Contributed by: Michael Rafii, M.D., Ph.D - Director of the Memory Disorders Clinic at the University of California, San Diego. ______________________________________
I wanted to share with you an update on the cost estimates of AD. These are, of course, in addition to the incalculable emotional losses caused by the disease, but are quite astonishing in themselves. There is also, however, a financial cost of the disease. In 1998 and again in 2002, reports were commissioned by the Alzheimer’s Association on the costs to U.S. businesses. Both studies were shocking. “Alzheimer’s Disease: The Costs to U.S. Businesses,” authored by Ross Koppel, Ph.D., of the Social Research Corporation and the Department of Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania, found that the 2002 Alzheimer’s cost to U.S. businesses would be in excess of $61 billion.
To put that number into perspective, this amount is equal to the net profits of the top ten Fortune 500 companies and exactly double the amount that was calculated in the 1998 report. The costs to businesses to cover medical insurance and disability for workers with Alzheimer’s was $24.6 billion. The costs incurred because workers must take on the tremendous responsibilities as family caregivers was $36.5 billion due to absenteeism, productivity losses, and replacement costs.
Alzheimer's Disease will rack up more than $20 trillion in treatment costs over the next 40 years in the United States, according to a report yesterday that calls on Congress to increase funding for drug research.
The report issued by the Alzheimer's Association found that from 2010 to 2050, the cost of caring for Americans 65 and older with Alzheimer's disease will increase more than six times to $1.08 trillion per year. Currently, $172 billion a year is spent by the government, private insurance and individuals to care for people with the disease, the most common cause of dementia.
However, if a drug were discovered by 2015 that slowed disease progression, it could cut the number of people in the severe stage of Alzheimer's disease in half to 1.1 million by 2020, and 1.2 million in 2050, down from the projections of 6.5 million. The fiscal imperative for finding a cure is now blindingly clear.
Over the Counter Genetics Test for Alzheimer's Disease
Contributed by: Dennis Fortier, President, Medical Care Corporation
________________________________________________
This topic has made for an active news cycle over the past week.
First, Walgreens pharmacies announced their intention to sell an over the counter gene test. The product would enable consumers to swab their cheek and send a DNA sample, via mail, to a lab where the sample would be analyzed. The lab would then report back to the consumer on whether or not the sample indicated an increased genetic predisposition to some 70 diseases and medical conditions, including Alzheimer's disease.
This widely covered story was followed by the news that the FDA had formally notified Pathway Genomics, the manufacturer of the test kit, that the FDA required more information about the product. Finally, the news cycle peaked with Walgreens' announcement that they would not stock the product until the FDA situation was clarified.
The interesting question at the heart of this matter pertains to the debate over the value of providing complex genetic information to the lay public.
Those against enabling people to learn about their genetics take the view that the public must be shielded from information that they might use to hurt themselves in some way. I disagree with those people. Frankly, they remind me of an earlier time when similar thinking suggested that religious scripture should not be translated into common languages for public consumption.
I concede that there is a risk of misinterpretation where some might learn they have increased genetic risk for Alzheimer's disease and falsely conclude they they will definitely get the disease. However, we are talking about a self-selecting population that already has some concerns about their health and has demonstrated a willingness to invest their time, money, and effort into learning more. It is clear that these people want to know.
No one is suggesting we casually thrust genetic information upon anyone who would rather not have it. Those who share my view simply suggest that there is increasing demand among a well-educated public to learn about and manage their own health in a proactive manner. It makes good sense to support them in that noble initiative.
A better understanding and more awareness of Alzheimer's related issues can impact personal health decisions and generate significant impact across a population of aging individuals. Please use the share button below to spread this educational message as widely as possible.
________________________________________________
This topic has made for an active news cycle over the past week.
First, Walgreens pharmacies announced their intention to sell an over the counter gene test. The product would enable consumers to swab their cheek and send a DNA sample, via mail, to a lab where the sample would be analyzed. The lab would then report back to the consumer on whether or not the sample indicated an increased genetic predisposition to some 70 diseases and medical conditions, including Alzheimer's disease.
