A Better Way to Predict the Progression of Alzheimer’s Disease

News Release
April 2019 | the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging – New PET Imaging Biomarker Could Better Predict Progression of Alzheimer’s Disease

Reston, VA—Researchers have discovered a way to better predict progression of Alzheimer’s disease. By imaging microglial activation levels with positron emission tomography (PET), researchers were able to better predict progression of the disease than with beta-amyloid PET imaging, according to a study published in the April issue of The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

According to the Alzheimer’s Association, an estimated 5.3 million Americans are currently living with Alzheimer’s disease. By 2025, that number is expected to increase to more than seven million. The hallmark brain changes for those with Alzheimer’s disease include the accumulation of beta-amyloid plaques. When microglial cells from the central nervous system recognize the presence of beta-amyloid plaques, they produce an inflammatory reaction in the brain.

“The 18-kD translocator protein (TSPO) is highly expressed in activated microglia, which makes it a valuable biomarker to assess inflammation in the brain,” said Matthias Brendel, MD, MHBA, at Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich in Germany. “In our study, we utilized TSPO-PET imaging to determine whether microglial activation had any influence on cognitive outcomes in an amyloid mouse model.”

Figure 2Longitudinal TSPO and Aβ PET and performance in behavioral testing. (A) Cortical TSPO PET and Aβ PET signal intensities of PS2APP mice at different ages are expressed as z scores relative to findings in age-matched C57BL/6 mice. Coronal and axial slices are projected on T1-weighted MRI template. (B) Progression of individual TSPO PET z scores and Aβ PET z scores in forebrain of PS2APP mice (n = 10) with age. (C) Differences between PS2APP and C57BL/6 (WT) mice for escape latency (sec) and traveled distance in pixels (pix) as WM readouts. Error bars represent SEM. *P < 0.01. **P < 0.001.

In the study, researchers compiled a series of PET images for 10 transgenic mice with beta-amyloid proteins and seven wild-type mice. TSPO PET imaging of activated microglia was conducted at eight, 9.5, 11.5 and 13 months, and beta-amyloid PET imaging was performed at eight and 13 months. Upon completion of the imaging, researchers then subjected the mice to a water maze in which the mice were to distinguish between a floating platform that would hold their weight and one that would sink. The tasks were performed several times a day during a 1.5-week period. Memory performance in the water maze was assessed by measuring the average travel time from the start point to a platform each day of training and by calculating the traveled distance at the last day of training. After completing the water maze task, immunohistochemistry analyses were performed for microglia, amyloid and synaptic density.

Transgenic mice with the highest TSPO PET signal in the forebrain or other areas associated with spatial learning tended to have better cognitive performance in the water maze, while beta-amyloid signals in the same areas of the brain showed no correlation to cognitive outcomes in the maze. Researchers found that an earlier microglial response to amyloid pathology in transgenic mice also protected synaptic density at follow-up. Specifically, transgenic mice with higher TSPO expression at eight months had much better cognitive outcomes in the water maze and higher synaptic density as confirmed by immunochemistry analyses.

“This study provides the first evidence that the level of microglial activation could be a far better predictor of current and future cognitive performance than beta-amyloid levels,” noted Brendel. “Keeping the limitations of mouse models in mind, it could be crucial to modify an individual’s microglial activation state to ameliorate future cognitive decline. We believe that a balanced microglia activation is crucial for prevention of cognitive impairment.”

