Assessment of the appropriate use criteria for amyloid PET in an unselected memory clinic cohort: The ABIDE project

Computerized decision support is an effective approach to select memory clinic patients for amyloid-PET

BACKGROUND

The use of amyloid-PET in dementia workup is upcoming. At the same time, amyloid-PET is costly and limitedly available. While the appropriate use criteria (AUC) aim for optimal use of amyloid-PET, their limited sensitivity hinders the translation to clinical practice. Therefore, there is a need for tools that guide selection of patients for whom amyloid-PET has the most clinical utility. We aimed to develop a computerized decision support approach to select patients for amyloid-PET.

METHODS

We included 286 subjects (135 controls, 108 Alzheimer's disease dementia, 33 frontotemporal lobe dementia, and 10 vascular dementia) from the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort, with available neuropsychology, APOE, MRI and [18F]florbetaben amyloid-PET. In our computerized decision support approach, using supervised machine learning based on the DSI classifier, we first classified the subjects using only neuropsychology, APOE, and quantified MRI. Then, for subjects with uncertain classification (probability of correct class (PCC) < 0.75) we enriched classification by adding (hypothetical) amyloid positive (AD-like) and negative (normal) PET visual read results and assessed whether the diagnosis became more certain in at least one scenario (PPC≥0.75). If this was the case, the actual visual read result was used in the final classification. We compared the proportion of PET scans and patients diagnosed with sufficient certainty in the computerized approach with three scenarios: 1) without amyloid-PET, 2) amyloid-PET according to the AUC, and 3) amyloid-PET for all patients.

RESULTS

The computerized approach advised PET in n = 60(21%) patients, leading to a diagnosis with sufficient certainty in n = 188(66%) patients. This approach was more efficient than the other three scenarios: 1) without amyloid-PET, diagnostic classification was obtained in n = 155(54%), 2) applying the AUC resulted in amyloid-PET in n = 113(40%) and diagnostic classification in n = 156(55%), and 3) performing amyloid-PET in all resulted in diagnostic classification in n = 154(54%).

CONCLUSION

Our computerized data-driven approach selected 21% of memory clinic patients for amyloid-PET, without compromising diagnostic performance. Our work contributes to a cost-effective implementation and could support clinicians in making a balanced decision in ordering additional amyloid PET during the dementia workup.

cCOG Web-Based Cognitive Assessment Tool

Cognitive testing is an essential part of clinical diagnostics and clinical trials in Alzheimer's disease. Digital cognitive tests hold a great opportunity to provide more versatile and cost-efficient patient pathways through flexible testing including at home. In this work, we describe a web-based cognitive test, cCOG, that can be used in screening, differential diagnosis, and monitoring the progression of neurodegenerative diseases.

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 Effect of Early vs Late Amyloid Positron Emission Tomography in Memory Clinic Patients: The AMYPAD-DPMS Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) allows the direct assessment of amyloid deposition, one of the main hallmarks of Alzheimer disease. However, this technique is currently not widely reimbursed because of the lack of appropriately designed studies demonstrating its clinical effect.

Objective

To assess the clinical effect of amyloid PET in memory clinic patients.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The AMYPAD-DPMS is a prospective randomized clinical trial in 8 European memory clinics. Participants were allocated (using a minimization method) to 3 study groups based on the performance of amyloid PET: arm 1, early in the diagnostic workup (within 1 month); arm 2, late in the diagnostic workup (after a mean [SD] 8 [2] months); or arm 3, if and when the managing physician chose. Participants were patients with subjective cognitive decline plus (SCD+; SCD plus clinical features increasing the likelihood of preclinical Alzheimer disease), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or dementia; they were assessed at baseline and after 3 months. Recruitment took place between April 16, 2018, and October 30, 2020. Data analysis was performed from July 2022 to January 2023.

Intervention

Amyloid PET.

Main Outcome and Measure

The main outcome was the difference between arm 1 and arm 2 in the proportion of participants receiving an etiological diagnosis with a very high confidence (ie, ≥90% on a 50%-100% visual numeric scale) after 3 months.

