Alzheimer's just had two drugs approved by the FDA for treating the disease. They're certainly not a cure, they only slow the onset of symptoms by removing plaques from the brain. The underlying factors that cause the buildup of plaques still aren't well understood.
That said, I would still put much more hope in the research into well-defined, specific diseases such as Alzheimer's than I would into aging or longevity research.
There are several reasons for this. First, the absolute bedrock foundation of all of medicine is human trials. There is no substitute for actually trying drugs in humans and seeing what happens. These human trials are possible (albeit extremely expensive and difficult) to run for drugs targeting specific diseases. They are functionally impossible to run for "aging". What would the trial test? Just all-cause mortality? That would be an impossibly noisy target, and almost guaranteed to fail. Not to mention that the trial would have to last an incredibly long time to test any benefit for younger people. No funding agency and certainly no drug company is going to take that bet.
The second reason is that aging is a property of the entire organism. Like, every gene and every cell is affected by aging. It's simply impossible that any one gene or one drug is going to have a significant effect on aging. Drug development is currently entirely oriented towards targeting individual genes and proteins. The reason for this is that targeting even one protein with a drug stretches the limit of our technological abilities. Two drug combinations are relatively rare and are typically limited to diseases like cancer that have well characterized causes at the molecular level. This is not the case for aging. Again, aging isn't well enough defined to even pick a specific gene that "causes" it.
But for ALS sadly there is like nothing, absolutely nothing meaningful. My country doesn't even allow assisted suicide so your option is basically to go to Switzerland or degenerate here and die when you cannot breath anymore.
I am by no means expert in this area, but there are some epigenetic aging clocks that are based on some machine learning models, and supposedly they somehow show your "true" biological age and predict death quite accurately. GrimAge, epiage etc. Sometimes I have wanted to take that test but haven't bothered.
That said, I would still put much more hope in the research into well-defined, specific diseases such as Alzheimer's than I would into aging or longevity research.
There are several reasons for this. First, the absolute bedrock foundation of all of medicine is human trials. There is no substitute for actually trying drugs in humans and seeing what happens. These human trials are possible (albeit extremely expensive and difficult) to run for drugs targeting specific diseases. They are functionally impossible to run for "aging". What would the trial test? Just all-cause mortality? That would be an impossibly noisy target, and almost guaranteed to fail. Not to mention that the trial would have to last an incredibly long time to test any benefit for younger people. No funding agency and certainly no drug company is going to take that bet.
The second reason is that aging is a property of the entire organism. Like, every gene and every cell is affected by aging. It's simply impossible that any one gene or one drug is going to have a significant effect on aging. Drug development is currently entirely oriented towards targeting individual genes and proteins. The reason for this is that targeting even one protein with a drug stretches the limit of our technological abilities. Two drug combinations are relatively rare and are typically limited to diseases like cancer that have well characterized causes at the molecular level. This is not the case for aging. Again, aging isn't well enough defined to even pick a specific gene that "causes" it.