The meta-problem is that early identification only matters if we have an effective therapy which can seriously slow or halt disease progression.
we do not.
we do not.
Early identification absolutely matters, the question is HOW early. 5 years doesn't do much, 15 years? You can change your entire lifestyle and the changes can take effect with that much time.
As someone who has had to coordinate end of life care more than I’d like to have had to, this is invaluable.
Personally, I think Alzheimer's is a horrible illness and worse than cancer.
Was put on alzheimer meds. They did help, but not nearly enough.
I Went on blood thinners. All cognitive problems resolved in a couple of days.
Turned out it was a clotting disorder. Two actually.
Neurological symptoms were resolved by a hematologist.
Turned out the alzheimer med was acting as a mild blood thinner for cerebral fluid. So it was the right idea.
I imagine lots of alzheimer patients are on blood thinners, so unrelated. But outside the box thinking is still vital.
A few missed doses and symptoms start coming back. Vision problems, then ability to talk write and think. Then one side starts going numb.
“Early diagnosis is important because it could offer more opportunities to treat the disease. Dr Rosa Sancho, head of research at Alzheimer's Research UK, explained that previous clinical trials of drugs had failed because the patients enrolled in them were too far advanced in their illness, and by that time it was "too late".
Personally, I would not want to know.
- Whatever specific thing is being tested becomes a candidate for future interventions.
- It could give researchers a tighter pool of candidates for longitudinal studies.
- As others have mentioned: any treatments that require early intervention have a better chance of working. (Similar to cancer, I imagine.)