Results

A total of 844 participants were screened, and 840 were enrolled (291 in arm 1, 271 in arm 2, 278 in arm 3). Baseline and 3-month visit data were available for 272 participants in arm 1 and 260 in arm 2 (median [IQR] age: 71 [65-77] and 71 [65-77] years; 150/272 male [55%] and 135/260 male [52%]; 122/272 female [45%] and 125/260 female [48%]; median [IQR] education: 12 [10-15] and 13 [10-16] years, respectively). After 3 months, 109 of 272 participants (40%) in arm 1 had a diagnosis with very high confidence vs 30 of 260 (11%) in arm 2 (P < .001). This was consistent across cognitive stages (SCD+: 25/84 [30%] vs 5/78 [6%]; P < .001; MCI: 45/108 [42%] vs 9/102 [9%]; P < .001; dementia: 39/80 [49%] vs 16/80 [20%]; P < .001).

Conclusion and Relevance

In this study, early amyloid PET allowed memory clinic patients to receive an etiological diagnosis with very high confidence after only 3 months compared with patients who had not undergone amyloid PET. These findings support the implementation of amyloid PET early in the diagnostic workup of memory clinic patients.

Trial Registration

EudraCT Number: 2017-002527-21.

Amyloid PET ordering practices in a memory disorders clinic

Introduction

This study assessed the ordering of amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) scans in a Veterans Affairs (VA) memory disorders clinic as part of routine clinical care, with possible implications for the extent to which ordering may occur outside of the VA in the future if covered by insurance.

Methods

Clinical features predictive of ordering amyloid PET scans were retrospectively assessed; the percentage of patients who met appropriate use criteria were evaluated.

Results

Among 565 veterans, 34.9% of received an amyloid PET scan and 98.0% of these were consistent with appropriate use criteria. Patients with a PET were younger and more likely to have an initial diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Of patients without an amyloid PET scan ordered, 64.4% would have met appropriate use criteria for amyloid PET.

Discussion

The majority of scans ordered were consistent with appropriate use criteria and more patients were eligible than received a scan. The current study's findings that approximately one-third of patients in a memory disorders clinic received an amyloid PET scan has implications for memory disorders clinics inside and outside of the US Veterans Health Administration.

Incremental diagnostic value of 18F-Fluetemetamol PET in differential diagnoses of Alzheimer's Disease-related neurodegenerative diseases from an unselected memory clinic cohort

To evaluate the incremental diagnostic value of 18F-Flutemetamol PET following MRI measurements on an unselected prospective cohort collected from a memory clinic. A total of 84 participants was included in this study. A stepwise study design was performed including initial analysis (based on clinical assessments), interim analysis (revision of initial analysis post-MRI) and final analysis (revision of interim analysis post-18F-Flutemetamol PET). At each time of evaluation, every participant was categorized into SCD, MCI or dementia syndromal group and further into AD-related, non-AD related or non-specific type etiological subgroup. Post 18F-Flutemetamol PET, the significant changes were seen in the syndromal MCI group (57%, p < 0.001) involving the following etiological subgroups: AD-related MCI (57%, p < 0.01) and non-specific MCI (100%, p < 0.0001); and syndromal dementia group (61%, p < 0.0001) consisting of non-specific dementia subgroup (100%, p < 0.0001). In the binary regression model, amyloid status significantly influenced the diagnostic results of interim analysis (p < 0.01). 18F-Flutemetamol PET can have incremental value following MRI measurements, particularly reflected in the change of diagnosis of individuals with unclear etiology and AD-related-suspected patients due to the role in complementing AD-related pathological information.

Should Doctors Offer Biomarker Testing to Those Afraid to Develop Alzheimer's Dementia? : Applying the Method of Reflective Equilibrium for a Clinical Dilemma

An increasing number of people seek medical attention for mild cognitive symptoms at older age, worried that they might develop Alzheimer's disease. Some clinical practice guidelines suggest offering biomarker testing in such cases, using a brain scan or a lumbar puncture, to improve diagnostic certainty about Alzheimer's disease and enable an earlier diagnosis. Critics, on the other hand, point out that there is no effective Alzheimer treatment available and argue that biomarker tests lack clinical validity. The debate on the ethical desirability of biomarker testing is currently polarized; advocates and opponents tend to focus on their own line of arguments. In this paper, we show how the method of reflective equilibrium (RE) can be used to systematically weigh the relevant arguments on both sides of the debate to decide whether to offer Alzheimer biomarker testing. In the tradition of RE, we reflect upon these arguments in light of their coherence with other argumentative elements, including relevant facts (e.g. on the clinical validity of the test), ethical principles, and theories on societal ideals or relevant concepts, such as autonomy. Our stance in the debate therefore rests upon previously set out in-depth arguments and reflects a wide societal perspective.

