Sharp Brains: Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Neuroplasticity, Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News


From Anti-Alzheimer’s “Magic Bullets” to True Brain Health

If you fol­lowed lat­est head­lines sur­round­ing the release of the Nation­al Alzheimer’s Plan, you’d prob­a­bly con­clude that the like­ly solu­tion to main­tain life­long brain health is sim­ple: sim­ply wait until 2025 for a “mag­ic bul­let” to be dis­cov­ered, to cure (or end or pre­vent) Alzheimer’s dis­ease and aging asso­ci­at­ed cog­ni­tive decline. These kinds of beliefs, often rein­forced by doc­tors and adver­tis­ing, may explain the bil­lions spent today by phar­ma com­pa­nies on dis­cov­er­ing new com­pounds, and by con­sumers on sup­ple­ments like gink­go bilo­ba. But the fail­ures to pro­duce bet­ter drugs and con­flicts of inter­est are mak­ing many peo­ple ask what is wrong with this pic­ture.

We need a new cul­ture of life­long brain health to empow­er that 80% of the 38,000 adults over 50 sur­veyed in the 2010 AARP Mem­ber Opin­ion Sur­vey who indi­cat­ed “Stay­ing Men­tal­ly Sharp” as their top ranked inter­est and con­cern, not to men­tion youth, work­ers and elders fac­ing cog­ni­tive and emo­tion­al chal­lenges.

The prob­lem? That the “mag­ic bul­let” approach nei­ther does it reflect exist­ing clin­i­cal evi­dence or emerg­ing neu­ro­sci­en­tif­ic think­ing, nor does it address the life­long needs and demands of our cit­i­zens.

That’s why we need to shake the Etch-A-Sketch and cre­ate a new image of the future.

Let’s first draw our true objec­tive: is it to pro­mote men­tal vital­i­ty and col­lec­tive wis­dom or to declare war on Alzheimer’s plaques and tan­gles? Those are two rad­i­cal­ly dif­fer­ent objec­tives, lead­ing to very dif­fer­ent pri­or­i­ties. For exam­ple, let’s imag­ine the impli­ca­tions of being able to max­i­mize cog­ni­tive per­for­mance and to delay cog­ni­tive decline.

Sec­ond, let’s build on what we know today. We know that 30% or more of the pop­u­la­tion with plaques and tan­gles do not man­i­fest sig­nif­i­cant cog­ni­tive decline. This is a fact –often explained via the “Cog­ni­tive Reserve” the­o­ry. It is also a fact (ignored in the report’s pre­sen­ta­tion and relat­ed media cov­er­age) that the most exhaus­tive sys­tem­at­ic evi­dence review, per­formed in 2010 under the aus­pices of NIH, found that non­phar­ma­co­log­i­cal fac­tors (such as phys­i­cal exer­cise, cog­ni­tive engage­ment, cog­ni­tive train­ing, and Mediter­ranean diet) seemed to be pro­tec­tive against cog­ni­tive decline, where­as “mag­ic pill” inter­ven­tions (drugs, sup­ple­ments such as vit­a­mins and gingko bilo­ba) had no such effect.

Third, let’s select the right frame­work and toolk­it. While bio­med­ical research is indeed part of the solu­tion, pub­lic health/ edu­ca­tion ini­tia­tives and tech­nol­o­gy inno­va­tion are equal­ly impor­tant. The 2011 Sharp­Brains Vir­tu­al Sum­mit, which brought togeth­er more than 260 research, tech­nol­o­gy and indus­try inno­va­tors in 17 coun­tries, high­light­ed the need to devote suf­fi­cient atten­tion and resources to pre­ven­tive brain health strate­gies across the whole lifes­pan, and the need to bring to mar­ket a new gen­er­a­tion of reli­able and inex­pen­sive assess­ment and mon­i­tor­ing strate­gies of cog­ni­tive and emo­tion­al health — in order to tar­get and deliv­er those pre­ven­tive strate­gies in effi­cient ways. Inno­v­a­tive pub­lic edu­ca­tion ini­tia­tives, such as Expe­ri­ence Corps and The Inter­gen­er­a­tional School, may lead to bet­ter cog­ni­tive and health out­comes over the long-haul.

