Episode Transcript
[00:00:12] Speaker A: Welcome to the Age of Aging, a show about living well with an aging brain, produced by the Penn Memory Center. I'm Terence Casey. My co host, Jake Johnson is on vacation this week, but we've got a special episode for you anyway. Season 4 of the Age of Aging returns next month and we're hard at work preparing new conversations and insights. In the meantime, I sat down with Penn Memory center co directors Dr. David Wolk and Dr. Jason Karlewish to talk about the recent Alzheimer's Association International Conference held earlier this summer in Toronto.
This annual conference is one of the largest and most influential gatherings of Alzheimer's researchers, clinicians and advocates from around the world. It's a place where the latest findings are shared with, collaborations are formed, and the future of Alzheimer's research takes shape. In our conversation we discuss the highlights of this year's conference, the current state of Alzheimer's research, and what Doctors Wulk and Karlewish are looking forward to in the year ahead.
If you enjoy this episode, please consider subscribing to the podcast, leaving a review or giving us a like these types of things really help others find the show. And if you know someone who might be interested in these conversations, share this episode with them. We also love hearing from our listeners. If you have questions or feedback or suggestions for studies or topics that you'd like us to explore in future seasons, feel free to reach out. Our contact information is in the show Notes okay, here's the conversation.
So thanks for joining us today. We are recently back from aic. To start, I think we should just give a quick introduction. Could you tell us what is AIC and why is this such a big deal in the Alzheimer's and Dementia space?
[00:01:59] Speaker B: Dave, why don't you start?
[00:02:01] Speaker C: Sure. So AIC stands for the Alzheimer's Association International Conference, which is an annual event sponsored by the Alzheimer's association that really is the sort of premier global conference for Alzheimer's disease research in that in addition to bringing a truly international audience of individuals to the conference, it also highlights work across many different disciplines. So basic science and pathophysiology, biomarkers and imaging, clinical aspects and manifestations of the disease, public health related issues as well. The other thing I'll say is it's incredibly well attended conference. I think this year they had over 8,000 people in person and when you included online people it was over 11,000 people total. So really brings together the community in a kind of collective way.
[00:03:01] Speaker B: And this year's conference they usually alternate between sort of Europe, North America and for a While there was a desire to have it also in the east, the Far East, I should say. And that was the year that was in Hawaii, which is the farthest east they've gotten, and it'd be nice for them to repeat that. But nonetheless, next year we will meet in London, but this year we met in North America. And it was actually very interesting unintended poetry, because the location this year was Toronto, Canada, and it was very interesting to be there. First of all, it was unusually hot, as much of the rest of the world. Climate change was very evident. And secondly, it was very obvious that life in Canada is different in the last six, eight months. And indeed, once saw in the shops, you know, buy Canadians signs, emphasis on Canadian producers, occasional T shirts that said, you know, we are not number 51, things like that. Having said that, our Canadian hosts were nothing but no, no surprise, polite, welcoming and eager to have us. And I think the other big event that occurred to me, we'll talk about takeaways, but I think one takeaway that really resonated for me was right from the get go. So the get go is Sunday. Big, big auditorium space, you know, everyone come here. There's nothing else going on. And, and it's when there's the opening remarks and the awards, et cetera, and the opening remarks are traditionally delivered by the President, CEO and then the Chief Scientific Officer and, you know, the president CEO remarks are typically very welcoming. And, you know, just here we are, we're so grateful, thankful, et cetera. It was very interesting that Joanne pike, the President's CEO, got up and, with no equivocation, made very clear that the association is deeply disturbed by events in the United States about federal funding for research and restrictions on travel and very keen to work to reverse this. I will say it was the first time, I think, in the history of the AIC that the President's CEO's address was interrupted by applause when she delivered a line that made it very clear that, you know, we stand for reversing what's happening with the severe restrictions on federal funding and threats to the structure and function of the federal research organization. And Maria Carrillo got up and issued the same ringing so statement. So it was very, very welcomed by the participants to. To hear that.
[00:05:12] Speaker C: I'll just add that the Alzheimer's association in general has been really, actually a major force historically in the advancing of funding, you know, within the field. And so I, I think this is in keeping with their mission, which is to really continue to see progress. And I think one of the shames of, of some of the funding uncertainty right now is that when you go to a meeting like this and you think about all that's happened in the last couple years is there's just incredible momentum in the field and excitement, that one feels like now's the time to put your foot even more on the gas.
