4.6 Article

Reversal of cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease

期刊

AGING-US
卷 8, 期 6, 页码 1250-1258

出版社

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/aging.100981

关键词

neurodegeneration; cognition; biomarkers; dementia; neuropsychology; imaging; Alzheimer's disease; Apolipoprotein E

资金

  1. NIH [AG16570, AG034427, AG036975]
  2. Mary S. Easton Center for Alzheimer's Disease Research at UCLA
  3. Douglas and Ellen Rosenberg Foundation
  4. Stephen D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation
  5. Joseph Drown Foundation
  6. Alzheimer's Association
  7. Accelerate Fund
  8. Buck Institute and Marin Community Foundation
  9. Michael and Catherine Podell Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Alzheimer's disease is one of the most significant healthcare problems nationally and globally. Recently, the first description of the reversal of cognitive decline in patients with early Alzheimer's disease or its precursors, MCI (mild cognitive impairment) and SCI (subjective cognitive impairment), was published [1]. The therapeutic approach used was programmatic and personalized rather than monotherapeutic and invariant, and was dubbed metabolic enhancement for neurodegeneration (MEND). Patients who had had to discontinue work were able to return to work, and those struggling at work were able to improve their performance. The patients, their spouses, and their co-workers all reported clear improvements. Here we report the results from quantitative MRI and neuropsychological testing in ten patients with cognitive decline, nine ApoE4+ (five homozygous and four heterozygous) and one ApoE4-, who were treated with the MEND protocol for 5-24 months. The magnitude of the improvement is unprecedented, providing additional objective evidence that this programmatic approach to cognitive decline is highly effective. These results have far-reaching implications for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease, MCI, and SCI; for personalized programs that may enhance pharmaceutical efficacy; and for personal identification of ApoE genotype.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据