Talk:Alzheimer's disease

NB: SOMEONE VANDALIZED THE PAGE AND DELETED A MAJOR PORTION OF THE INTRODUCTION. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE RESTORE AN OLDER VERSION?

Suggestion: I'd like to see more discussion of the human side of Alzheimer's in this entry. It's good from a clinical point of view, but I'd be interested in reading descriptions and/or anecdotes of what Alzheimer's patients are like in person, and how the disease feels to them and their relatives. Anyone up for this? --Shibboleth 21:26, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Research into the disease may, I'm afraid, be limited due to the fact that the disease impacts people primarily after their prime income generating/tax paying days are over. -- Coasting

False. Impact has been well-documented to extend well beyond the individual with the ailment for the majority of cases (Prigerson, H. G. (2003) N. Engl. J. Med. 349, 1891-1892). Likewise, unlike many other age-associated disorders, there are no effective treatments that simply cost a lot of money. Rich people are as likely as poor people to get the disease, and the treatments available to rich people are no better than those available to poor people.Dogface 15:22, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Costs to society due to Alzheimer's. Research into this disease is ongoing and should be ongoing. In fact this disease is costly to society. Alzheimer's disease is quite common and nursing homes are filled with people who have Alzheimer's, are unable to take care of themselves, and need supervision. Also, many Alzheimer's patients live at home and full time caretakers need to be hired to look after them. As the disease progresses, it becomes very debilitating, requiring caretakers to help victims with toilet activities, feeding, and bathing. In the end constant supervision is needed. Long-term care insurance policies are now becoming common because of Alzheimer's as well as other infirmities of old age. H Padleckas 09:48, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand, they're the most politically active age group -- they've more leisure time. There's a reason politicians in the US and elsewhere don't dare touch pensions, for example.

The article incorrectly stated that Alzheimer first identified the symptoms of the disease and therefore (citing the authoritative reference from the historian of the institute where they worked) I took the liberty of making this correction: The symptoms of the disease as a distinct nosologic entity were first identified by Emil Kraepelin, and the characteristic neuropathology was first observed by Alois Alzheimer in 1906. In this sense, the disease was co-discovered by Kraepelin and Alzheimer, who worked in Kraepelin's laboratory. Because of the overwhelming importance Kraepelin attached to finding the neuropathological basis of psychiatric disorders, Kraepelin made the generous decision that the disease would bear the name of Alzheimer (J. Psychiat. Res, 1997, Vol 31, No. 6, pp. 635-643).

What's a "nosologic entity"? Is there a simpler alternative term that would do the job? --Robert Merkel

The wikitionary doesn't have it, but Merriam-Webster Online has an entry right here --24.76.141.132 05:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

References

This article contains many scientific references in footnote or external link format. IMHO, this is not the best way to cite these studies. I have converted a recently added link (about anticholinesterase treatment) into a reference, and I would strongly suggest that this format is employed in the rest of the article as well. Until the developers develop a good footnote function, I would suggest that the name of the first author and the year of publication are sufficient for linking to a list of references at the bottom of the article, as I've done now. JFW | T@lk 19:59, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Question

is alzihimers non-communicabel just wondering

It is not. Alzheimer's is a degenerative disease caused by a genetic predisposition and amplified by various other factors, such as inflammation and vascular dysfunction. Why, are you looking for an excuse not to visit your grandmother? JFW | T@lk 11:01, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request for expansion

I would like to see some recent research included in this aricle, especially about the stress hormone cortisol.

Cortisol is not a major issue. You are free to include material you see fit; I do not have access to the required resources. Wikipedia can be a learning experience if you include material that you have found on your quest, as long as it's verifiable and relevant. JFW | T@lk 09:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

question

I was informed about stem-cell therapy related to AD. Does anyone have information about it, or any name I could contact about this new research?

No, this concerns Parkinson's, not Alzheimer's. There is no proof that stem ells would work in AD. JFW | T@lk 03:33, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I recently read something (a heading, yes, no time to read the article) on Google News that would disagree. It's recent, within a day or two, and says something about Brain Stemcells being used to combat Alzheimer's. --24.76.141.132 05:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's experimental, like most unproven theories mentioned in this article. Shall we concentrate on the present management? Stem cells are only used in bone marrow disorders, and the rest is all daydreaming out of therapeutic embarassment. JFW | T@lk 07:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite for those who need this article -- families, policy makers

There is a danger in starting a rewrite from the medical profession's literature, because of the prevasive effect of drug company studies combined with the medical model's focus primarily on perscription drugs, and primarily after diagnosis. The result is a subtle and pervasive bias in the medical journals' point of view, and adopting it uncritically would threaten to obscure the most useful information that a Wikipedia article can provide.