[00:05:49] Speaker B: Well, not just that the brakes are being put on, but the very car, the engine is being wrecked, to take that automobile metaphor and run with it. I mean, just today, Stat News published how the pace of distribution of grant money and NIH is so slow and mired in politics that it's uncertain that they'll even be paying out grants as they intend to before the money has to be sort of sent back, whatever happens. So it still is a mess. And again, it was very reassuring to hear Joanne pike and Maria Carrillo make the statements they did, and some very concrete next steps, like the availability of funding for investigators, particularly junior investigators whose careers, research, et cetera, have been thwarted or otherwise hindered, sadly because of what's happened. So, yeah, we're in a very, very darkly ironic time, namely spectacular progress, which we'll start talking about in a moment. Faced with a scientific policy infrastructure that is frankly becoming increasingly unscientific and hostile to the conduct of one of the greatest drivers of innovation in America, which is our biopharma complex.
[00:06:49] Speaker A: Now, you talked about federal funding and also funding from the association. What is our relationship with the Alzheimer's association, ours being the Penn Memory Center? And when you talk about funding concerns, is that about funding from the association? From the federal government? From the federal government by way of the association, Dave?
[00:07:08] Speaker C: Well, you know, I think it's probably all of the above. So, I mean, I think, you know, we do receive a number of grants through the Alzheimer's association, and so that source is quite important. Generally, my understanding comes largely from philanthropy and fundraising that the Alzheimer's association does themselves. But the Alzheimer's association, you know, has also been an advocate around federal funding, you know, both in the US Actually throughout the world, and I think are appropriately trying to fight to maintain that, because the reality is, I think part of the momentum in the last few years, there's always a bit of a delay in this has been the 6, 7 time increase in federal funding from where it was about a decade ago in Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. And, you know, I think, as we've learned with HIV and cancer and even to some extent, Covid, when federal funds go into a particular scientific problem, there's lots of innovation and certainly in the United States and the sort of biomedical complex of academia and industry, that that funding starts to bring rewards and games. And I think we're seeing that in our field as well.
[00:08:27] Speaker B: The majority of our funding at the Memory center comes from the federal government, the nih, and that's been threatened. Grants been stopped, and we've got some of those restored. But even more vexing, frankly has been the grants we thought were going to get funded just can't seem to get notices of award. Moreover, the administration proposed a 40% cut in the NIH budget and a reorganization of NIH from its current X number of institutes down to nine, with the NIA being eliminated and turned into or transformed to the National Institute of Dementia.
Fortunately, bipartisan work by senators stood up against the 40% cut and the restructuring.
Still, though, the intrusion into the function of the NIH remains very frustrating. And the association, as David said, has been a fierce advocate for increasing the funding that NIH receives for Alzheimer's research.
[00:09:15] Speaker A: And you talked about sort of an arc of optimism leading up to this year, probably not exclusively, but most evidently through AIC and the results that were coming out of it. Could you each take an opportunity to talk through what some of those moments of optimism were after sort of the call to action of the first day?
[00:09:34] Speaker B: So, you know, I think, you know, to borrow from Lady Macbeth, it's blood. You know, I am just astounded at the pace of biomarker based discoveries, namely abilities to measure the pathophysiology of the diseases that cause dementia, Alzheimer's, Lewy body, TDP 43 in blood, spinal fluid through imaging techniques like MRI, PET, and therefore better characterize either whether the diagnoses are present, what the stage is, the pace of progression. And the number of posters, presentations, et cetera on various biomarker discoveries was really just sobering. I'll give you one example. I happened to be seated next to David at a session and what was really fun was that I kept on hearing about the Wolk criteria. Namely, David led a national effort to develop diagnostic criteria for limbic associated TDP encephalopathy, otherwise known as late, which is probably one of the most common causes of dementia as 75 plus year olds. And we don't have a biomarker right now to diagnose it like we do for Alzheimer's disease. But every session talked about Dave and a variety of different approaches using proteomics, for example, to come up with biomarker based signatures for TDP disease so that you can tell someone definitively that the cause of their cognitive impairments is tdp. So overall, in summary, you know, the pace of discoveries in the biomarker space, I think remain breathtaking and the impact on clinical care is really beginning to be felt. What about you, Dave? What did you take away?