The authors of “Early and Longitudinal Microglial Activation but Not Amyloid Accumulation Predicts Cognitive Outcome in PS2APP Mice” include Carola Focke, Maximilian Deussing, Claudio Schmidt, Simon Lindner, Franz-Josef Gildehaus, Leonie Beyer and Barbara von Ungern-Sternberg, Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Munich, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany; Tanja Blume, Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Munich, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany, and Center for Neuropathology and Prion Research, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany; Benedikt Zott and Helmuth Adelsberger, Institute of Neuroscience, Technical  University of Munich, Munich, Germany; Yuan Shi and Mario M. Dorostkar, Center for Neuropathology and Prion Research, Ludwig-Miximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany, and DZNE-German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Munich, Germany; Finn Peters, DZNE-German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Munich, Germany; Gernot Kleinberger, Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology, University of Munich, Munich, Germany, and Biomedical Center, Biochemistry, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany; Peter Bartenstein and Matthias Brendel, Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Munich, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany, and Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology, University of Munich, Munich, Germany; Laurence Ozmen and Karlheinz Baumann, Roche Pharma Research and Early Development, F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., Basel, Switzerland; Christian Haass, DZNE-German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Munich, Germany, Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology, University of Munich, Munich, Germany, and Biomedical Center, Biochemistry, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany; Jochen Herms, Center for Neuropathology and Prion Research, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany, DZNE-German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Munich, Germany, and Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology, University of Munich, Munich, Germany; Axel Rominger, Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Munich, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany, Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology, University of Munich, Munich, Germany, and Department of Nuclear Medicine, Inselspital, University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

###


For more information or to schedule an interview with the researchers, please contact Rebecca Maxey at (703) 652-6772 or 
rmaxey@snmmi.org.  Current and past issues of The Journal of Nuclear Medicine can be found online at http://jnm.snmjournals.org.

About the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

The Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) is an international scientific and medical organization dedicated to advancing nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, vital elements of precision medicine that allow diagnosis and treatment to be tailored to individual patients in order to achieve the best possible outcomes.

SNMMI’s more than 17,000 members set the standard for molecular imaging and nuclear medicine practice by creating guidelines, sharing information through journals and meetings, and leading advocacy on key issues that affect molecular imaging and therapy research and practice. For more information, visit www.snmmi.org.

Advertisements

What good dementia design looks like – A case study on Dementia Training Australia’s work with Scalabrini Village

DTA and Scalabrini Village case study profiled at Alzheimer’s International Conference in Chicago from Dementia Training Australia on Vimeo.

 

A case study on Dementia Training Australia’s work with Scalabrini Village is featured in the program Every Three Seconds, a collaboration between ADI and ITN Productions which highlights the fact that someone in the world is diagnosed with dementia every three seconds.

Source: https://www.dta.com.au/case-studies-dementia-training-australia/

Neglect common in English care homes

News Release
March 21, 2018 | London – Neglect common in English care homes

The largest-ever survey of care home staff in England, led by UCL researchers, has found that neglectful behaviours are widespread.

Elder care

For the study, published today in PLOS ONE, care home staff were asked anonymously about positive and negative behaviours they had done or had witnessed colleagues doing.

Dr Claudia Cooper (UCL Psychiatry), the study’s lead author, said: “We found low rates of verbal and physical abuse; the abusive behaviours reported were largely matters of neglect.

“These behaviours were most common in care homes that also had high rates of staff burnout, which suggests it’s a consequence of staff who are under pressure and unable to provide the level of care they would like to offer.”

From 92 care homes across England, 1,544 care home staff responded to the survey. The staff were asked whether they had, in the past three months, witnessed a range of positive and negative behaviours. Their responses were linked to data from each care home describing a measure of burnout in care home staff.

Some negative behaviours were categorised as ‘abusive’, using a standard definition,* and based on the behaviour reported, rather than the intention of the care home staff. The most common abusive behaviours were: making a resident wait for care (26% of staff reported that happening); avoiding a resident with challenging behaviour (25%); giving residents insufficient time for food (19%); and taking insufficient care when moving residents (11%). Verbal abuse was reported by 5% of respondents, and physical abuse by 1.1%.

At least some abuse was identified in 91 of the 92 care homes.

Positive behaviours were reported to be much more common than abusive behaviours, however some positive but time-consuming behaviours were notably infrequent.  For instance, more than one in three care home staff were rarely aware of a resident being taken outside of the home for their enjoyment, and 15% said activities were almost never planned around a resident’s interests.

“Most care homes, and their staff, strive to provide person-centred care, meaning that care is designed around a person’s needs, which requires getting to know the resident and their desires and values. But due to resources and organisational realities, care can often become more task-focused, despite intentions and aspirations to deliver person-centred care,” said co-author Dr Penny Rapaport (UCL Psychiatry).

“Carers can’t just be told that care should be person-centred – they need to be given the support and training that will enable them to deliver it,” she said.

