Depends on which way the arrow of causality points. If AD makes the brain vulnerable to fungal infection, probably not. But if fungal infection causes AD, then it seems likely.
This might be a giant breakthrough, or it might be just a side effect. The uncertainty is not fun at all. But if the arrow points the right way, then yes it's possible that antifungals would be a big part of treatment.
In either case it makes a lot of sense to start dosing patients with anti-fungal medication and see if their symptoms improve. Usually you do not give fungicide to patients because it has a lot of side-effects but those drugs are readily available and easily prescribed.
It's worth a try, especially if they're pretty far advanced.
Doctors have the whole "first do no harm" thing that makes prescribing stuff randomly on hope not really an option. Now if patients start clamoring for it that's another story. But until it's shown that antifungal medicine does more good than harm (who knows, maybe killing all the fungus somehow leaves a void that bacteria could come fill) it's probably best not to do so widely.
Not sure why you got downvoted. It would have to be done in double blind trials vs placebo, but it would be a great way to test the causal link between fungi and symptoms. You'd have to make sure the fungicides cross the blood brain barrier in patients.
Haven't we studied the effects of Alzheimers enough not to need the control group? I worked in clinical trials and one study still haunts me knowing what happened to the control group.
Sure, it fits right in with the plan to get rid of those pesky controls when testing painkillers too:
"Drug companies have a problem: they are finding it ever harder to get painkillers through clinical trials. But this isn't necessarily because the drugs are getting worse. An extensive analysis of trial data1 has found that responses to sham treatments have become stronger over time, making it harder to prove a drug’s advantage over placebo.
[...]
For companies trying to develop treatments, one remedy might be to compare new drugs against their best competitors instead of against placebo — or to go back to conducting smaller, shorter trials."
http://www.nature.com/news/strong-placebo-response-thwarts-p...
Comparing old vs new is how it's done in cancer research. It's inhumane to prescribe placebo to someone in serious pain. You give them the old or the new, and they report how they felt.
In this case, since there is no concept of old or new, it's an entirely new class of treatment. So you give the current best-practice treatment without anti-fungal, and you give the same with anti-fungal.
Anyone in the study is agreeing at the onset that they have a 50/50 chance they will either get the current best practice, or the exact same thing but also the anti-fungal. These are volunteers who are helping move the anti-fungal research forward for everyone, in exchange for a chance of getting early access. They can also leave the study at any time after starting, but if they are in the anti-fungal group they would lose access to it if they did.
If that's not enough, there are cases (e.g. in cancer research) of de-blinding the study when there's a clear/strong positive effect and providing early access to all enrolled if it becomes obvious the new treatment is widely beneficial.
So I think we have the theory behind the ethics fairly well wrapped on how to roll out these drugs. I don't think in practice it works so well, the studies are often poorly run and poorly administered making them extremely more costly than they should be.
Given that there is a low incidence of AD in India, i'd suspect that fungal infection is partly a cause. It would be interesting to plot food spiceyness vs AD rates and spiceyness vs fungal infection rates in the world population.
There was some promising research on using turmeric, the stuff that gives curry it's yellow colour, to treat Alzheimer's:
>We describe here three patients with the Alzheimer's Disease (AD) whose behavioral symptoms were improved remarkably as a result of the turmeric treatment...
The paper mentions in passing in the discussion section:
"Moreover, antifungal treatment in two patients diagnosed with AD reversed clinical symptoms [51,52]. The interpretation of these results was that perhaps these patients were misdiagnosed."
[51] Ala, T. A., Doss, R. C. & Sullivan, C. J. Reversible dementia: a case of cryptococcal meningitis masquerading as Alzheimer’s disease. J Alzheimers Dis 6, 503–508 (2004).
[52] Hoffmann, M., Muniz, J., Carroll, E. & De Villasante, J. Cryptococcal meningitis misdiagnosed as Alzheimer’s disease: complete neurological and cognitive recovery with treatment. J Alzheimers Dis 16, 517–520 (2009).
I know that toenail and fingernail fungus infections are very common (see, e.g., tons of late-night TV ads). Any chance that those kinds of infection could make their way into the brain?
The article mentions infection of blood vessels so it seems likely that the fungi make their way into the brain from other sites.
Perhaps the fungi avoid the immune system by being very slow and relatively non-disruptive, and the reduced effectiveness of the immune system in old age allows it to take hold and spread.
I wrote a comment in another subthread but basically that's not likely to happen anytime soon due to two factors. 1) currently available antifungals (for internal fungal infections) are not nearly as powerful and quick as we think of "regular" antibiotics to be even in the organs that get plenty of medicated-blood supply and 2) Blood-brain barrier means that it's hard to deliver any medications to the brain tissue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood%E2%80%93brain_barrier#Fu...)
This might be a giant breakthrough, or it might be just a side effect. The uncertainty is not fun at all. But if the arrow points the right way, then yes it's possible that antifungals would be a big part of treatment.