What safety signals (adverse events, mortality) have been reported for Neurocept in Alzheimer’s trials and in which years were they observed?

1. What the records you provided do say about Alzheimer’s trials and safety monitoring

The supplied literature and pipeline reviews make clear that Alzheimer’s drug development is active and that safety monitoring — including adverse events and mortality tracking — is a central part of trial reporting; the 2025 pipeline review reports 182 trials of 138 novel drugs and emphasizes biomarkers and safety as core outcomes, but that review does not discuss Neurocept by name ^{[2] [4]}. Major reviews caution that long‑term safety remains to be validated for new agents ^[3].

2. Where “Neurocept” appears in the search results — and what that likely means

“Neurocept” in the provided material appears only in consumer-facing supplement or retail pages (examples: a 2025 “best brain health supplement” review and accesswire/Newswire promotional items) and pages for a marketed product named “Neurocept‑PG” (a combo capsule described for neuropathic pain in India) — neither of which are clinical trial reports for an Alzheimer’s therapeutic and do not provide trial-year adverse-event or mortality data tied to Alzheimer’s trials ^{[1] [5] [6]}. Therefore these items are not sources of randomized‑trial safety signals for Alzheimer’s disease.

3. Federal safety‑signal resources in the supplied corpus — no Neurocept hit

The FDA FAERS signal bulletins listed in the search set (quarterly reports for 2023–2024) are the kind of places one would expect to find post‑marketing safety signals, but the summaries provided do not show Neurocept listed among identified signals in those quarters in the supplied snippets; the user’s claim about Neurocept adverse events or mortality is not corroborated by these FAERS items as provided ^{[7] [8] [9] [10]}. Available sources do not mention Neurocept in FAERS summaries.

4. Examples of safety signals reported for other Alzheimer’s drugs (context)

To give context for the types of safety signals that are tracked and publicly discussed: second‑generation anti‑amyloid antibodies (e.g., lecanemab, donanemab) prompted safety attention for ARIA (amyloid‑related imaging abnormalities) and have had mortality and other adverse-event analyses discussed in reporting; a general caution about long‑term safety and documented adverse events for such therapies is explicitly noted in review articles ^{[3] [11]}. One popular patient‑facing summary referenced a 2024 trial program where trial mortality rose from 0.3% to 0.9% for a drug discussed in that article, underscoring how small absolute changes in trial mortality become scrutinized ^[12].

5. How to confirm Neurocept trial safety signals (steps and limitations)

To answer your original question definitively, one would need primary clinical‑trial reports, FDA approval or FAERS signal entries, sponsor press releases with safety appendices, or peer‑reviewed publications that list adverse events and deaths by year. Those document types are not present among the supplied sources for a drug named Neurocept in Alzheimer’s trials (available sources do not mention such trial reports) ^{[1] [7]}. The supplied pipeline reviews ^{[2] [4]} and safety‑signal bulletins (p2_s1–p2_s5) are the right classes of documents to check, but they contain no Neurocept-specific trial safety data in the material you provided.

6. Competing interpretations and potential hidden agendas

Promotional supplement pages and PR/newswire posts that name Neurocept as a brain‑health product have an implicit commercial agenda (sales/marketing) and cannot substitute for randomized‑trial safety data; relying on them to assert trial-year mortality or adverse‑event signals would be misleading ^{[1] [5]}. Conversely, regulatory sources and peer‑reviewed pipeline reviews prioritize safety transparency but are limited to drugs they actually track — the absence of Neurocept from those sources suggests it is not a publicly reported Alzheimer’s investigational drug in the documents you provided ^{[2] [3] [7]}.

If you want a definitive, year‑by‑year list of adverse events and deaths for “Neurocept” in Alzheimer’s trials, I can (a) search specifically for clinicaltrials.gov identifiers, FDA submissions, sponsor trial reports, or PubMed articles for “Neurocept” if you want me to run additional searches beyond the supplied set, or (b) extract year‑level safety data for named Alzheimer’s drugs that are covered in these sources (e.g., lecanemab, donanemab) to illustrate how safety signals appear in the literature. Which would you prefer?