Progress in the diagnosis and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease has made painfully slow yet steady progress in the last decade. With the devastating toll Alzheimer’s wreaks on the nearly 4 million victims in the United States and their families, at an estimated cost of $100 billion per year, it is little wonder that patients and families seek information on every modicum of progress in the battle against Alzheimer’s disease. Announcements of new discoveries appear regularly in the popular press, often arousing an excitement that cools as the initial reports appear overstated.In the last decade the popular press has regularly reported “breakthroughs” in the diagnosis and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, frequently with sensational headlines and stories. “NEW HOPE FOR ALZHEIMER’S VICTIMS” was the headline beckoning from the June 18, 1990, issue of Time magazine. The article reported that “it will soon be easier to identify Alzheimer’s earlier and more accurately” and went on to claim that “Alzheimer’s appears to be yielding to treatment.” Reports in the intervening years have proven the tests and treatment discussed in the Time article to be less than the headlines indicated. The statement that “it will soon be easier to identify Alzheimer’s earlier and more accurately” stemmed from an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association that described a biochemical test capable of correctly identifying 86 percent of brain samples of Alzheimer sufferers taken at autopsy. The article reported that scientists expected within two years to develop a test to detect the Alzheimer disease-associated protein in the spinal fluid, hence giving rise to an effective clinical diagnostic tool. The second statement, that “Alzheimer’s appears to be yielding to treatment,” resulted from an application to the Food and Drug Administration by the Warner-Lambert pharmaceutical firm to market a drug called Cognex, the brand name for tacrine, also referred to as THA (tetrahydroaminoacridine). The article reported that the drug “supposedly slows the loss of brain function in 40 percent of Alzheimer’s patients who are given the medication and could conceivably add one or more productive years to the lives of Alzheimer’s victims.”

Four years later Newsweek reported “tacrine hydrochloride is of limited usefulness and only in the early stages of the disease”. In the fall of 1996 Time recounted that “while some patients who take tactine benefit from subtle to moderate improvements in mood and short -term memory, many others do not. Moreover, tacrine can produce a raft of side effects”. The test using spinal fluid is not yet the diagnostic tool predicted in 1990 and its results and application are still being examined; yet is has recently been touted once again as a “new diagnostic tool” . News reports in 1994 heralded: “There’s still no cure in sight, but a new test, using eye drops, could be a breakthrough”. The article described how the eye drops caused the pupils of Alzheimer’s patients to dilate approximately four times as much as normal controls. Nineteen ninety-five brought announcements of the discovery of more “new genes thought to be responsible for Alzheimer’s disease” and in 1996 the “possible antidotes to Alzheimer’s” were reported to be estrogen and aspirin. Newsweek and Science News recounted in 1996 that Alzheimer’s disease may soon be predicted through brain scans and changes in writing samples .

Such articles tantalize readers, but are these claims of medical breakthroughs real or illusory? The reporting in these news articles was no better or worse than the many others published, but they can be used to illustrate the difference between medical advancements and the much-hoped­for breakthroughs in finding the cause of, effective treatment for, and potential cure for Alzheimer’s disease. Interpreting such announcements with a critical eye can reduce unrealistic public expectations and still allow hope for the future .

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment