bai, H., & Zhang, Q. (2021). Activation of NLRP3 inflammasome and onset of Alzheimer’s disease. Frontiers in immunology, 12, 701282.
  19. She, X. (2025). Targeting the Synergistic Interaction of Pathologies in Alzheimer's Disease: Rationale and Prospects for Combination Therapy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.10981.
  20. Koffie, R. M., Hyman, B. T., & Spires-Jones, T. L. (2011). Alzheimer's disease: synapses gone cold. Molecular Neurodegeneration, 6(1), 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1326-6-63
  21. Hampel, H., Mesulam, M. M., Cuello, A. C., Farlow, M. R., Giacobini, E., Grossberg, G. T., ... & Khachaturian, Z. S. (2018). The cholinergic system in the pathophysiology and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Brain, 141(7), 1917-1933.
  22. Carvajal, F. J., Mattison, H. A., & Cerpa, W. (2016). Role of NMDA receptor?mediated glutamatergic signaling in chronic and acute Neuropathologies. Neural plasticity, 2016(1), 2701526.
  23. Cherubini, E., Di Cristo, G., & Avoli, M. (2022). Dysregulation of GABAergic signaling in neurodevelomental disorders: targeting cation-chloride co-transporters to re-establish a proper E/I balance. Frontiers in cellular neuroscience, 15, 813441.
  24. Knobloch, M., Mansuy, I.M. Dendritic Spine Loss and Synaptic Alterations in Alzheimer’s Disease. Mol Neurobiol 37, 73–82 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12035-008-8018-z
  25. omez-Arboledas, A., Acharya, M. M., & Tenner, A. J. (2021). The role of complement in synaptic pruning and neurodegeneration. ImmunoTargets and therapy, 373-386.
  26. Tönnies, E., & Trushina, E. (2017). Oxidative stress, synaptic dysfunction, and Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Alzheimer’s disease, 57(4), 1105-1121.
  27. 27 Perluigi, M., Di Domenico, F., & Butterfield, D. A. (2024). Oxidative damage in neurodegeneration: roles in the pathogenesis and progression of Alzheimer disease. Physiological reviews, 104(1), 103-197.
  28. Moawad, M. H. E. D., Serag, I., Alkhawaldeh, I. M., Abbas, A., Sharaf, A., Alsalah, S., ... & Meshref, M. (2025). Exploring the mechanisms and therapeutic approaches of mitochondrial dysfunction in Alzheimer’s disease: An educational literature review. Molecular Neurobiology, 62(6), 6785-6810.
  29. Bairamian, D., Sha, S., Rolhion, N., Sokol, H., Dorothée, G., Lemere, C. A., & Krantic, S. (2022). Microbiota in neuroinflammation and synaptic dysfunction: a focus on Alzheimer’s disease. Molecular neurodegeneration, 17(1), 19.
  30. Kang, X., Tian, J., Shu, Q., Cheng, T., Wang, S., & Hu, Y. (2025). Microglia-neuron crosstalk in Alzheimer’s disease: an exploration of molecular mechanisms and pathological implications. Neuroscience.
  31. Shafi, A., Akmal, M., Sethi, A., & Chauhdary, Z. (2025). A mechanistic insight of neuro-inflammation signaling pathways and implication in neurodegenerative disorders. Inflammopharmacology, 1-10.
  32. Subramanian, J. (2026). How Do Amyloid Pathology and Aberrant Neuronal Activity Disrupt Plasticity and Memory in Alzheimer’s Disease?. The Neuroscientist, 10738584251414384.
  33. Bairamian, D., Sha, S., Rolhion, N., Sokol, H., Dorothée, G., Lemere, C. A., & Krantic, S. (2022). Microbiota in neuroinflammation and synaptic dysfunction: a focus on Alzheimer’s disease. Molecular neurodegeneration, 17(1), 19.
  34. Klegeris, A. (2021). Regulation of neuroimmune processes by damage-and resolution-associated molecular patterns. Neural regeneration research, 16(3), 423-429.
  35. Liu, X., Luo, Q., Zhao, Y., Ren, P., Jin, Y., & Zhou, J. (2025). The ferroptosis–mitochondrial axis in depression: unraveling the feedforward loop of oxidative stress, metabolic homeostasis dysregulation, and neuroinflammation. Antioxidants, 14(5), 613.
  36. he, X. (2025). Targeting the Synergistic Interaction of Pathologies in Alzheimer's Disease: Rationale and Prospects for Combination Therapy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.10981.
  37. Salomone, S., Caraci, F., Leggio, G. M., Fedotova, J., & Drago, F. (2012). New pharmacological strategies for treatment of Alzheimer's disease: focus on disease modifying drugs. British journal of clinical pharmacology, 73(4), 504-517.
  38. Walczak-Nowicka, ?. J., & Herbet, M. (2021). Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases and the role of acetylcholinesterase in their pathogenesis. International journal of molecular sciences, 22(17), 9290.
