http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014 ... s-dementia

Science is awesome.
If that test had been round fifteen years ago it may have helped my grandma not go doolally.

It would be very handy so that people can decide to get their affairs in order. Dementia was the one thing that petrified my gran. If people know that it is coming then they can prepare living wills and get the family ready for the eventual.

If I knew I think I would prefer to be taken off to Dignitas for a one way holiday, once it had struck. The cost of care would make it much better for all concerned.

I'd imagine the point is that, if you know that you're reaching that point, there are both lifestyle changes and medical treatments that might delay the onset, at least for a period. Might not be enough to stop you deteriorating eventually but could give you a few more years of being self-sufficient before you need help.

The big problem is If you can make lifestyle changes that will actually improve your prospects? Are there many treatments for dementia that work? It would mean that they could possibly be put on any drugs early enough that it might make a significant difference. By being able to target those with a higher likelihood of developing dementia it would also be very cost effective.

Not necessarily. She probably would still have gone doolally, just a bit later than expected. There's still no cure for dementia and IIRC meds work in only 15% of patients.

What is the average age of someone developing dementia? What is the life expectancy of someone with dementia? The quality of life is debatable.

Yeah, but 'later' wold mean it probably wouldn't have gotten to the point of her not recognising anyone by the time she died. It started out with her forgetting what she'd said five minutes ago, and over seven or eight years, got the the point where she was an empty shell. Imagine if these drugs combined with a test that gives a much earlier warning had been available. She may still have got dementia, but not as bad. As it was, it was more of a blessing when she died.

You can't say that with any certainty or fact. Given that medication doesn't work for most dementia patients, and there is no cure or effective treatment, she would more than likely have been the same. Like the majority of dementia patients. The only thing you could probably do is help arrange her affairs in order once you had a definite diagnosis. The remainder of time may well have been spent worrying over the diagnosis itself. This is why there's a general consensus within the medical profession that screening for dementia is a waste of time - you get to diagnosis quicker but you're stuck in "limbo" for longer with respect to what's going to happen next.

IIRC about five years from onset of symptoms though I think there's a good delay of twelve months before patients present, so probably four years. Dementia can start around mid-60s but typically affects patients over the age of 80. What's interesting is that a lot of medicine is geared towards a healthier life up until the age of 80 eg people used to drop dead in their 50s from heart attacks, so changes in diet, lifestyle and medication means they are less likely to have heart attacks before the age of 60. There was a consensus that once people reach their 80s, it's prudent to start taking them off unnecessary medication as the risks were thought to outweigh the benefits. This has changed for two reasons: age discrimination, and the risks aren't as great as first thought. Having said that, if I have a patient with dementia, I generally try to reduce their medication to the minimum.

Hence the use of the word 'may'.

If I was in that position I would rather had my affairs in order before I was unable to assist anyone. At least you could then take time off to see out the last few sane years with friends and family rather than them remembering you as a gibbering idiot who can barely wipe their own bottom.