It sim­ply makes no sense to put all our eggs in the bio­med­ical bas­ket. Each of this colum­n’s co-authors is pro­duc­ing a dif­fer­ent con­fer­ence in June: Dr. White­house and col­leagues on “Healthy Envi­ron­ments Across Gen­er­a­tions” (June 7–8, NYC) and Mr. Fer­nan­dez on “Opti­miz­ing Health via Neu­ro­plas­tic­i­ty, Inno­va­tion and Data” (June 7–14th, ful­ly online). There are a num­ber of excit­ing and com­ple­men­tary approach­es to “Stay­ing Men­tal­ly Sharp” such as phys­i­cal exer­cise, mind­ful­ness med­i­ta­tion, biofeed­back, cog­ni­tive ther­a­py and train­ing, volunteering…How can con­sumers make informed and rel­e­vant deci­sions today? And how can they use these reen­er­gized healthy brains to solve chal­lenges like glob­al cli­mate change and eco­nom­ic stag­na­tion?

Sure, more research is bet­ter than less, and we hope that the new fund­ed tri­als will result in use­ful drugs. But nei­ther pol­i­cy-mak­ers nor cit­i­zens should wait until then to fos­ter and make lifestyle deci­sions than can max­i­mize cog­ni­tive per­for­mance across the lifes­pan.

JFK chal­lenged us not only to go to the moon, but to take proac­tive care of our phys­i­cal fit­ness. Per­haps the time has come for a seri­ous open nation­al con­ver­sa­tion on true brain health and how the new­ly announced Alzheimer’s strate­gic plan must include health­i­er and brain­er think­ing than a war on Alzheimer’s plaques and tan­gles.

Dr. Peter White­house is a Pro­fes­sor of Neu­rol­o­gy at Case West­ern Reserve Uni­ver­si­ty and co-author of The Myth of Alzheimers: what you aren’t being told about today’s most dread­ed diag­no­sis. Alvaro Fer­nan­dez, recent­ly named a Young Glob­al Leader by the World Eco­nom­ic Forum, is the co-author of The Sharp­Brains Guide to Best Fit­ness, named a Best Book by AARP.

Leave a Reply...

Loading Facebook Comments ...

2 Responses

  1. Bruce Brotter, PhD says:

    We could not agree more with the con­cerns and argu­ment posed by Dr. White­house. Yes- the NIH report tells us that there is so much that can be help­ful to healthy old­er adults as well as indi­vid­u­als suf­fer­ing from MCI and ear­ly stage AD. And yet, the Nation­al Alzheimer’s Project Act (NAPA, new ver­sion just released 5/15) does not once men­tion cog­ni­tive ther­a­py or train­ing as an effec­tive inter­ven­tion, or even men­tion as an inter­ven­tion to be fund­ed for fur­ther study. Even in the face of the NIH report and count­less oth­ers (inter­est­ing­ly not list­ed in the NAPA bib­li­og­ra­phy) the pro­tec­tive and restora­tive effects of cog­ni­tive train­ing are not dis­cussed.

    Is it pos­si­ble, as Dr. White­house sug­gests, that the fund­ing from phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies and the search for the “mag­ic bul­let” is result­ing in neglect of what we already know and have in the “arse­nal” to help our patients strug­gling with the ear­ly effects of Alzheimer’s dis­ease? We think it is, and that a true dis­ser­vice is being done to patients and fam­i­lies who are in des­per­ate need of help NOW.

    We could not agree more with Dr White­house­’s state­ment that: “It sim­ply makes no sense to put all our eggs in the bio­med­ical bas­ket.” While of course bio­med­ical research should con­tin­ue, it seems irre­spon­si­ble to not make every effort to keep the pub­lic well-informed regard­ing effec­tive non-phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal inter­ven­tions.

