I recently attended the annual conference for my professional medical college. This was one of the largest medical meetings in the US, typically hosting around 10,000 participants. One of the sessions that I attended was presented by a prominent national expert on dementia.
This speaker reviewed the latest scientific findings, including new medications for dementia, as approved by the FDA over the past year. He also discussed the latest findings in terms of dementia prevention, which were very much in line with what I’ve been teaching in my practice.
The next day, I attended a lecture by a couple of panelists who were addressing the question of whether elders should be screened for dementia. This is relevant because a number of diagnostic tests will soon be widely available that would allow us to detect early signs of those at risk for Alzheimer’s disease.
I was incensed by the hopelessness and despair engendered by the panelist
I was stunned by the pessimism in the tone of their message, which was strikingly different compared to that of the expert from the day prior. In fact, one of the panelists even went so far as to say something to the effect that, “We are waiting for a drug. None of the ones we have are any good, and so there’s no point in even discussing early detection. You don’t want to give people false hope, when we don’t even know when something effective is going to be discovered.”
I was so incensed by the hopelessness and despair engendered by this remark that I got up to the microphone to chastise both panelists. I wanted the audience to know that there are in fact many nonpharmacological interventions available to patients diagnosed with early memory loss. Such as reducing alcohol, hearing loss, depression or sleep issues that are likely compounding any issues related to hearing loss., to name a few.
I suggested to the audience that they could consider attending one of the multiple excellent training options available to doctors, for learning how to advise families and patients struggling with issues related to memory loss. For example, the University of Washington’s Cognition in Primary Care program teaches primary care providers how to approach basic diagnostic questions, when to refer for specialty care, and what support to offer.
It’s not hopeless
The field of neuroscience has been evolving so quickly over the past decade or so, that it’s hard for most of us to keep up. And while we have learned a great deal about dementia, there is still so much that we don’t know. For starters, it’s not even clear that Alzheimer’s is a single disease process.
It’s like when we used to believe that cancer was a single disease that caused tumors and death. Nowadays, we recognize that there are hundreds of different types and subtypes of cancer. And cancer research has been tremendously successful in identifying more and more tools for diagnosis and treatment. Note that we don’t yet have a “cure for cancer,” but we are much closer to being able to manage some cancers, with such tools in our arsenal.
The recent spate of new drugs approved for treatment of Alzheimer’s disease have made headlines because they have been the most promising breakthroughs to achieve the rigorous safety and effectiveness standards required by the FDA. Despite decades of research, there have been disappointingly few such breakthroughs. And that’s in part because there has been relatively sparse levels of funding for research into Alzheimer’s and dementia treatments (see Fig 1).
It turns out that NIH funding for research into Alzheimer’s disease has only picked up in the last decade, but still falls sadly short of what is likely to be required over the next decade. At present, funding for cancer and AIDs research still outpace dementia research by multiples, despite the fact that the prevalence of dementia is projected to grow exponentially as the population ages. (See Fig 2).
The reality is that there are over 143 candidate drugs currently in the FDA pipeline, with 31 already in Phase 3, or the final stage required for approval. The vast majority of these agents target disease mechanisms with that goal of modifying or slowing the course of degeneration. This means that while we can expect to be seeing more and more new medications coming to market in the coming years, we may continue to be disappointed if we are waiting for a “silver bullet” cure.
It reminds me of when we were watching hundreds of young men die of AIDS during the 1980s, early on in my training. When the first antiretroviral drug (AZT or zidovudine) came to market, it was hailed as the miracle cure. And yet, here we are almost 40 years later with no “cure for AIDS.” And yet we have achieved a kind of victory in the sense that HIV is now a manageable condition. The fact that we now have over 30 effective drugs for treatment of HIV is a testament to the power of science and the tenacity and innovation capacity of the many excellent scientists in this field.
14% a scary number, but not if we choose to see it as an opportunity
Of course we want to believe that diseases are simple and that science can deliver us a magic silver bullet to cure us. But that’s not how science works. As we have seen in glorious technicolor over the course of the global pandemic, science is an iterative process. This means that scientists will have different ideas on how to solve a problem such as vaccine development. And human biology is endlessly complex, especially when we are testing new approaches.
Prevention is key
Even now, diagnostic testing is available to identify whether or not we have early signs of the pathology that is linked to Alzheimer’s disease (AD). In fact, some experts estimate that there are up to 45 million Americans (14%) currently living with preclinical AD. That’s a scary number, but not if we choose to see it as an opportunity.
Just because I have prediabetes, it doesn’t mean that I have to go on to develop diabetes. I could certainly choose to focus on the fact that patients with diabetes may eventually have to take insulin shots, become blind, require an amputation or end up on kidney dialysis. Or I could choose to focus on doing what I can to prevent the progression of my condition, which may include making hard choices like giving up starchy carbohydrates or working out when I don’t feel like it in order to change up my body composition.
Prediabetes happens to be a condition that is believed to be reversible most of the time, and in fact most diabetics can considerably improve their reliance on medications through lifestyle measures like weight loss, exercise and dietary management. We don’t know that Alzheimer’s disease or other brain aging conditions will respond as well to lifestyle interventions, but even cancers have been shown to be preventable up to 42% of the time (see Fig 4).
Interestingly, it just so happens that the estimate for dementia cases that could be prevented through lifestyle choices is also around 40% (See Fig 5). Because brain health is the sum of all our health, it is perhaps not so surprising that recommended lifestyle measures for prevention of cancer and heart disease would overlap with those for dementia prevention. And there is an added collateral benefit that such healthy habits will also reduce risk for other chronic conditions. .
As much as I used to be motivated to make healthy choices for the sake of my heart health, or for cancer prevention, I am definitely much more incentivized to do so for my brain. I see my mind as being the most powerful weapon available to me, to protect my brain health.
Well-researched and informative site with pragmatic tips for families and caregivers who may be dealing with issues related to memory loss.