A more precise diagnosis by means of amyloid PET contributes to delayed institutionalization, lower mortality, and reduced care costs in a tertiary memory clinic setting

The Association of Ancillary Diagnostic Tests With Outcome in Dementia

OBJECTIVES

Dementia is a clinical diagnosis without curative treatment. It is uncertain whether ancillary testing is beneficial for patients. This study investigates the association between use of diagnostic tests and time to poor outcome and health care costs.

DESIGN

Nationwide register-based cohort study using health care reimbursement data in the Netherlands.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

All Dutch hospitals, including 13,312 patients diagnosed with dementia in 2018.

METHODS

Diagnostic testing included computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging (CT/MRI), neuropsychological examination (NPE), nuclear imaging (PET/SPECT), electroencephalography (EEG), and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) testing. We compared time to poor outcome (institutionalization or death) and costs per month from 2018 to 2021 between those who underwent a specific diagnostic test in previous years to controls, propensity score matched for age, sex, type of hospital, and comorbidity.

RESULTS

Time to poor outcome in those who underwent CT/MRI, EEG, or CSF testing was similar to those who did not, but was longer for those who underwent NPE. Time to poor outcome was shorter in patients who underwent PET/SPECT. Patients who underwent CSF testing or PET/SPECT had higher mean total health care costs as compared to controls (CSF €248, 95% CI 64-433; PET/SPECT: €315, 95% CI 179-451). NPE during the diagnostic trajectory was associated with lower total health care cost (-€127, 95% CI -62, -193).

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

NPE was associated with longer time to poor outcome and lower health care costs, potentially due to confounding by indication. Patients who underwent neuroimaging (CT, MRI, SPECT/PET), CSF testing, or EEG for dementia diagnostics did not experience a longer time to poor outcome or lower health care costs. This emphasizes the importance of clinical examination as anchor for the diagnosis of dementia.

Use of a Blood Biomarker Test Improves Economic Utility in the Evaluation of Older Patients Presenting with Cognitive Impairment

More than 16 million Americans living with cognitive impairment warrant a diagnostic evaluation to determine the cause of this disorder. The recent availability of disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer's disease (AD) is expected to significantly drive demand for such diagnostic testing. Accurate, accessible, and affordable methods are needed. Blood biomarkers (BBMs) offer advantages over usual care amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers in these regards. This study used a budget impact model to assess the economic utility of the PrecivityAD® blood test, a clinically validated BBM test for the evaluation of brain amyloid, a pathological hallmark of AD. The model compared 2 scenarios: (1) baseline testing involving usual care practice, and (2) early use of a BBM test before usual care CSF and PET biomarker use. At a modest 40% adoption rate, the BBM test scenario had comparable sensitivity and specificity to the usual care scenario and showed net savings in the diagnostic work-up of $3.57 million or $0.30 per member per month in a 1 million member population, translating to over $1B when extrapolated to the US population as a whole and representing a 11.4% cost reduction. Savings were driven by reductions in the frequency and need for CSF and PET testing. Additionally, BBM testing was associated with a cost savings of $643 per AD case identified. Use of the PrecivityAD blood test in the clinical care pathway may prevent unnecessary testing, provide cost savings, and reduce the burden on both patients and health plans.

Use of a digital tool to support the diagnostic process in memory clinics-a usability study

BACKGROUND

Both memory clinic professionals and patients see value in digital tools, yet these hardly find their way to clinical practice. We explored the usability of a digital tool to support the diagnostic work-up in daily memory clinic practice. We evaluated four modules that integrate multi-modal patient data (1.cognitive test; cCOG, and 2. MRI quantification; cMRI) into useful diagnostic information for clinicians (3. cDSI) and understandable and personalized information for patients (4. patient report).

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods study in five Dutch memory clinics. Fourteen clinicians (11 geriatric specialists/residents, two neurologists, one nurse practitioner) were invited to integrate the tool into routine care with 43 new memory clinic patients. We evaluated usability and user experiences through quantitative data from questionnaires (patients, care partners, clinicians), enriched with thematically analyzed qualitative data from interviews (clinicians).

RESULTS

We observed wide variation in tool use among clinicians. Our core findings were that clinicians: 1) were mainly positive about the patient report, since it contributes to patient-centered and personalized communication. This was endorsed by patients and care partners, who indicated that the patient report was useful and understandable and helped them to better understand their diagnosis, 2) considered the tool acceptable in addition to their own clinical competence, 3) indicated that the usefulness of the tool depended on the patient population and purpose of the diagnostic process, 4) addressed facilitators (ease of use, practice makes perfect) and barriers (high workload, lack of experience, data unavailability).