[00:11:02] Speaker C: Yeah, I can't agree more. And I also have advocated quite strongly for more sessions to use my name as much as possible. So, yeah, no, I think blood biomarkers in particular are really advancing in this sort of dramatic way. I mean, I was amongst people who, I think was pretty skeptical about blood based biomarkers five years ago that we never really have a quote, unquote, blood test for Alzheimer's disease. And obviously within the last six months, there's now an FDA approve very, very sensitive blood tests for Alzheimer's disease. But what was, I think, really impressive at this meeting is just the growth and sort of building off of those achievements. So there are numerous other really promising biomarkers that take even these very, very good ones and actually are increasing their sort of sensitivity and specificity. So, like an example is we've been measuring these measures of phospho tau in the blood and there are these sort of newer generations of these measures which provide even greater precision, it looks like, than some of those measures that a year ago were astonishing in and of themselves. And I think, as Jason mentioned, I think twofold. I think there's a great deal of interest in capturing the heterogeneity of Alzheimer's disease, in particular with regard to its involvement with a variety of other pathologies like TDP43 and alpha synuclein, which is the protein that people often think of with Parkinson's disease and vascular disease. And these blood based biomarkers are really starting to get to a place where we are developing biofluid markers that can also link to those different pathologies as well. So we can really understand the biology of an individual patient at a particular stage of disease. I think the really incredible thing to be in this field, and I'm sure Jason agrees with me about this, is that how quickly our practices keep changing over very short periods of time. Whereas the first 16, 17 years of my career, there was really very little change in terms of how we practiced neurology in this space, or geriatrics or psychiatry. Now it's just every single six months. I feel like we're kind of changing the way we do things. And a lot of that's driven by research. And much of that AIC is the leading edge of.
[00:13:25] Speaker B: And one way that you saw this played out, I think most vividly in addition to the scientific sessions, was in what's called the exhibit hall. And the exhibit hall has two functions, really. Three.
One, it's where all the posters are shown. And at the center of the exhibit hall is where the various companies display their wares. It's also the space where they have lunches. So you go and pick up your lunch and sit down. Anyway, I was astounded at the. It's always been a fairly busy presence of industry sponsors, but this year it was really spectacular. And what was most interesting wasn't so much the presence of, quote, Big Pharma. Of course they were there, I don't have a problem with that. But what was most interesting was the plethora of companies in various stages of, dare I say, starting up, promoting a variety of different biomarker based diagnostics, a variety of different provocative therapeutics, et cetera, different ways of administering and analyzing tests of cognition. And so I just think it displayed kind of the pace of innovation that's happening and the translation into practice that's happening.
And it also displayed how what happens, courtesy of NIH funding has a direct link and impact and connection to, frankly, industry, in this case, you know, biopharma.
[00:14:41] Speaker C: The one thing I've been very struck by at AIC as well as actually at other meetings that I go to are sort of two things. One is at AIC in particular, the incredible growth in non us, non European individuals who participate in the conference and are, you know, really producing work and presentations and really great science. So it really has become much more global. But the other thing that I think is just incredibly impressive is the number of junior investigators and even trainees who are presenting at this meeting, either posters or even platform talks. Our group had, I think four or five platform talks from graduate students or postdocs that presented.
[00:15:30] Speaker B: I think we had about like 300 posters. I'm only partly joking. The name of posters that came out of our groups was pretty spectacular, you.
[00:15:37] Speaker C: Know, and it's just a truly exciting time for all these junior people who are doing amazing. I mean, the quality of the work coming out of young investigators right now again reflects the excitement in the field. People want to go into this field and so just the, the wealth of talent in the field has increased dramatically in the last five to 10 years. And again, a lot of that has to do with the funding, but also has to do with the successes the field people want to go into a field that's actually showing.
[00:16:07] Speaker B: I think you're pretty talented Dave, now.
[00:16:08] Speaker C: These, these young people are the. I might not have gotten a, gotten a job if they were, but I.
[00:16:15] Speaker B: Get a CV from an undergrad now. Like, you know, they've got two patents, a startup under their belt, they speak fluent Mandarin and you know, they're an accomplished pick. You're on niche sport, you know, and I'm like, I got a high school and cross country.