The Framing of "Alzheimer's Disease": Differences Between Scientific and Lay Literature and Their Ethical Implications

Background and Objectives

The meaning of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is changing in research. It now refers to a pathophysiological process, regardless of whether clinical symptoms are present. In the lay literature, on the other hand, AD is understood as a form of dementia. This raises the question of whether researchers and the lay audience are still talking about the same thing. If not, how will these different understandings of AD shape perspectives on (societal) needs for people with AD?

Research Design and Methods

We use framing analysis to retrieve the understandings of the term AD that are upheld in the research literature and in national Dutch newspaper articles. We make explicit how the framings of AD steer our normative attitudes toward the disease.

Results

In the analyzed research articles, AD is framed as a pathological cascade, reflected by biomarkers, starting in cognitively healthy people and ending, inevitably, in dementia. In the lay literature, AD is used as a synonym for dementia, and an AD diagnosis is understood as an incentive to enjoy “the time that is left.”

Discussion and Implications

The two different uses of the term AD in research and in the lay literature may result in misunderstandings, especially those research framings that falsely imply that people with AD biomarkers will inevitably develop dementia. Adoption of the research understanding of AD in clinical practice will have normative implications for our view on priority setting in health care. For example, it legitimizes biomarker testing in people without dementia as improving “diagnostic” certainty.

A neurologist's perspective on serum neurofilament light in the memory clinic: a prospective implementation study

Background

Neurofilament light in serum (sNfL) is a biomarker for axonal damage with elevated levels in many neurological disorders, including neurodegenerative dementias. Since within-group variation of sNfL is large and concentrations increase with aging, sNfL’s clinical use in memory clinic practice remains to be established. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the clinical use of serum neurofilament light (sNfL), a cross-disease biomarker for axonal damage, in a tertiary memory clinic cohort.

Methods

Six neurologists completed questionnaires regarding the usefulness of sNfL (n = 5–42 questionnaires/neurologist). Patients that visited the Alzheimer Center Amsterdam for the first time between May and October 2019 (n = 109) were prospectively included in this single-center implementation study. SNfL levels were analyzed on Simoa and reported together with normal values in relation to age, as part of routine diagnostic work-up and in addition to cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarker analysis.

Results

SNfL was perceived as useful in 53% (n = 58) of the cases. SNfL was more often perceived as useful in patients < 62 years (29/48, 60%, p = 0.05) and males (41/65, 63%, p < 0.01). Availability of CSF biomarker results at time of result discussion had no influence. We observed non-significant trends for increased perceived usefulness of sNfL for patients with the diagnosis subjective cognitive decline (64%), psychiatric disorder (71%), or uncertain diagnosis (67%). SNfL was mostly helpful to neurologists in confirming or excluding neurodegeneration. Whether sNfL was regarded as useful strongly depended on which neurologist filled out the questionnaire (ranging from 0 to 73% of useful cases/neurologist).

Discussion

Regardless of the availability of CSF biomarker results, sNfL was perceived as a useful tool in more than half of the evaluated cases in a tertiary memory clinic practice. Based on our results, we recommend the analysis of the biomarker sNfL to confirm or exclude neurodegeneration in patients below 62 years old and in males.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13195-021-00841-4.

Heterogeneity of Amyloid Binding in Cognitively Impaired Patients Consecutively Recruited from a Memory Clinic: Evaluating the Utility of Quantitative 18F-Flutemetamol PET-CT in Discrimination of Mild Cognitive Impairment from Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementias

BACKGROUND

With the more widespread use of 18F-radioligand-based amyloid-β (Aβ) PET-CT imaging, we evaluated Aβ binding and the utility of neocortical 18F-Flutemetamol standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) as a biomarker.

OBJECTIVE

18F-Flutemetamol SUVR was used to differentiate 1) mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from Alzheimer's disease (AD), and 2) MCI from other non-AD dementias (OD).

METHODS

109 patients consecutively recruited from a University memory clinic underwent clinical evaluation, neuropsychological test, MRI and 18F-Flutemetamol PET-CT. The diagnosis was made by consensus of a panel consisting of 1 neuroradiologist and 2 geriatricians. The final cohort included 13 subjective cognitive decline (SCD), 22 AD, 39 MCI, and 35 OD. Quantitative analysis of 16 region-of-interests made by Cortex ID software (GE Healthcare).