  39. Olivares, D., K Deshpande, V., Shi, Y., K Lahiri, D., H Greig, N., T Rogers, J., & Huang, X. (2012). N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists and memantine treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease. Current Alzheimer Research, 9(6), 746-758.
  40. Thawabteh, A. M., Ghanem, A. W., AbuMadi, S., Thaher, D., Jaghama, W., Karaman, D., & Karaman, R. (2024). Recent advances in therapeutics for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Molecules, 29(21), 5131.
  41. Alkhalifa, A. E., Al Mokhlf, A., Ali, H., Al-Ghraiybah, N. F., & Syropoulou, V. (2025). Anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies for alzheimer’s disease: evidence, ARIA risk, and precision patient selection. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 15(9), 437.
  42. Balcerzak, W. (2025). New Biomarkers and Biological Therapies in Alzheimer’s.
  43. Jurc?u, M. C., Andronie-Cioara, F. L., Jurc?u, A., Marcu, F., ?i?, D. M., Pa?cal?u, N., & Nistor-Cseppentö, D. C. (2022). The link between oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction and neuroinflammation in the pathophysiology of Alzheimer’s disease: therapeutic implications and future perspectives. Antioxidants, 11(11), 2167.
  44. Molla, G., & Bitew, M. (2025). The future of cancer diagnosis and treatment: Unlocking the power of biomarkers and personalized molecular-targeted therapies. Journal of Molecular Pathology, 6(3), 20.
  45. Hossain, M. S., & Hussain, M. H. (2025). Multi?Target Drug Design in Alzheimer's Disease Treatment: Emerging Technologies, Advantages, Challenges, and Limitations. Pharmacology Research & Perspectives, 13(4), e70131.
  46. Gong, C. X., Liu, F., & Iqbal, K. (2018). Multifactorial hypothesis and multi-targets for Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 64(s1), S107-S117.
  47. ussain, R., Zubair, H., Pursell, S., & Shahab, M. (2018). Neurodegenerative diseases: regenerative mechanisms and novel therapeutic approaches. Brain sciences, 8(9), 177.
  48. Fornari Laurindo, L., Aparecido Dias, J., Cressoni Araujo, A., Torres Pomini, K., Machado Galhardi, C., Rucco Penteado Detregiachi, C., ... & Maria Barbalho, S. (2024). Immunological dimensions of neuroinflammation and microglial activation: exploring innovative immunomodulatory approaches to mitigate neuroinflammatory progression. Frontiers in immunology, 14, 1305933.
  49. Haseeb, M., Javaid, N., Yasmeen, F., Jeong, U., Han, J. H., Yoon, J., ... & Choi, S. (2022). Novel small-molecule inhibitor of NLRP3 inflammasome reverses cognitive impairment in an Alzheimer’s disease model. ACS Chemical Neuroscience, 13(6), 818-833.
  50. Mahdiabadi, S., Momtazmanesh, S., Perry, G., & Rezaei, N. (2022). Immune modulations and immunotherapies for Alzheimer’s disease: a comprehensive review. Reviews in the Neurosciences, 33(4), 365-381.
  51. icoletti, V. G., Pajer, K., Calcagno, D., Pajenda, G., & Nógrádi, A. (2022). The role of metals in the neuroregenerative action of BDNF, GDNF, NGF and other neurotrophic factors. Biomolecules, 12(8), 1015.
  52. Sidorova, Y. A., & Saarma, M. (2020). Small molecules and peptides targeting glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor receptors for the treatment of neurodegeneration. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 21(18), 6575.
  53. Sharma, A., Mishra, S. S., & Singh, S. (2024). Gene Therapy, OMICS Approaches, and Translational Neurodegenerative Models: Recent Advancements and Future Perspectives. In Neurodegenerative Diseases (pp. 206-223). CRC Press.
  54. Shareena, G., Viswalingam, V., Rajput, M. S., & Kumar, D. (2025). CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing: A new hope for Alzheimer's disease. In Targeted Therapy for the Central Nervous System (pp. 301-323). Academic Press.
  55. oudel, P., & Park, S. (2022). Recent advances in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease using nanoparticle-based drug delivery systems. Pharmaceutics, 14(4), 835.
  56. Gao, L., Wang, J., & Bi, Y. (2025). Nanotechnology for neurodegenerative diseases: recent progress in brain-targeted delivery, stimuli-responsive platforms, and organelle-specific therapeutics. International Journal of Nanomedicine, 11015-11044.
  57. Mihaescu, R., Detmar, S. B., Cornel, M. C., Van der Flier, W. M., Heutink, P., Hol, E. M., ... & Janssens, A. C. J. (2010). Translational research in genomics of Alzheimer's disease: a review of current practice and future perspectives. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 20(4), 967-980.