This widely covered story was followed by the news that the FDA had formally notified Pathway Genomics, the manufacturer of the test kit, that the FDA required more information about the product. Finally, the news cycle peaked with Walgreens' announcement that they would not stock the product until the FDA situation was clarified.
The interesting question at the heart of this matter pertains to the debate over the value of providing complex genetic information to the lay public.
Those against enabling people to learn about their genetics take the view that the public must be shielded from information that they might use to hurt themselves in some way. I disagree with those people. Frankly, they remind me of an earlier time when similar thinking suggested that religious scripture should not be translated into common languages for public consumption.
I concede that there is a risk of misinterpretation where some might learn they have increased genetic risk for Alzheimer's disease and falsely conclude they they will definitely get the disease. However, we are talking about a self-selecting population that already has some concerns about their health and has demonstrated a willingness to invest their time, money, and effort into learning more. It is clear that these people want to know.
No one is suggesting we casually thrust genetic information upon anyone who would rather not have it. Those who share my view simply suggest that there is increasing demand among a well-educated public to learn about and manage their own health in a proactive manner. It makes good sense to support them in that noble initiative.
A better understanding and more awareness of Alzheimer's related issues can impact personal health decisions and generate significant impact across a population of aging individuals. Please use the share button below to spread this educational message as widely as possible.
Amyloid Hypothesis Evolving?
Contributed by: Dennis Fortier, President, Medical Care Corporation
________________________________________________
A hallmark lesion of Alzheimer's disease, to the extent that it is currently understood, is the accumulation of amyloid plaques in the brain. Most experts agree that amyloid plays some central role in the disease pathology but there is little consensus about what that role might be.
New research out of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine and published in the Annals of Neurology suggests strongly that it is the free floating clumps, or oligomers, of amyloid protein that cause the brain damage and cognitive decline, and not necessarily the dense amyloid plaques that form when these oligomers aggregate.
While this finding helps to clarify the role of amyloid in a very complex process, there are still some key weaknesses in the amyloid hypothesis that must be explained. Primarily, we need to understand why some people with excessive plaque formation have no symptoms of Alzheimer's disease. If the free floating oligomers are present prior to plaque formation, then one would presume that symptoms of decline would manifest by the time the plaques are present.
Nonetheless, this scientific advance will most likely drive the ongoing focus of scientific inquiry to an earlier point in the amyloid cycle.
This is a perfect example of how the scientific process uncovers the answers to such complex problems: questions are identified, hypothesis are formed, conclusions are drawn, and the questions are modified. The process repeats and renews until the pieces of the puzzle are clearly exposed and fitted together.
Click this link to review prior discussions on the amyloid hypothesis.
________________________________________________
A hallmark lesion of Alzheimer's disease, to the extent that it is currently understood, is the accumulation of amyloid plaques in the brain. Most experts agree that amyloid plays some central role in the disease pathology but there is little consensus about what that role might be.
New research out of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine and published in the Annals of Neurology suggests strongly that it is the free floating clumps, or oligomers, of amyloid protein that cause the brain damage and cognitive decline, and not necessarily the dense amyloid plaques that form when these oligomers aggregate.
While this finding helps to clarify the role of amyloid in a very complex process, there are still some key weaknesses in the amyloid hypothesis that must be explained. Primarily, we need to understand why some people with excessive plaque formation have no symptoms of Alzheimer's disease. If the free floating oligomers are present prior to plaque formation, then one would presume that symptoms of decline would manifest by the time the plaques are present.
Nonetheless, this scientific advance will most likely drive the ongoing focus of scientific inquiry to an earlier point in the amyloid cycle.
This is a perfect example of how the scientific process uncovers the answers to such complex problems: questions are identified, hypothesis are formed, conclusions are drawn, and the questions are modified. The process repeats and renews until the pieces of the puzzle are clearly exposed and fitted together.
Click this link to review prior discussions on the amyloid hypothesis.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
Posts