    It is of course our hope that ongo­ing research will lead to new and improved ways of treat­ing patients with chron­ic neu­ro­log­ic dis­eases such as Alzheimer’s, includ­ing the pos­si­bil­i­ty of a “mag­ic bul­let — cure”. But we also know that in clin­i­cal prac­tice, bio­med­ical and psy­cho­log­i­cal or reha­bil­i­ta­tive inter­ven­tions are not mutu­al­ly exclu­sive. In fact, study after study in var­i­ous sub­spe­cial­ties of clin­i­cal med­i­cine report the syn­er­gis­tic effects of the two. In the field of cog­ni­tive rehab, a March, 2012 review of the lit­er­a­ture by Cotel­li, et al., makes the case for the ben­e­fits of com­bin­ing bio­med­ical and cog­ni­tive rehab inter­ven­tions in rela­tion to Alzheimer’s patients: ”The stud­ies described above have shown that non-phar­ma­co­log­i­cal inter­ven­tion can enhance the effect of ChEI treat­ment.” (Cotel­li, 2012)

    So we know from the NIH review and oth­ers that cog­ni­tive train­ing is an effec­tive treat­ment for cog­ni­tive decline and ear­ly stage AD. We also know from the NIH review that the ben­e­fits of phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal approach­es showed no such effect. And we now know that adding cog­ni­tive train­ing to phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal inter­ven­tion “enhances” the effect of med­ica­tion alone. Still, NAPA does not speak of the prac­tice or fund­ing of cog­ni­tive inter­ven­tion.

    And there is more bad news com­ing. Despite the NIH report, and despite rec­om­men­da­tions of advo­cates for the Alzheimer’s patient such as the Alzheimer’s Asso­ci­a­tion and the Alzheimer Foun­da­tion of Amer­i­ca to pro­vide ear­ly detec­tion and TREATMENT, one of Medicare’s largest Car­ri­ers — NGS — has removed cog­ni­tive reha­bil­i­ta­tion as an accept­able treat­ment for mem­o­ry loss. This rul­ing most direct­ly impacts upon the ear­ly Alzheimer’s (pre-clin­i­cal) patient.

    It is impor­tant to note that in 2007, NGS reviewed the most cur­rent stud­ies of that time, and changed their pol­i­cy to allow Alzheimer’s patients to ben­e­fit from cog­ni­tive reha­bil­i­ta­tion espe­cial­ly mem­o­ry train­ing. It is only in 2009/2010 when NGS was reor­ga­nized that the deci­sion was reversed. This occurred just at the time that NIH informed us that cog­ni­tive train­ing was the only fac­tor asso­ci­at­ed with a decreased risk of cog­ni­tive decline (with a strong degree of sci­en­tif­ic strength behind the research). Is it pos­si­ble that NGS was unaware of the lat­est research in the field? Is it pos­si­ble that this piv­otal find­ing was known but ignored?

    The Mem­o­ry Train­ing Cen­ters of Amer­i­ca has request­ed of NGS that patients suf­fer­ing from Alzheimer’s dis­ease (as well as oth­er chron­ic, neu­rode­gen­er­a­tive dis­eases) be, again, allowed to receive one of the only inter­ven­tions that at this point in our his­to­ry is known to be help­ful. This month, the NGS Med­ical Staff ‘s pre­lim­i­nary response was to reject this request. NGS will not allow cog­ni­tive rehab to be applied to neu­ro­log­i­cal dis­eases such as ear­ly Alzheimer’s dis­ease when they demon­strate mem­o­ry loss and oth­er cog­ni­tive dys­func­tions. These patients will only be allowed inef­fec­tive med­ica­tion. We are appeal­ing that deci­sion.

    One has to won­der what could pos­si­bly be the moti­va­tion of Medicare to stop a med­ical­ly nec­es­sary treat­ment that can relieve or delay the major symp­toms of this dev­as­tat­ing dis­ease, in the face of the research, and in the absence of a “mag­ic bul­let”. With NAPA’s goal of find­ing that bul­let by the year 2025. What are we to tell our patients TODAY, who we know we can help, but from whom Medicare is now with­hold­ing treat­ment?

    Bruce Brot­ter, PhD, Clin­i­cal Direc­tor, Mem­o­ry Train­ing Cen­ters of Amer­i­ca

  2. Steve Zanon, Director Proactive Ageing says:

    The lat­est NIH per­spec­tive as sum­marised by 57 expert speak­ers and pan­el­lists at the recent NIH Alzheimer’s Dis­ease Research Sum­mit, May 2012 is now avail­able. These Research Rec­om­men­da­tions will go direct­ly the Health and Human Ser­vices Sec­re­tary for her con­sid­er­a­tion toward meet­ing the research goals set forth in the Nation­al Plan to Address Alzheimer’s Dis­ease. Kath­leen Sebe­lius, her­self also pre­sent­ed at this Sum­mit – adding her weight to the pro­ceed­ings.