The study is part of the UCL MARQUE cohort study, which is also looking into cost-effective interventions to improve the quality of care for people with dementia, and will be using this anonymous reporting as a measure of how well training interventions are working.

More than two thirds of care homes residents have dementia. Agitated behaviours such as pacing, shouting or lashing out are more common in dementia, and can make provision of person-centred care very challenging for care staff to deliver, often with minimal training and limited resources.

“With the right training, care home staff may be able to deliver more effective care that doesn’t need to be more expensive or time-consuming. If they understand and know how to respond to behaviour, they may be able to do more without greater resources,” said the study’s senior author, Professor Gill Livingston (UCL Psychiatry).

Dr Doug Brown, Chief Policy and Research Officer at Alzheimer’s Society, commented: “70% of people living in care homes have dementia, and it’s clear from these findings that they’re bearing the brunt of a chronically underfunded social care system.

“It’s upsetting but unsurprising that abusive behaviours were more common in homes with higher staff burnout. We’ve heard through our helpline of people with dementia not being fed, or not getting the drugs they need, because a carer isn’t properly trained, or a care home is too short-staffed.

“By 2021, a million people in the UK will have dementia. The government must act now, with meaningful investment and reform, or we risk the system collapsing completely and people with dementia continuing to suffer needlessly.”

The study was conducted by researchers at UCL and the Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, and funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research.

Links

Image

Media contact

Chris Lane

Tel: +44 (0)20 7679 9222

Email: chris.lane [at] ucl.ac.uk

Bilingualism could offset brain changes in Alzheimer’s

A Concordia study sheds light on how language history relates to brain plasticity

News Release
February 6, 2018 | QUEBEC – Bilingualism could offset brain changes in Alzheimer’s

After more than a decade of research, this much we know: it’s good for your brain to know another language.

A new Concordia study goes further, however, focusing specifically on the effects of knowing a second language for patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI; a risk state for AD).

“Most of the previous research on brain structure was conducted with healthy younger or older adults,” says Natalie Phillips, a professor in the Department of Psychology.

“Our new study contributes to the hypothesis that having two languages exercises specific brain regions and can increase cortical thickness and grey matter density. And it extends these findings by demonstrating that these structural differences can be seen in the brains of multilingual AD and MCI patients.”

Phillips’s study, led by recent Concordia psychology grad Hilary D. Duncan (PhD 17), is soon to be published in Neuropsychologia(Jan, 2018).

New methods: Enter the MRI

Phillips and her team are the first to use high-resolution, whole-brain MRI data and sophisticated analysis techniques to measure cortical thickness and tissue density within specific brain areas.

Namely, they investigated language and cognition control areas in the frontal regions of the brain, and medial temporal lobe structures that are important for memory and are brain areas known to atrophy in MCI and AD patients.

“Previous studies used CT scans, which are a much less sensitive measure,” says Phillips, founding director of Concordia’s Cognition, Aging and Psychophysiology (CAP) Lab.

The study looked at MRIs from participating patients from the Jewish General Hospital Memory Clinic in Montreal.

Their sample included 34 monolingual MCI patients, 34 multilingual MCI patients, 13 monolingual AD patients and 13 multilingual AD patients.

Phillips believes their study is the first to assess the structure of MCI and AD patients’ language and cognition control regions. It is also the first to demonstrate an association between those regions of the brain and memory function in these groups, and the first to control for immigration status in these groups.

“Our results contribute to research that indicates that speaking more than one language is one of a number of lifestyle factors that contributes to cognitive reserve,” Phillips says.

“They support the notion that multilingualism and its associated cognitive and sociocultural benefits are associated with brain plasticity.”

What’s next?

Phillips and her team are already building on their findings.

“Our study seems to suggest that multilingual people are able to compensate for AD-related tissue loss by accessing alternative networks or other brain regions for memory processing. We’re actively investigating that hypothesis now.”

Read the cited study, “Structural brain differences between monolingual and multilingual patients with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer disease: Evidence for cognitive reserve.