  58. Mazzucchi, S., Palermo, G., Campese, N., Galgani, A., Della Vecchia, A., Vergallo, A., ... & Baldacci, F. (2020). The role of synaptic biomarkers in the spectrum of neurodegenerative diseases. Expert review of proteomics, 17(7-8), 543-559.
  59. Janssen, B., Vugts, D. J., Windhorst, A. D., & Mach, R. H. (2018). PET imaging of microglial activation—beyond targeting TSPO. Molecules, 23(3), 607.
  60. Zimmermann, M., & Brockmann, K. (2022). Blood and Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarkers of Inflammation in Parkinson's Disease. Journal of Parkinson's disease, 12(s1), S183–S200. https://doi.org/10.3233/JPD-223277
  61. Ciaccio, A. M. (2026). Evaluation and validation of blood-based biomarkers for the early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease: from research to clinical application.
  62. Camporesi, E., Nilsson, J., Brinkmalm, A., Becker, B., Ashton, N. J., Blennow, K., & Zetterberg, H. (2020). Fluid biomarkers for synaptic dysfunction and loss. Biomarker insights, 15, 1177271920950319.
  63. Zhang, B., Li, Y., Li, H., Shen, X., & Zhu, Z. (2025). Therapeutic advances in targeting the amyloid-β pathway for Alzheimer’s disease. Brain Sciences, 15(10), 1101.
  64. Kanda, A., Rani, A., & Mazumder, A. (2025). Exploring precision medicine by utilizing individual genetic information for the management of Alzheimer's disease. Pharmacogenomics, 26(10-12), 455–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/14622416.2025.2560296
  65. Ali, H. (2022). AI in neurodegenerative disease research: Early detection, cognitive decline prediction, and brain imaging biomarker identification. Int J Eng Technol Res Manag, 6(10), 71.
  66. Sharma, A., Rudrawar, S., Bharate, S. B., & Jadhav, H. R. (2025). Recent advancements in the therapeutic approaches for Alzheimer's disease treatment: current and future perspective. RSC medicinal chemistry, 16(2), 652-693.
  67. bbas, K., Mustafa, M., Alam, M., Habib, S., Ahmad, W., Adnan, M., ... & Usmani, N. (2025). Multi-target approach to Alzheimer’s disease prevention and treatment: antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and amyloid-modulating mechanisms. Neurogenetics, 26(1), 39.
  68. Cavalli, A., Bolognesi, M. L., Minarini, A., Rosini, M., Tumiatti, V., Recanatini, M., & Melchiorre, C. (2008). Multi-target-directed ligands to combat neurodegenerative diseases. Journal of medicinal chemistry, 51(3), 347-372.
  69. Vermunt, L., Sikkes, S. A. M., van den Hout, A., Handels, R., Bos, I., van der Flier, W. M., Kern, S., Ousset, P. J., Maruff, P., Skoog, I., Verhey, F. R. J., Freund-Levi, Y., Tsolaki, M., Wallin, Å. K., Olde Rikkert, M., Soininen, H., Spiru, L., Zetterberg, H., Blennow, K., Scheltens, P., … ICTUS/DSA study groups (2019). Duration of preclinical, prodromal, and dementia stages of Alzheimer's disease in relation to age, sex, and APOE genotype. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 15(7), 888–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2019.04.001
  70. Cardillo, M., Katam, K., & Suravajhala, P. (2025). Advancements in multi-omics research to address challenges in Alzheimer’s disease: a systems biology approach utilizing molecular biomarkers and innovative strategies. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 17, 1591796.
  71. Mukherjee, A., Abraham, S., Singh, A., Balaji, S., & Mukunthan, K. S. (2025). From data to cure: a comprehensive exploration of multi-omics data analysis for targeted therapies. Molecular biotechnology, 67(4), 1269-1289.
  72. Ali, H. (2023). Artificial intelligence in multi-omics data integration: Advancing precision medicine, biomarker discovery and genomic-driven disease interventions. Int J Sci Res Arch, 8(1), 1012-30.
  73. Serrano, D. R., Luciano, F. C., Anaya, B. J., Ongoren, B., Kara, A., Molina, G., Ramirez, B. I., Sánchez-Guirales, S. A., Simon, J. A., Tomietto, G., Rapti, C., Ruiz, H. K., Rawat, S., Kumar, D., & Lalatsa, A. (2024). Artificial Intelligence (AI) Applications in Drug Discovery and Drug Delivery: Revolutionizing Personalized Medicine. Pharmaceutics, 16(10), 1328. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics16101328
  74. Paerhati, Y., Aikebaier, A., Dilimulati, D., Baishan, A., Yusufujiang, N., Qiu, X., ... & Zhou, W. (2026). Rethinking Nature’s Pharmacy: AI Era and Natural Product Drug Discovery. Pharmaceuticals, 19(2), 301.