The big other bit of news, there's several, but I would say one other was the release of the results of the Poynter study. It stands for something, don't ask me. And essentially it was a randomized trial giving people who were plausibly cognitively unimpaired. I don't say plausibly they were, but at risk of developing cognitive impairment because of a variety of identified risk factors, particularly cardiovascular, sedentary lifestyle. And they randomized them to either get a fairly intensive lifestyle intervention, which I know sounds a little like patients pick your spa location, but you know, some things that have been sort of well described as, you know, probably putatively associated with good brain health, exercise, social engagement, a diet that is heart healthy, et cetera. And then a control group which got a little bit of something but not a lot. And I say that with a bit of a tinge because it wasn't just a sort of no intervention control group. They did get some degree of guidance, but not as intense as the intervention group. Anyway, bottom line, after 18 months, the group that got the intervention showed increased performance on their measures of cognition, as did the control group. But the group that got the intervention had a greater increase.
So it was a positive study, greater than chance. It's a study that's going to have a lot more data to look at, you know, was this any effect on disease processes, et cetera. But the bottom line was in some sense it reaffirmed what we've kind of known now from a variety of non randomized trials that there's something about lifestyle habits that seem to associate with good brain health should qualify that. There's one randomized trial that also tested this, namely the finger study, hence the play on this study, the pointer study, I'll Stop, which showed a similar result. And the association was very proud to sponsor this and they should be. I think the next step is, you know, scaling out this intervention in ways that are to make it more deliverable beyond the confines of a clinical trial. So, you know, it's a call to action for public health. It was probably the biggest release of therapy results, namely we didn't have any announcements of therapies that were ready for prescription, Though a lot of studies were discussed about therapies that were on their way towards definitive trials. But, Dave, what were your thoughts?
[00:18:35] Speaker C: Yeah, so. So I. I mean, I think Poynter is an important study in it, supporting, as. As you said, Jason, that a lot of these lifestyle interventions, activities have in the past had a fair bit of more retrospective support for. And to show it in a clinical trial, I think is really encouraging. It means that now when I tell my patients to exercise more, eat better, and take care of their cardiovascular health, even more weight behind me. On the other hand, I think it also stresses the fact that maybe more structured ways of delivering that message might be helpful for people moving forward. And, you know, my mind has always supported the idea that the better you treat your body and brain, the more likely you're going to do better as you live, whether or not it completely shocking.
[00:19:28] Speaker B: What a shock.
[00:19:29] Speaker C: I know. It's like, you know, I mean, you know, people who are unhealthy tend to, you know, not do as well. And. And so I think.
[00:19:36] Speaker B: I think a lot of these. It's a good example, though, of a study which, you know, I. I know what I'm going to say sounds critical, but it's not, which is. Clinical trials are times for multiple reasons that are legitimate. One of them is to provide data that reaches a level of proof that something, quote, works. But another is to provide a kind of message that allows people to be motivated to do something. And, you know, and the message here was, you know, if you put together these lifestyle interventions into a sort of an organized package, it seems to make a difference as opposed to just sort of public service announcements and things that say you should do these things.
I think the message of the study could be one that actually could resonate in our current political environment where there's an effort to make America more healthy. And it could possibly be the kind of study that could kind of bridge some of the political divides that surround, you know, what we should do at a national level to promote health. I don't think anyone, regardless of politics, would disagree with the interventions that were taken and done in the Poynter study. So the question is just mustering the political will to pay for them.
[00:20:42] Speaker A: I'd say just to expand on that. Beyond taking care of your heart with, you know, the cardiovascular exercise and the foods you're eating, it seemed that this conference also focused on your community in terms of environmental factors.
[00:20:55] Speaker B: Yeah. One of the Poitier interventions was a frequent group gathering to discuss and motivate the group. But yeah, there were other studies that came out looking at the impact. This was not a randomized trial, but you know, access to food nutrition programs, what's their long term benefit to those who have long term access compared to those who don't? Maybe the SNAP program don't ask what it stands for, but it stands for something. And persons who were regular participants in SNAP had overall better cognitive performance than persons who weren't. That's the non randomized design. And I don't know what the fate of SNAP is under the current revisions that have been made to Medicaid and related programs.
[00:21:31] Speaker C: But yeah, sort of pivoting a little bit. You know, in addition to Poynter and you mentioned earlier, Jason, a lack of, you know, any other big clinical trial news. I do think, as you said, there were some really, really promising data that came out with other therapeutic avenues that may offer either some improvements with regard to what our current anti amyloid therapies are, and I can talk about one in a second, as well as other mechanisms that there's a lot of work going on right now trying to study and trials moving along that target different aspects of the biology of Alzheimer's disease.
[00:22:17] Speaker B: Which ones impressed you, Dave?