CONCLUSION

This multicenter usability study revealed a willingness to adopt a digital tool to support the diagnostic process in memory clinics. Clinicians, patients, and care partners appreciated the personalized diagnostic report. More attention to education and training of clinicians is needed to utilize the full functionality of the tool and foster implementation in actual daily practice. These findings provide an important step towards a lasting adoption of digital tools in memory clinic practice.

Association between results of an amyloid PET scan and healthcare utilization in individuals with cognitive impairment

BACKGROUND

The Imaging Dementia Evidence for Amyloid Scanning (IDEAS) study reports that amyloid PET scans help providers diagnose and manage Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). Using CARE-IDEAS, an IDEAS supplemental study, we examined the association between amyloid PET scan result (elevated or non-elevated amyloid), patient characteristics, and participant healthcare utilization.

METHODS

We linked respondents in CARE-IDEAS study to their Medicare fee-for-service records (n = 1333). We examined participants' cognitive impairment-related, outpatient, emergency department (ED), and inpatient encounters in the year before compared with the 2 years after the amyloid PET scan.

RESULTS

Individuals with a non-elevated amyloid scan had more healthcare encounters throughout the overall study period than those with an elevated amyloid scan. Regardless of the amyloid scan result, cognitive impairment-related and outpatient encounters overall decreased, but ED and inpatient encounters increased in the 2 years after the scan compared with the year prior. There was minimal evidence of differences in healthcare utilization between participants with an elevated and non-elevated amyloid scan.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no difference in change in healthcare utilization between people with scans showing elevated and non-elevated beta-amyloid.

Protocol for the Tallaght University Hospital Institute for Memory and Cognition-Biobank for Research in Ageing and Neurodegeneration

INTRODUCTION

Alzheimer's disease and other dementias affect >50 million individuals globally and are characterised by broad clinical and biological heterogeneity. Cohort and biobank studies have played a critical role in advancing the understanding of disease pathophysiology and in identifying novel diagnostic and treatment approaches. However, further discovery and validation cohorts are required to clarify the real-world utility of new biomarkers, facilitate research into the development of novel therapies and advance our understanding of the clinical heterogeneity and pathobiology of neurodegenerative diseases.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Tallaght University Hospital Institute for Memory and Cognition Biobank for Research in Ageing and Neurodegeneration (TIMC-BRAiN) will recruit 1000 individuals over 5 years. Participants, who are undergoing diagnostic workup in the TIMC Memory Assessment and Support Service (TIMC-MASS), will opt to donate clinical data and biological samples to a biobank. All participants will complete a detailed clinical, neuropsychological and dementia severity assessment (including Addenbrooke's Cognitive Assessment, Repeatable Battery for Assessment of Neuropsychological Status, Clinical Dementia Rating Scale). Participants undergoing venepuncture/lumbar puncture as part of the clinical workup will be offered the opportunity to donate additional blood (serum/plasma/whole blood) and cerebrospinal fluid samples for longitudinal storage in the TIMC-BRAiN biobank. Participants are followed at 18-month intervals for repeat clinical and cognitive assessments. Anonymised clinical data and biological samples will be stored securely in a central repository and used to facilitate future studies concerned with advancing the diagnosis and treatment of neurodegenerative diseases.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been granted by the St. James's Hospital/Tallaght University Hospital Joint Research Ethics Committee (Project ID: 2159), which operates in compliance with the European Communities (Clinical Trials on Medicinal Products for Human Use) Regulations 2004 and ICH Good Clinical Practice Guidelines. Findings using TIMC-BRAiN will be published in a timely and open-access fashion.

Impact of sharing Alzheimer's disease biomarkers with individuals without dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of empirical data

INTRODUCTION

We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of empirical evidence on expected and experienced implications of sharing Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarker results with individuals without dementia.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, APA PsycInfo, and Web of Science Core Collection were searched according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Results from included studies were synthesized, and quantitative data on psychosocial impact were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

We included 35 publications. Most personal stakeholders expressed interest in biomarker assessment. Learning negative biomarker results led to relief and sometimes frustration, while positive biomarkers induced anxiety but also clarity. Meta-analysis of five studies including 2012 participants (elevated amyloid = 1324 [66%], asymptomatic = 1855 [92%]) showed short-term psychological impact was not significant (random-effect estimate = 0.10, standard error = 0.23, P = 0.65). Most professional stakeholders valued biomarker testing, although attitudes and practices varied considerably.

DISCUSSION

Interest in AD biomarker testing was high and sharing their results did not cause psychological harm.

HIGHLIGHTS

Most personal stakeholders expressed interest in Alzheimer's disease biomarker assessment. Personal motivations included gaining insight, improving lifestyle, or preparing for the future. There was no short-term psychological impact of sharing biomarker status, implying it can be safe. Most professional stakeholders valued biomarker testing, believing the benefits outweigh the risk. Harmonized guidelines on biomarker testing and sharing results are required.