Photo
MD Nasiruddin Khan
Corresponding author

School of Pharmacy, Desh Bhagat University, Mandi Gobindgarh,147301, Punjab, India

Photo
Vittu Kumar
Co-author

School of Pharmacy, Desh Bhagat University, Mandi Gobindgarh,147301, Punjab, India

Photo
Prachi Sharma
Co-author

School of Pharmacy, Desh Bhagat University, Mandi Gobindgarh,147301, Punjab, India

Photo
Hareram Kushwaha
Co-author

School of Pharmacy, Desh Bhagat University, Mandi Gobindgarh,147301, Punjab, India

Photo
Mohit Kumar
Co-author

School of Pharmacy, Desh Bhagat University, Mandi Gobindgarh,147301, Punjab, India

Photo
Manish Kumar
Co-author

School of Pharmacy, Desh Bhagat University, Mandi Gobindgarh,147301, Punjab, India

Photo
Abhinav Anand
Co-author

School of Pharmacy, Desh Bhagat University, Mandi Gobindgarh,147301, Punjab, India

Vittu Kumar, Prachi Sharma, MD Nasiruddin Khan, Hareram Kushwaha, Mohit Kumar, Manish Kumar, Abhinav Anand, Modulation of Neuroinflammatory Cascades and Synaptic Pathophysiology: Advanced Therapeutic Paradigms in Alzheimer’s Disease, Int. J. of Pharm. Sci., 2026, Vol 4, Issue 4, 1203-1217 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19466538

More related articles
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP): A Review...
Harshit Sharma, Vipin Kukkar, ...
A Review Article On Extraction Of Fenugreek Seed...
S. Divakar, K. Shanthini, P. Kanaga, ...
Quality Assessment and ATR-FTIR method development...
Amruta Shinde, Vaibhav Changediya, Dr. Vikas Rajurkar, ...
View more
Formulation & Evaluation of Herbal Nanoemulgel by using Clove Leaf Oil as Anti-A...
Shweta Gaikwad, Shivdas Gore, ...
Formulation And Evaluation of Nasal In Situ Gelling System of Atazanavir...
Bhama S., Perumal P., Tamilselvam T., Raj Narendran M., Venkatesa Perumal M., V. Praveen, ...
Formulation And Evaluation Of Clove Based Chewable Tablet For Toothache Manageme...
Dhanraj Ganpati Patil, Ashwini PandaV, Nilesh Chougule, ...
View more
Download PDF
Related Articles
Formulation and Evaluation of Herbal Hair Serum...
Yashraj Khanvilkar , Sakshi Kodre , Shraddha Kamble, ...
The Complete Guide to Using a Spray Dryer Effectively...
Gudavalli Yathishwar Rao, Gajjala Swetha, ...
Pharmacological Scientific Evidance For The Promise Of Tribulus Terrestris...
Nitin Yashwant Gorad , Rinaj Rasul Attar, ...
A Comprehensive Review of Achyranthes Aspera Root: Pharmacognosy, Phytochemistry...
Kaviya Ganesan, Muthusamy Periyannan, Vijaya Bharathi Raj Kishore, Sangeetha Narasimhan, Radha Ramal...
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP): A Review...
Harshit Sharma, Vipin Kukkar, ...
More related articles
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP): A Review...
Harshit Sharma, Vipin Kukkar, ...
A Review Article On Extraction Of Fenugreek Seed...
S. Divakar, K. Shanthini, P. Kanaga, ...
Quality Assessment and ATR-FTIR method development of finished product herbal an...
Amruta Shinde, Vaibhav Changediya, Dr. Vikas Rajurkar, ...
View more

Copyright © 2025 IJPS. All rights reserved