Source: NEW RESEARCH: Bilingualism could offset brain changes in Alzheimer’s

If you develop Alzheimer’s, will your children get it too?

child-887058_1280

Rebecca Sims, Cardiff University

The most common question I get asked is “Will my child get Alzheimer’s disease?” In my experience, this concern is one of the biggest worries for sufferers, and given the devastating effects of the disease, it is not hard to see why it is a difficult thought to contemplate.

For those people with a familial form of Alzheimer’s disease, the answer is quite straightforward. This type of disease is caused by one or more mutation(s) in one of three genes: the amyloid precursor protein (APP), Presenilin 1 (PSEN1) and Presenilin 2 (PSEN2). All of these genes are involved in the production of the amyloid protein. This protein accumulates to form sticky buildups known as plaques, which are found between the cells of the Alzheimer brain and are characteristic of disease.

Those of us who are concerned that they may be at risk from familial Alzheimer’s disease can get a definitive answer through one of the many genetic tests available. A single copy of the mutated gene inherited from an affected parent will ultimately cause disease, with symptoms likely to be noticed before the age of 65 and typically between 30 and 60 years of age. Anyone concerned that they may suffer from this form of Alzheimer’s should seek a referral to a genetic counsellor.

Fortunately, families with a familial form of disease represent less than 1% of all families afflicted by this debilitating disease. For the remaining Alzheimer’s disease families, the answer as to the inheritance of disease is much less clear, and disease onset is certainly not inevitable.

Influencing disease

A combination of both genetic and environmental factors, such as age and gender, contribute to non-familial (also known as sporadic) disease risk, but how these risk factors interact and how many risk factors are required to cause disease is still unknown.

The genetics of non-familial Alzheimer’s is complex: we know that nearly thirty genes, common in the general population, influence disease risk, with potentially hundreds more involved. Additionally, two genes of low frequency have consistently been identified, with an imminent publication by the International Genomics of Alzheimer’s Project, showing another two rare genes have a relatively large effect on disease risk.

Perhaps most excitingly for researchers, genetics scientists have shown that four biological processes in Alzheimer’s disease – that were not previously thought to play a casual role in disease onset – are actually involved. The first process is the immune response, in particular the actions of immune cells and how these potentially dysfunction, attacking the brain, which results in brain cell death.

The second is the transport of molecules into the cell, suggesting that there is a mechanism for the movement of damaging proteins into the brain. The third process that has a role in the onset of Alzheimer’s is the synthesis and breakdown of fatty molecules. And the fourth is the processing of proteins that alters protein breakdown, movement, activity and interactions – all of which are essential for normal protein function.

child-2933293_1280

Lifestyle risk

Age is the greatest risk factor for disease, with the likelihood of developing Alzheimer’s roughly doubling every five years over the age of 65. Women also have more chance of developing the disease than men, potentially due to a reduction in female hormones after menopause.

Medical conditions that increase risk for dementia include cardiovascular factors (type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and obesity), and depression. While lifestyle factors such as physical inactivity, a diet that increases cholesterol, smoking and excessive alcohol intake, have all been shown to influence disease risk.

Even for those with a high number of genetic, environmental and lifestyle risk factors, Alzheimer’s disease is not inevitable. Likewise, individuals with a low number of risk factors for disease are not precluded from developing Alzheimer’s.

Given this lack of certainty and the lack of effective treatments for Alzheimer’s, most experts don’t recommend genetic testing for non-familial disease. This thinking may well evolve in the future, however, when research identifies new risk genes and improves our understanding of the dysfunctional processes in Alzheimer’s disease.

The Conversation

Answering the burning question, whether you will pass Alzheimer’s disease on to your children, is therefore still a near impossibility. But, as early diagnostic techniques improve, and with the prospect of a number of vaccines and therapeutics currently in clinical trials, risk prediction for Alzheimer’s disease may become mainstream and part of a developing precision medicine culture.

Rebecca Sims, Research Fellow, Division of Psychological Medicine and Clinical Neurosciences, Cardiff University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Older Adults Are Still Likely Underestimating Cognitive Impairment in Their Families

grandma-515530_960_720

News release

 Study Finds Racial Differences in Reporting and Overall Trend of Underreporting Cognitive Impairment

An increasing number of older adults are reporting cognitive impairment in their families over the past two decades, according to a new study led by researchers at NYU Rory Meyers College of Nursing and East Carolina University’s Brody School of Medicine.