[00:22:19] Speaker C: Yeah, so the one that I think in the anti amyloid range that we've seen some of this data before, they presented a little bit more is the trontinumab study, which is a new version of one of the anti amyloid drugs that has a design on it, a special molecule that allows it to operate as a quote unquote brain shuttle, so it can move into the brain across what people refer to as the blood brain barrier, which prevents many medicines from getting into the brain much more easily than the medicines that we currently give like lecanemab and tenantumab, where we actually have to give an extremely high dose of antibodies to get those antibodies into the brain.
And trontinumab actually is a version of a drug earlier that had failed called Naramab that did show clearance of amyloid, but relatively slowly over time. And there's at least some reason to believe, and I think there's, there's data to support it, that more robust clearance of amyloid seems to be where we see clinical benefit. And with this shuttle, I think two really remarkable things came out. They showed more data in individuals taking the doses that they found to be most potent and really remarkably, by 50 or 60 days of taking these drugs, individuals, many of them are amyloid negative at that point. And by six months, over 90% of them are amyloid negative on a PET scan, which is just a much, much more rapid clearance. Then in addition, I think on the other side of it is that they also had very, very low rates of aria. You know, the big risk of these drugs in terms of brain swelling or fluid and these microhemorrhages, the levels were quite, quite remarkably low with the drug.
And actually when it did occur, it was very mild. And so I, to me, I actually one, I think the drug itself is very promising. That might be much easier for people to take because it clears the brain much more quickly than these other drugs and might be also safer. But I think it represents also the fact that the initial salvo of lecanemab and donanemab, even within anti amyloid therapies, is really just the first drugs to come out that I think we will improve on these drugs with regard to safety and how they're delivered. And so it was quite, it was quite exciting.
[00:24:50] Speaker B: So, David, question for you, and this is truly a question because one that I don't have the answer to. So it's not a rhetorical question, which is, have you seen data, either MAIC or elsewhere that allow us to now say, what is the mechanism that's going on when amyloid's cleared by that? I mean, you know, is it the plaques being removed, the toxic oligomers, something else? And behind this question, of course, is a hidden question and I'll reveal it. So it's no longer hidden, which is, you know, what's the surrogate? You know, is the surrogate just clear the plaques and that's good enough. But actually that's a surrogate of a surrogate. It's really the toxic oligomers or something else. Have you seen data that kind of settle that question, or are we still kind of figuring that out?
[00:25:34] Speaker C: Yeah, no, I think it is. It is a good question. I don't think that that, you know, really is clearly adjudicated based on the data. I mean, in some ways you could think of lecanemab and donanemab as offering two different thoughts on that issue in that both of them clear amyloid pretty robustly. And so amyloid plaque levels are quite low. But donanemab targets just the plaques, maybe by targeting those plaques, you know, they're sort of pulling in and reducing oligomers in the brain. Whereas lecanemab is a bit noisier of a medicine in that it targets multiple amyloid species, but including these sort of more soluble forms of amyloid. And so There are two different approaches. With lecanemab, the argument is to continue to treat over time even after you've cleared amyloid. With donatmab, the argument is because it's only targeting these plaques, you can stop the medicine.
And both drugs showed more long term data from their populations that, you know, the trials themselves were 18 months, but then they move into these so called open label periods where they continue to follow patients on the drug and all the people on the placebo arm also are allowed to take the drug at that point. So these are no longer placebo controlled trials. And so you always have to take that with a grain of salt. But in fact, in more than one population this was done in both showed continued accrual of benefit. Over the next one study, I can't remember which one was up to three years and the other was up to four years after starting treatment, where the difference between the treated group and now this sort of historical placebo seemed to increase over time at a rate kind of consistent with what the difference was in the 18 months. You can take that with a grain of salt. But the reality is in that case you could say, well, maybe, you know, since Donanemab isn't giving continuous treatment, maybe clearing amyloid and having a level below being amyloid positive itself is all you need to do.
Because those results seem very similar to what was seen with lecanemab where it was continued, but we just don't know.
[00:27:44] Speaker B: Yeah, and that I think gets at the sort of, you know, what's next? And there's a lot of things that are next, but I think one of them is what I hope doesn't become the, what I used to call the cholinesterase inhibitor wars, which was back when, you know, intercept Rivastigmine and galantamine were the drugs, you know, which one's better. Was this endless and I think almost to the point of absurd discussion debate. I hope we don't engage in the anti amyloid wars, namely which one is, quote, better.