The audience that Wikipedia's Alzheimer's Disease article serves may include a few merely curious souls who want to know the basics, but far more often information on Alzheimer's is sought by family members struggling with the news of diagnosis of a loved one, or concerned about their own fate in old age, and directly or indirectly perhaps by policy makers.

There is a subtly slanted point of view pervasive in the medical literature, including the article on which it is suggested that this article be patterned. Neurological literature is driven by publication of new research studies. And the overwhelming majority of research studies are financed by drug companies hoping to promote costly proprietary treatments for Alzheimer's. Lost in this torrent of publications is the fact that efforts to find a cure have so far proven to provide very modest value at best.

Meanwhile, the large gains available in the way of prevention have so far been demonstrated in only a few studies, those for which financing was found with non-company money. Impressive results have been observed with certain NSAIDs, vitamins C and E in combination, and exercise, among others. But these important results have drowned in the flood of publications reported in the journals most consulted by neurologists, which discuss drug company studies of (largely ineffective post-diagnosis) drugs. In reporting these studies, the medical journals adopt a pervasive POV focused on present and possible future profitable medicines. This focus has effectively buried the story about prevention, which is the actual headline. To the extent that medical doctors see their role as providing prescription rather than non-prescription remedies, and as acting only after diagnosis, rather than before, their POV conincides with that of the drug companies. If information isn't about cure after diagnosis, it receives short schrift in the medical journals and in medical practices alike.

But for families and individuals who need information on Alzheimer's, prevention and care are the information of greatest value. Prevention and nursing care are salient for families (news they can use) and useful in framing public policy. Information about the present, largely-ineffective proprietary treatements will be provided by almost any health-care professional consulted, and often adopted because not taking the (admittedly near-useless) patent medicines is presented as "doing nothing."

Wikipedia should not allow the POV that focuses exclusively on these low-value / high-cost treatments to crowd out useful, practical NPOV information that patients and their families desperately need on diagnosis, prognosis, nursing care (whether family provided or otherwise), and especially prevention.

Information about the gains in prevention is urgently needed in the debates by public policy makers. As some recent comments point out, most people currently get Alzheimer's if they live long enough. Most are cared for by female relatives, as one inestimable social cost. The remaining nursing-care costs threaten to swamp the social safety net in developed countries, which all have aging populations. Though few, the available studies show that cost-effective prevention works. The information in these studies is more valuable and more important than the many re-hashing drug treatments that have but little effect.

The review I suggested is quite impartial, and does not "rehash drug company studies". Of course the social context should be firmly embedded in the article. You may be shouting at a strawman. JFW | T@lk 22:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry.

Famous Sufferers

I believe that Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords is in the early stages of ALzheimer's. It seems to me that is why he is retiring from the US Senate.

Unless he declares this openly, stating that on this page would amount to libel. JFW | T@lk 13:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pathology photo

The gross image of the "Alzheimer's Brain" appears to be one of frontotemporal dementia, not Alzheimer's. It is of course possible that this is Alzheimer's degeneration, but it would be an atypical case. I would like to suggest replacing this image with one showing the more typical parietal and medial temporal atrophy pattern associated with Alzheimer's disease. sallison 02:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're totally correct. I've fixed this accordingly. Semiconscious (talk · home) 07:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you caught my mistake, by the way. Thank you. :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 07:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is it like? I want to know what it is like to live with someone with Alzheimers. Most of the articles I've read say that it kind of a drag but it doesn't have actual people with relatives that have Alzheimers. Someone that care for a person with Alzheimers should write their own version of what is like it live with them, we can't take doctors words as if its stone. Perhaps their relatives dont consider it boring and a drag.

Question

I have been reading a lot of material about nCJD being misdiagnosed as Alzheimers - supposedly indicating why cases of Alztheimers are doubling/tripling (?) recently. Can anyone provide points of view on either side of this aurgument ? Thanks