The study, which also finds ethnic and racial differences in reporting cognitive impairment, is published in Preventing Chronic Disease, a journal of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The aging population in the U.S. is growing rapidly, with the number of people age 65 and over in 2010 (40.2 million) projected to more than double by 2050. With the rapid increase in the aging population, the size of the population with cognitive impairment and dementia will continue to accelerate, highlighting the importance of identifying cognitive changes.

“Cognitive impairment may serve as a precursor to future dementia. Early detection of cognitive impairment can facilitate timely medical treatments, appropriate care planning, and prevention efforts,” said Bei Wu, PhD, Dean’s Professor in Global Health and director of Global Health & Aging Research at NYU Meyers, co-director of NYU Aging Incubator, and the study’s senior author.

The study sought to examine the trends of self-reported cognitive impairment among five major racial/ethnic groups from 1997 to 2015 in the United States. The researchers used data from the National Health Interview Survey, including 155,682 individuals age 60 and above in their sample. The large sample included people of a variety of races and ethnicities, including Asian Americans,  Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, non-Hispanic Blacks, and non-Hispanic Whites.

Rather than using a screening test or clinical examination to evaluate cognitive impairment, respondents were asked to report if any family member was “limited in anyway because of difficulty remembering or because of experiencing periods of confusion.”

The researchers found an increasing trend in self-reported cognitive impairment: the overall rate increased from 5.7 percent in 1997 to 6.7 percent in 2015 among older adults in the U.S. This finding may suggest that awareness of cognitive impairment, perhaps from heightened public attention to and interest in Alzheimer’s disease, has improved to some extent.

grandma-748254_960_720

When looking at each racial/ethnic group, however, the increasing trend was significant only among White respondents. In Whites, the rate of self-reported cognitive impairment increased from 5.2 percent in 1997 to 6.1 percent in 2015. Asian American, Black, Hispanic, and Native American respondents had higher rates of self-reported cognitive impairment than Whites, but these rates did not significantly increase from 1997 to 2015.

Regardless of the overall increasing trend, the rates of self-reported cognitive impairment were still low, which may suggest underreporting. The researchers note that the rates of self-reported cognitive impairment are much lower than the estimated prevalence of cognitive impairment. For adults 65 years and older, the rate of self-reported cognitive impairment was 6.3 percent in 2000 and 7.5 percent in 2012, while the estimated prevalence of cognitive impairment in the same age group was 21.2 percent in 2000 and 18.8 percent in 2012.

These findings underscore the need to further promote awareness of cognitive impairment, especially in minority populations. Different cultures hold different beliefs and perceptions of disease and aging. For instance, research has found that compared to Whites, minorities are less likely to seek treatment for psychiatric symptoms because of lack of access to care or due to stigma.

“Culturally specific health education is needed in individuals, family members, and healthcare providers to improve awareness and knowledge of signs and early symptoms of Alzheimer’s and other dementia,” said Huabin Luo, PhD, of East Carolina University.

In addition to Wu and Luo, Gary Yu of NYU Meyers coauthored the study.

Why a drug treatment for dementia has eluded us

 

File 20180109 83553 1tp4671.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1

Have our hopes of a drug treatment for dementia been dashed by drug company Pfizer giving up on research efforts?
from http://www.shutterstock.com

Jürgen Götz, The University of Queensland

Finding a cure for neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s is challenging. They’re difficult to diagnose, and drugs struggle to get into the brain as the brain’s blood supply is largely separate to the rest of the body. Not surprisingly, several companies have left this territory in recent years. This week, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer announced it will stop research into developing drugs to treat Alzheimer’s disease, after costly failed attempts over the past decade.

In recent years some clinical trials involving potential dementia drugs have had disappointing setbacks. In 2012, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson halted development of the antibody drug bapineuzumab, after it failed in late-stage trials to treat patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s.