RESULTS

The global mean 18F-Flutemetamol SUVR in SCD, MCI, AD, and OD were 0.50 (SD-0.08), 0.53 (SD-0.16), 0.76 (SD-0.10), and 0.56 (SD-0.16), respectively, with SUVR in SCD and MCI and OD being significantly lower than AD. Aβ binding in SCD, MCI, and OD was heterogeneous, being 23%, 38.5%, and 42.9% respectively, as compared to 100% amyloid positivity in AD. Using global SUVR, ROC analysis showed AUC of 0.868 and 0.588 in differentiating MCI from AD and MCI from OD respectively.

CONCLUSION

18F-Flutemetamol SUVR differentiated MCI from AD with high efficacy (high negative predictive value), but much lower efficacy from OD. The major benefit of the test was to differentiate cognitively impaired patients (either SCD, MCI, or OD) without AD-related-amyloid-pathology from AD in the clinical setting, which was under-emphasized in the current guidelines proposed by Amyloid Imaging Task Force.

Amyloid PET imaging in clinical practice

Amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) imaging enables in vivo detection of brain Aβ deposition, one of the neuropathological hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease. There is increasing evidence to support its clinical utility, with major studies showing that amyloid PET imaging improves diagnostic accuracy, increases diagnostic certainty and results in therapeutic changes. The Amyloid Imaging Taskforce has developed appropriate use criteria to guide clinicians by predefining certain scenarios where amyloid PET would be justified. This review provides a practical guide on how and when to use amyloid PET, based on the available research and our own experience. We discuss its three main appropriate indications and illustrate these with clinical cases. We stress the importance of a multidisciplinary approach when deciding who might benefit from amyloid PET imaging. Finally, we highlight some practical points and common pitfalls in its interpretation.

[Early detection of Alzheimer's disease and dementia prediction in patients with mild cognitive impairment : Summary of current recommendations]

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is characterized by cognitive deficits but essentially preserved competence in activities of daily living. It is a risk factor for the development of dementia and can reflect a prodromal predementia state of Alzheimer's disease (AD). The pathology of AD is defined by cerebral deposition of amyloid-beta-1-42 protein and aggregation of phosphorylated tau protein, which can be identified in vivo by biomarkers for these alterations. As a result of advances in the field of biomarker-based early detection of AD, it is possible to differentiate between MCI patients with and without a pathological AD condition and therefore, between patients with a low and those with a high risk for the development of dementia. At present there are no specific guideline recommendations in Germany for the diagnostic use of biomarkers in predementia detection of AD and for dementia risk assessment in patients with MCI. This article summarizes the current recommendations of a European expert consensus publication and a multidisciplinary working group of the Alzheimer's Association on the clinical application of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers for the diagnostics of AD in patients with MCI. If the clinical diagnostic criteria for MCI are fulfilled according to the medical history and neuropsychological testing, it is recommended to carry out further diagnostics (blood test, brain imaging) in order to more precisely define the differential diagnostic classification. Counseling on the potential benefits, limits and risks of biomarker testing for early AD detection and dementia risk prediction should always precede assessment of CSF biomarkers. Information about the individual risk of developing dementia has potential consequences for the psychological well-being and life planning; therefore, clinical follow-up visits are recommended.

Appropriate use criteria for dementia amyloid imaging in Switzerland - mini-review and statement on behalf of the Swiss Society of Nuclear Medicine and the Swiss Memory Clinics

While FDG-PET imaging of the brain for the differential diagnosis of dementia has been covered by the compulsory health insurance in Switzerland for more than a decade, beta-amyloid-PET just recently has been added to the catalogue of procedures that have been cleared for routine use, provided that a set of appropriate use criteria (AUC) be followed. To provide guidance to dementia care practitioners, the Swiss Society of Nuclear Medicine and the Swiss Memory Clinics jointly report a mini-review on beta-amyloid-PET and discuss the AUC set into effect by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, as well as their application and limitations.

Initial Physician Experience with [18F]Flutemetamol Amyloid PET Imaging Following Availability for Routine Clinical Use in Japan

Background:

Brain amyloid is a neuropathological hallmark of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). By visualizing brain amyloid, positron emission tomography (PET) may influence the diagnostic assessment and management of patients with cognitive impairment.

Objective:

As part of a Japanese post-approval study to measure the safety of [¹⁸F]flutemetamol PET, the association of amyloid PET results with changes in diagnosis and diagnostic confidence was assessed.

Methods:

Fifty-seven subjects were imaged for amyloid PET using [¹⁸F]flutemetamol at a single Japanese memory clinic. The cognitive diagnosis and referring physician’s confidence in the diagnosis were recorded before and after availability of PET results. Imaging started approximately 90 minutes after [¹⁸F]flutemetamol administration with approximately 185 MBq injected. PET images were acquired for 30 minutes.

