New Blood Test For The Detection of Alzheimer's

One of the big health stories that have emerged this week is the formulation of a new blood test which will have the potential 'to detect which people with failing memories will go on to develop Alzheimer's disease'. When I quote 'failing memories', what I am referring to is mild cognitive impairment. Statistically, 60% of those who have this form of memory loss go on to develop Alzheimer's. For the general public, it is imperative to note that this a diagnostic solution, not a cure. Nevertheless, getting a correct diagnosis with vast amounts of research can lead on to the synthesis of new drugs which can be used to treat the disease. Increases in research funding would allow scientists to draw closer to a solution - but this is difficult as scientific research isn't advancing at a rate we might think. There are inevitably restrictions due to funding and legal issues.

Only 'after a decades work', has this new blood test been derived which shows the unbelievable timescale of innovation. The test involves looking at 10 sets of proteins that are suspended in the blood. Kings College London in conjunction with Proteome Sciences have published the study. The claim is that this test 'can predict the onset of Alzheimer's in the next 12 months in people with memory problems with an accuracy of 87%'. The cost of such a test can be estimated at around £100 to £300.

Instantly in my brain I question the "87%" accuracy as I'm concerned that for a test as significant as this, a very high high accuracy is desired in order to diagnose the right people. Alzhiemer's and other forms of dementia are one of the most common diseases in our society - according to David Cameron, it "stands alongside cancer as one of the greatest enemies of humanity". I fear he is right. With an ageing population and with the development of the latest treatments to prolong life expectancy, epidemiological evidence says the incidence of these diseases are rising.

With this new test, the key turning point is that people will be identified as having the potential to go on to develop Alzheimer's. Not simply diagnosing those who have Alzheimer's. This is crucial. Read enough into the disease and you'll probably realise that Alzheimer's is very complex. This is why we need to diagnose people at the earliest opportunity. Professor Simon Lovestone from Kings College London puts it perfectly: "Alzheimer's begins to affect the brain many years before patients are diagnosed with the disease. Many of our drug trials fail because by the time patients are given the drugs, the brain has already been too severely affected".


The scientists in the investigation wrote for the journal Alzheimer's and Dementia, and investigated in a variety of proteins that have been linked to Alzheimer's before. Blood samples were taken from 1148 individuals. A large sample some may think, but the size of the problem we are confronting means the next stage for this test is for it to be trialled on around 5000-10000 people. 


A larger sample size means more reliability which will make this study more valid and thus promising. Also getting more accurate results with the test will reduce the risk of misdiagnosis which is outstandingly important. 

Personally I believe this to be positive and promising news, but we need to be sure that this will work. I hope that in the end this could develop into effective treatment for one of the most devastating diseases that exist in our society today. 

Credit to Sarah Boseley, health editor for The Guardian on the original article. More on the story can be followed here.

A New Method of Organ Preservation

Recently I came across an article on the BBC explaining a new technique on preserving organs shortly before transplantation. To keep the organs 'fresh', they will need to be 'supercooled' according to United States researchers. As with most scientific trials, this technique was first experimented on the organs of animals (specifically rat livers) and the results published in Nature Medicine. According to this the organs can be preserved for up to 3 days using this technique! Using current methods organs can only  remain viable for around 24 hours.

I think that in the long-term this technique can be cost effective for the NHS and seems like a very efficient method of preserving organs despite the initial start-up costs of implementing this resource into hospitals.

However we haven't yet tested this technique on human organs which is an important factor to consider. It's also interesting to know how this process works:

The main principle to note is that as soon as an organ is removed from the body, individual cells begin to die as they are stripped of their normal environment. However cooling aims to slow this process as the metabolic rate of the cells themselves is slowed.

But the main advantage here is that ultimately if this process works on human organs, donor matching will result more successfully. Especially as in current times the demand for organs without rejection is very high, this technique could be a major step in my opinion.

The important question now is can this technique be used on a 1.5kg human liver compared to a 10g rat liver? With more cells and a larger mass, I imagine preserving a larger organ will provide more difficulty.

Credit to Dr Korkut Uygun and his team of researchers at Harvard Medical School.

Click here to read more on the subject.

Beginnings...

With my growing interest for medicine over the last few years, I have arrived at a point where I think it may be appropriate to express some of my views on today's changing events in the medical field. The field of medicine is one of profound innovation yet very personal to many. It is greatly affected by economics and politics - our NHS system has had significant reforms in recent times. Changes in the structure of the NHS have had a knock-on effect even right down to the patient level, whether it is receiving the right treatment or whether one can afford the treatment at all.

In fact one of the most controversial issues surrounding the NHS and the government is whether the NHS as an organisation will enter privatisation. When most people think of privatisation, they are reminded of the US-style health insurance 'fee for service' plans. For many this may mean no easy access to essential healthcare anymore, but could indicate 'big bucks' for emerging private health companies such as Virgin Care, a sub-category of Richard Branson's Virgin empire. An essay I have written on whether the NHS should be privatised can be seen here. I encourage a read to anyone who isn't particularly sure of what privatisation is and it's implications.

Also I will look forward to commenting on any medically related books I read that spark an interest in me.