    Much of the Sum­mit was devot­ed to bio­mark­ers and drug inter­ven­tions, how­ev­er one ses­sion (out of a total of 6) cov­ered non-phar­ma­co­log­i­cal inter­ven­tions. That’s good news in itself. It was also heart­en­ing to see that one rec­om­men­da­tion from this par­tic­u­lar ses­sion was to “Ini­ti­ate rig­or­ous­ly designed clin­i­cal tri­als in asymp­to­matic and cog­ni­tive­ly impaired old­er adults to estab­lish the effec­tive­ness of phys­i­cal exer­cise, cog­ni­tive train­ing, and the com­bi­na­tion of these inter­ven­tions for Alzheimer’s dis­ease treat­ment and pre­ven­tion.”

    Unfor­tu­nate­ly med­i­cines to pre­vent and/or treat Alzheimer’s are look­ing a long way off. Two com­ments from the Summit’s Research Rec­om­men­da­tions include .…. “In 2006 PhRMA, the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal industry’s advo­ca­cy group, report­ed over 80 ther­a­pies in clin­i­cal devel­op­ment for AD. To date, none of these ther­a­pies has been suc­cess­ful in late-phase clin­i­cal tri­als, with at least 20 fail­ing in Phase III and many more fail­ing in Phase II”. .…. “Alzheimer’s is a high­ly het­ero­ge­neous, mul­ti­fac­to­r­i­al dis­or­der with a very long pro­dro­mal peri­od. There is grow­ing real­iza­tion that iden­ti­fy­ing suc­cess­ful inter­ven­tions for AD will require strat­i­fi­ca­tion of patients across mul­ti­ple cri­te­ria”.

    In the future, effec­tive treat­ment and pre­ven­tion inter­ven­tions will like­ly require a com­bi­na­tion of per­son­alised exercise/lifestyle plans and per­son­alised phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal strate­gies, with reg­u­lar re-assess­ments start­ing in our 40’s just like we have cho­les­terol tests and inter­ven­tion strate­gies. But for now sev­er­al lifestyle fac­tors (includ­ing phys­i­cal & men­tal exer­cise) start­ing in mid life or ear­li­er are our best bet for demen­tia pre­ven­tion. Doing noth­ing and hop­ing for an effec­tive gener­ic Alzheimer’s phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal treat­ment in the near future is I believe a risky per­son­al strat­e­gy.

    We don’t yet have an assured solu­tion for Alzheimer’s or the oth­er demen­tias and the evi­dence to date shows that researchers are strug­gling with prospec­tive phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal solu­tions. So we need to take some respon­si­bil­i­ty for man­ag­ing uncer­tain­ty – both indi­vid­u­al­ly and as a soci­ety. As I wrote back in 2010 “with any good risk man­age­ment strat­e­gy our best bet is to diver­si­fy risk across sev­er­al of the most like­ly fac­tors. The [NIH] ‘Sys­tem­at­ic Evi­dence Review’ clear­ly iden­ti­fies the most like­ly risk fac­tors. We don’t have cer­tain­ty but we do have direc­tion and I think that is an encour­ag­ing mes­sage for the pub­lic”.…. and maybe for respon­si­ble gov­ern­ments too.

    Links .….
    — Alzheimer’s Dis­ease Research Sum­mit, May 2012–15-2012
    — Com­ments on 2010 NIH State-of-the-Sci­ence Review

    Steve Zanon, Direc­tor Proac­tive Age­ing

Leave a Reply

Categories: Cognitive Neuroscience, Health & Wellness

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

About SharpBrains

As seen in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, BBC News, CNN, Reuters,  SharpBrains is an independent market research firm tracking how brain science can improve our health and our lives.

Search in our archives

Follow us and Engage via…

RSS Feed

Watch All Recordings Now (40+ Speakers, 12+ Hours)