How healthy participants value additional diagnostic testing with amyloid-PET in patients diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment - a bidding game experiment

BACKGROUND

To estimate the perceived value of additional testing with amyloid-PET in Euros in healthy participants acting as analogue patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI).

METHODS

One thousand four hundred thirty-one healthy participants acting as analogue MCI patients (mean age 65 ± 8, 929 (75%) female) were recruited via the Dutch Brain Research Registry. Participants were asked to identify with a presented case (video vignette) of an MCI patient and asked whether they would prefer additional diagnostic testing with amyloid PET in this situation. If yes, respondents were asked how much they would be willing to pay for additional diagnostic testing. Monetary value was elicited via a bidding game in which participants were randomized over three conditions: (A) additional testing results in better patient management, (B) Same as condition A and a delay in institutionalization of 3 months, and (C) same as A and a delay in institutionalization of 6 months. Participants who were not willing to take a test were compared with participants who were willing to take a test using logit models. The highest monetary value per condition was analyzed using random-parameter mixed models.

RESULTS

The vast majority of participants acting as analogue MCI patients (87% (n = 1238)) preferred additional testing with amyloid PET. Participants who were not interested were more often female (OR = 1.61 95% CI [1.09-2.40]) and expressed fewer worries to get AD (OR = 0.64 [0.47-0.87]). The median "a priori" (i.e., before randomization) monetary value of additional diagnostic testing was €1500 (IQR 500-1500). If an additional amyloid PET resulted in better patient management (not further specified; condition A), participants were willing to pay a median price of €2000 (IQR = 1000-3500). Participants were willing to pay significantly more than condition A (better patient management) if amyloid-PET testing additionally resulted in a delay in institutionalization of 3 months (€530 [255-805] on top of €2000, condition B) or 6 months (€596 [187-1005] on top of €2000, condition C).

CONCLUSIONS

Members of the general population acting as MCI patients are willing to pay a substantial amount of money for amyloid-PET and this increases when diagnostic testing leads to better patient management and the prospect to live longer at home.

Clinical outcomes up to 9 years after [18F]flutemetamol amyloid-PET in a symptomatic memory clinic population

BACKGROUND

Previous studies demonstrated increases in diagnostic confidence and change in patient management after amyloid-PET. However, studies investigating longitudinal outcomes over an extended period of time are limited. Therefore, we aimed to investigate clinical outcomes up to 9 years after amyloid-PET to support the clinical validity of the imaging technique.

METHODS

We analyzed longitudinal data from 200 patients (Mage = 61.8, 45.5% female, MMMSE = 23.3) suspected of early-onset dementia that underwent [18F]flutemetamol-PET. Baseline amyloid status was determined through visual read (VR). Information on mortality was available with a mean follow-up of 6.7 years (range = 1.1-9.3). In a subset of 108 patients, longitudinal cognitive scores and clinical etiological diagnosis (eDx) at least 1 year after amyloid-PET acquisition were available (M = 3.06 years, range = 1.00-7.02). VR - and VR + patients were compared on mortality rates with Cox Hazard's model, prevalence of stable eDx using chi-square test, and longitudinal cognition with linear mixed models. Neuropathological data was available for 4 patients (mean delay = 3.59 ± 1.82 years, range = 1.2-6.3).

RESULTS

At baseline, 184 (92.0%) patients were considered to have dementia. The majority of VR + patients had a primary etiological diagnosis of AD (122/128, 95.3%), while the VR - group consisted mostly of non-AD etiologies, most commonly frontotemporal lobar degeneration (30/72, 40.2%). Overall mortality rate was 48.5% and did not differ between VR - and VR + patients. eDx at follow-up was consistent with baseline diagnosis for 92/108 (85.2%) patients, with most changes observed in VR - cases (VR -  = 14/35, 40% vs VR +  = 2/73, 2.7%, χ2 = 26.03, p < 0.001), who at no time received an AD diagnosis. VR + patients declined faster than VR - patients based on MMSE (β =  - 1.17, p = 0.004), episodic memory (β =  - 0.78, p = 0.003), fluency (β =  - 1.44, p < 0.001), and attention scores (β = 16.76, p = 0.03). Amyloid-PET assessment was in line with post-mortem confirmation in all cases; two cases were VR + and showed widespread AD pathology, while the other two cases were VR - and showed limited amyloid pathology.

CONCLUSION

In a symptomatic population, we observed that amyloid-status did not impact mortality rates, but is predictive of cognitive functioning over time across several domains. Also, we show particular validity for a negative amyloid-PET assessment, as these patients did not receive an AD diagnosis at follow-up.