Despite this week’s announcement, Pfizer’s support of the UK’s Dementia Discovery Fund, an initiative involving the government, major pharmaceutical companies, and Alzheimer’s Research UK, may be where their money can make the most impact in this space. The fund aims to boost dementia research investment by financing early-stage drug development projects. And other pharma companies, such as Eli Lilly, Biogen and Novartis have continued to pursue dementia drug development with modest but promising success to date.

So what makes dementia such a difficult condition to treat with drugs, and is progress being made towards a treatment?


Read more: Alzheimer’s breakthrough? Have we nearly cured dementia? Not just yet…


Why dementia is so hard to treat

Despite the vast number of people affected globally, with an estimated 46.8 million people currently living with dementia, there is currently no cure. While current treatments manage symptoms (the latest drug to gain FDA approval was memantine, in 2003) they offer no prospect of recovery.

Part of the difficulty in finding treatments for dementia stems from the fact it’s not a single disease, but a complex health problem with more than 50 underlying causes. Dementia can be better thought of as an umbrella term describing a range of conditions that cause parts of the brain to deteriorate progressively.


Read more: What causes Alzheimer’s disease? What we know, don’t know and suspect


Most drug treatments currently in development have targeted the pathology of Alzheimer’s disease, the most common form of dementia, which accounts for about 60 to 70% of all cases.

Finding a successful treatment for Alzheimer’s faces two major hurdles: the first being we still don’t know enough about the disease’s underlying biology. For example, we don’t know what exactly regulates the toxic build-up of amyloid-β plaques and tau tangles in the brain that are found in Alzheimer’s patients, which specific types of these are toxic, or why the disease progresses at different rates in different people.

It doesn’t help that symptoms of Alzheimer’s develop gradually and slowly and a diagnosis might only be made years after the brain has started to undergo neurodegenerative changes. To boot, it’s not uncommon for Alzheimer’s to be present as well as other forms of dementia.

The second major hurdle to finding a treatment is that drugs need to first cross the blood-brain barrier. The blood–brain barrier provides a defence against disease-causing pathogens and toxins that may be present in our blood, and by design exists to keep out foreign substances from the brain. The downside is that it also keeps the vast majority of potential drug treatments from reaching the brain.


Read more – Explainer: what is the blood-brain barrier and how can we overcome it?


The brain has a blood barrier that protects it from pathogens that invade the rest of our body, which also means drugs can’t get in there.
from http://www.shutterstock.com

Promising steps in the right direction

Currently available medications such as those which block the actions of an enzyme that destroys an important chemical messenger in the brain for memory (acetylcholinesterase inhibitors) or blocks the toxic effects of another messenger, glutamate (memantine) temporarily manage symptoms. But new treatments are focused on slowing or reversing the disease process itself, by targeting the underlying biology.

One approach, called immunotherapy, involves creating antibodies that bind to abnormal developments in the brain (such as amyloid-β or tau), and mark them for destruction by a range of mechanisms. Immunotherapy is experiencing a surge of interest and a number of clinical trials – targeting both amyloid-β and tau – are currently underway.

Aducanumab, an antibody targeting amyloid-β, has shown promise in clinical trials and phase 3 trials are currently ongoing, as are several tau-based strategies. If any are successful, we would have a vaccine for Alzheimer’s.


Read more – How Australians Die: cause #3 – dementia (Alzheimer’s)


It’s estimated only 0.1% of antibodies circulating in the bloodstream enter the brain – this also includes the therapeutic antibodies currently used in clinical trials. An approach my team is taking is to use ultrasound to temporarily open the blood-brain barrier, which increases the uptake of Alzheimer’s drugs or antibody fragments.

We’ve had success in mice, finding ultrasound can clear toxic tau protein clumps, and that combining ultrasound with an antibody fragment treatment is more effective than either treatment alone in removing tau and reducing Alzheimer’s symptoms. The next challenge will be translating this success into human clinical trials.

The task of dementia drug development is no easy feat, and requires collaboration across government, industry and academia. In Australia, the National Dementia Network serves this purpose well. It’s only through perseverance and continued investment in research that we’ll one day have a treatment for dementia.


The ConversationWith thanks to Queensland Brain Institute Science Writer Donna Lu.

Jürgen Götz, Director, Clem Jones Centre for Ageing Dementia Research, The University of Queensland

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.