Results:

Amyloid PET imaging led to change in diagnosis in 15/44 clinical subjects (34%). Mean diagnostic confidence increased by approximately 20%, from 73% pre-scan to 93% post-scan, and this rise was fairly consistent across the main patient subgroups (mild cognitive impairment, AD, and non-AD) irrespective of the pre-scan diagnosis and scan result.

Conclusion:

The study examined the utility of amyloid PET imaging in a Japanese clinical cohort and highlighted the use of an etiological diagnosis in the presence of the amyloid scan. [¹⁸F]Flutemetamol PET led to a change in diagnosis in over 30% of cases and to an increase in diagnostic confidence by approximately 20% consistent with other reports.

Understanding multifactorial brain changes in type 2 diabetes: a biomarker perspective

People with type 2 diabetes are at an increased risk of cognitive impairment and dementia (including Alzheimer's disease), as well as subtle forms of cognitive dysfunction. Current diabetes guidelines recommend screening for cognitive impairment in groups at high risk and providing guidance for diabetes management in patients with diabetes and cognitive impairment. Yet, no disease-modifying treatment is available and important questions remain about the mechanisms underlying diabetes-associated cognitive dysfunction. These mechanisms are likely to be multifactorial and different for subtle and more severe forms of diabetes-associated cognitive dysfunction. Over the past years, research on dementia, brain ageing, diabetes, and vascular disease has identified novel biomarkers of specific dementia aetiologies, brain parenchymal injury, and cerebral blood flow and metabolism. These markers shed light on the processes underlying diabetes-associated cognitive dysfunction, have clear applications in current research and increasingly in clinical diagnosis, and might ultimately guide targeted treatment.

Psychosocial Effects of Corona Measures on Patients With Dementia, Mild Cognitive Impairment and Subjective Cognitive Decline

Background: The recent COVID-19 pandemic is not only a major healthcare problem in itself, but also poses enormous social challenges. Though nursing homes increasingly receive attention, the majority of people with cognitive decline and dementia live at home. We aimed to explore the psychosocial effects of corona measures in memory clinic (pre-)dementia patients and their caregivers. Methods: Between April 28th and July 13th 2020, n = 389 patients of Alzheimer center Amsterdam [n = 121 symptomatic (age = 69 ± 6, 33%F, MMSE = 23 ± 5), n = 268 cognitively normal (age = 66 ± 8, 40% F, MMSE = 29 ± 1)] completed a survey on psychosocial effects of the corona measures. Questions related to social isolation, worries for faster cognitive decline, behavioral problems and discontinuation of care. In addition, n = 147 caregivers of symptomatic patients completed a similar survey with additional questions on caregiver burden. Results: Social isolation was experienced by n = 42 (35%) symptomatic and n = 67 (25%) cognitively normal patients and two third of patients [n = 129 (66%); n = 58 (75%) symptomatic, n = 71 (61%) cognitively normal] reported that care was discontinued. Worries for faster cognitive decline were existed in symptomatic patients [n = 44 (44%)] and caregivers [n = 73 (53%)], but were also reported by a subgroup of cognitively normal patients [n = 27 (14%)]. Both patients [n = 56 (46%) symptomatic, n = 102 (38%) cognitively normal] and caregivers [n = 72 (48%)] reported an increase in psychological symptoms. More than three quarter of caregivers [n = 111(76%)] reported an increase in patients' behavioral problems. A higher caregiver burden was experienced by n = 69 (56%) of caregivers and n = 43 (29%) of them reported that a need for more support. Discontinuation of care (OR = 3.3 [1.3-7.9]), psychological (OR = 4.0 [1.6-9.9]) and behavioral problems (OR = 3.0 [1.0-9.0]) strongly related to experiencing a higher caregiver burden. Lastly, social isolation (OR = 3.2 [1.2-8.1]) and psychological symptoms (OR = 8.1 [2.8-23.7]) were red flags for worries for faster cognitive decline. Conclusion: Not only symptomatic patients, but also cognitively normal patients express worries for faster cognitive decline and psychological symptoms. Moreover, we identified patients who are at risk of adverse outcomes of the corona measures, i.e., discontinued care, social isolation, psychological and behavioral problems. This underlines the need for health care professionals to provide ways to warrant the continuation of care and support (informal) networks surrounding patients and caregivers to mitigate the higher risk of negative psychosocial effects.