But I think the next studies need to be done. And this is again a role for, you know, the federal government, the association organizations that don't have, you know, a legitimate stake in the game of ownership to try to settle the question of in what combination, over what time, what of these drugs should be given. You know, having said that, the pace of innovations is such that, you know, maybe these drugs will be historical because the more efficient ways to deliver through shuttles, et cetera, that David talked about will put these drugs into the rearview mirror, I think. That if I had to look forward, you know, I think that the question of which drug, for how long, I'd rather have that debate than not, but it will be a debate. And the reason why I'd rather have that debate than not was before that debate there was nothing to offer people, as David pointed out, other than palliative therapies for cognitive symptoms and mood problems and mood disorders. So, so I think that's a going to be a topic of continuing discussion. I bet when we get together in London, I think that'll have heated up a bit when we meet.
[00:29:05] Speaker A: We're just about out of time, but I did want to get to that London next year, about 11 months from now. I'm sure you'll both be there. And maybe not 300 posters out of pen, but quite a few. Are there other, any other sort of key highlights that you'll be looking for? Is there anything that you think the public isn't thinking about that'll play a role in 2026?
[00:29:26] Speaker C: Well, first of all, I will be there because I have the pleasure of co chairing the AIC next year and actually the next two years so giving my role on the scientific program committee.
So I, I will need to be there and I'm very happy to, to be there and honored to, to have that role.
Yeah. I think one thing that I hope to see more of and I think actually we didn't talk about it, but I really think another exciting area from this year's AIC was the beginning of more real world data, including data in anti amyloid therapy patients. So people who are receiving these drugs in a more sort of systematic way to get a better sense of how they work. Our group led by Chris Brown, did a study where we looked at basically models of how we predict people to change over time versus how they actually change in the context of anti amyloid therapies.
And we're starting to see signal of that the drugs were having a benefit in those patients. Because one of the big challenges with these drugs is you can't compare someone to themselves off the drug.
[00:30:29] Speaker B: You could make an AI avatar that exists in space, cyberspace. Oh, go on.
[00:30:35] Speaker C: Anyway, to be honest, there actually are people who are developing these AI based, you know, control placebo individuals. But in essence that is sort of what we're doing there, which is to basically model the expected change versus the actual change since you don't have the counterfactual. And I think there'll be more studies like that, more studies looking at all these different new measures that are starting to really translate into real world populations. Because ultimately and especially now that there are, you know, we have our foothold now with therapies really bringing this research much, much more quickly into practice becomes a real priority. So I hope to see more of that, obviously hope to see some more data for trials that are completing around that time because I think there, there likely will be a couple that we'll, we'll see at that point as well.
[00:31:29] Speaker B: Yeah. So when I look forward a year from now roughly in London, I think the thing that I'm most excited about is and really looking forward to is to see Dave dancing at the evening dance party that they hold.
So that pretty much is what I'm kind of waiting for.
[00:31:46] Speaker C: I will guarantee you that that's actually not going to happen, so you will not get to see that. But I. An avatar of me to do that.
[00:31:56] Speaker B: Yeah, exactly. Dave's avatar.
It is interesting. The association hosts a reception I was unable to attend this year and they also host a dance party as well. The last couple of years I also was unable to attend the dance party. I, I was taking some adult ballet classes at the National Ballet of Canada, which I will say if you are ever in Toronto, the best place that I have yet to find and pace Philadelphia Ballet is National Ballet of Canada's adult ballet classes. They were awesome, so I highly recommend them.
All right, very cool.
[00:32:28] Speaker A: Well, thank you so much, both of you. I appreciate your time and your efforts at AAIC and of course back here at the University of Pennsylvan.
Looking forward to hearing about all these advancements in science and Dave's dancing next year.
[00:32:41] Speaker C: Thank you.
[00:32:42] Speaker B: Thank you, Terry.
[00:32:48] Speaker A: Thanks for listening to this episode of the Age of Aging. The Age of Aging podcast is supported by the Penn Memory center, the University of Pennsylvania Alzheimer's Disease Research center, the Institute on Aging and the Penn MC FTD Center.
Contributors include myself and Jake Johnson, as well as Nicolette Calcavecchia, Dalia El Said, Jason Karlewish, Emily Largent and Megan Sharp. More information on the stories you heard today can be found in our show Notes and on our website, penmemorycenter.org.