Amyloid Positron Emission Tomography and Subsequent Health Care Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Mild Cognitive Impairment or Dementia

Importance

Results of amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) have been shown to change the management of patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia who meet Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC).

Objective

To determine if amyloid PET is associated with reduced hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits over 12 months in patients with MCI or dementia.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This nonrandomized controlled trial analyzed participants in the Imaging Dementia-Evidence for Amyloid Scanning (IDEAS) study, an open-label, multisite, longitudinal study that enrolled participants between February 2016 and December 2017 and followed up through December 2018. These participants were recruited at 595 clinical sites that provide specialty memory care across the US. Eligible participants were Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older with a diagnosis of MCI or dementia within the past 24 months who met published AUC for amyloid PET. Each IDEAS study participant was matched to a control Medicare beneficiary who had not undergone amyloid PET. Data analysis was conducted on December 13, 2022.

Exposure

Participants underwent amyloid PET at imaging centers.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end points were the proportions of patients with 12-month inpatient hospital admissions and ED visits. One of 4 secondary end points was the rate of hospitalizations and rate of ED visits in participants with positive vs negative amyloid PET results. Health care use was ascertained from Medicare claims data.

Results

The 2 cohorts (IDEAS study participants and controls) each comprised 12 684 adults, including 6467 females (51.0%) with a median (IQR) age of 77 (73-81) years. Over 12 months, 24.0% of the IDEAS study participants were hospitalized, compared with 25.1% of the matched control cohort, for a relative reduction of -4.49% (97.5% CI, -9.09% to 0.34%). The 12-month ED visit rates were nearly identical between the 2 cohorts (44.8% in both IDEAS study and control cohorts) for a relative reduction of -0.12% (97.5% CI, -3.19% to 3.05%). Both outcomes fell short of the prespecified effect size of 10% or greater relative reduction. Overall, 1467 of 6848 participants (21.4%) with positive amyloid PET scans were hospitalized within 12 months compared with 1081 of 4209 participants (25.7%) with negative amyloid PET scans (adjusted odds ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89).

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this nonrandomized controlled trial showed that use of amyloid PET was not associated with a significant reduction in 12-month hospitalizations or ED visits. Rates of hospitalization were lower in patients with positive vs negative amyloid PET results.

Patient-related benefits of amyloid PET imaging in dementia: Rationale and design of the German randomized coverage with evidence development study ENABLE

The utility of amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) for the etiological diagnosis of dementia and its impact on functional status of patients in routine care are currently unclear. Here, we describe the design of ENABLE, a randomized controlled two-armed coverage with evidence development (CED) study in Germany. Approximately 1126 patients with mild to moderate dementia of unclear etiology will be randomly assigned to either an amyloid PET or a no amyloid PET group. Patients will be followed-up for 24 months. The study has been registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00030839) with the registration code DRKS00030839. The primary endpoint of ENABLE is the ability to perform functional activities of daily living at 18 months. Secondary endpoints include change in diagnosis, diagnostic confidence, and cognitive and clinical outcomes of patients. We expect that the CED study ENABLE will inform about patient relevant effects of amyloid PET in routine care. Furthermore, we anticipate that ENABLE will support physicians' and payers' decisions on provision of health care for patients with dementia.

HIGHLIGHTS

Study design focuses on the usefulness of amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) in routine care.Study design addresses the patient-relevant effect of amyloid PET.Patient representatives were involved in the creation of the study design.The study will help improve routine care for people with dementia.

Rationale and design of the ABOARD project (A Personalized Medicine Approach for Alzheimer's Disease)

The key to stopping Alzheimer's disease (AD) lies in the pre-dementia stages, with the goal to stop AD before dementia has started. We present the rationale and design of the ABOARD (A Personalized Medicine Approach for Alzheimer's Disease) project, which aims to invest in personalized medicine for AD. ABOARD is a Dutch public-private partnership of 32 partners, connecting stakeholders from a scientific, clinical, and societal perspective. The 5-year project is structured into five work packages on (1) diagnosis, (2) prediction, (3) prevention, (4) patient-orchestrated care, and (5) communication and dissemination. ABOARD functions as a network organization in which professionals interact cross-sectorally. ABOARD has a strong junior training program "Juniors On Board." Project results are shared with society through multiple communication resources. By including relevant partners and involving citizens at risk, patients, and their care partners, ABOARD builds toward a future with personalized medicine for AD.

Highlights

ABOARD (A Personalized Medicine Approach for Alzheimer's Disease) is a public-private research project executed by 32 partners that functions as a network organization.Together, the project partners build toward a future with personalized medicine for Alzheimer's disease.Although ABOARD is a Dutch consortium, it has international relevance.ABOARD improves diagnosis, prediction, prevention, and patient-orchestrated care.