"Evolving" reasons for optimism from former NIH AD Research Director

Alzheimer's, cardiovascular, and other chronic diseases; biomarkers, lifestyle, supplements, drugs, and health care.
Post Reply
NF52
Support Team
Support Team
Posts: 2806
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 9:41 am
Location: Eastern U.S.

"Evolving" reasons for optimism from former NIH AD Research Director

Post by NF52 »

The title of this article in Med Page Today on Sept. 13,40 Years of Alzheimer's Research Failure: Now What? is anything but optimistic. Yet the author, a former Director of Alzheimer's Research at the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH), remains optimistic about preventing AD. Note: For first half of the article is an informative review of how little was known about the brain and AD even 30-40 years ago, hence the "40 years of failure".

The reasons or optimism are excerpted below, with specific messages to primary care docs (highlighted by me.)
The following brief primer highlights useful new information to the PCP in their interactions with AD patients.

One important new fact about AD is that ...there is enormous variation among people with the disease in...clinical [behavioral] and neuropathological features of the disease... emphasizing the need for focusing on more individualized assessment and case management.

Another important new finding about the disease is that... we are dealing with a complex brain disorder which represents the culmination of intricate connections among multiple pathogenic factors. The complexity of the underlying biology of AD explains not only the failure of some trials in the past but also indicates the need for novel drug development paradigms that take into account the prospects of testing multiple therapeutic targets or agents.

The third significant feature of AD is that...an asymptomatic or preclinical stage may actually precede by nearly two decades the next stages...the prolonged intricate mechanisms in progression of neurodegeneration will have profound impact...[on] a PCP who now must pay more careful attention to the complaints of older or at-risk patients' subjective feelings of memory loss.

The final area of new information, with important ramification for the design of future clinical studies, as well as PCP practices, is the discovery of... predisposing factors [which] include several potential susceptibility genes (e.g., ApoE), lifestyle and some co-morbid conditions such as CVD, diabetes, hypertension, obesity, etc. ...these preliminary findings have begun to provide some promising potential strategies for reducing the risks AD.

In conclusion, the good news for the PCP is that... nonpharmacological multidomain interventions have some significant beneficial effects such as reducing the decline in cognitive function or delaying the onset of disabling symptoms. These multidomain interventions, as the name implies, require changes in the "behavior habits" of patients in several aspects of their lifestyle, e.g., diets, physical, and mental exercises...studies also have found that management of comorbid or known risk factors, e.g., vascular disorders, diabetes, hypertension, obesity, etc., have beneficial effects.
Maybe preventing all AD won't happen in my lifetime, but I'd like to believe that I'll see a day when ALL people have access to universal, functional, personalized medicine--because that will be how ALL primary care medicine is practiced.
4/4 and still an optimist!
Verax
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: "Evolving" reasons for optimism from former NIH AD Research Director

Post by Verax »

Maybe preventing all AD won't happen in my lifetime, but I'd like to believe that I'll see a day when ALL people have access to universal, functional, personalized medicine--because that will be how ALL primary care medicine is practiced.
I agree with you about the need for precision, personalized medicine, but I am not sure we are on the way there. It is possible that the future may deal with or delay AD (remember the "D" is "disease" not "dementia") without precise remedies such as drugs or foods. For example, the tuberculosis plague tapered with public health measures such as housing and sanitation before effective drug therapy. (A recent NEJM article criticizing precision public health is at https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1806634). I do believe in the promise of Mendelian randomization aiding observational clinical trials (as an e3/e4 I need something that applies to me at my stage, not everybody), and results directing prospective blinded random trials. More basically, probably the majority of the vast number of patients with dementia lack any diagnosis at all before autopsy and so how could any PCP effectively treat? In addition to drug development, federal money is being applied to basic research and devising biomarkers such as cheaper blood tests, essential for diagnosis and following treatment. Finally, the perceived lack of progress has discouraged participants from AD clinical trials--80% fail not because the drug proves no good, but because not enough participants to prove one way or another.
Post Reply