| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Morris, J. C., et al.
(author)
-
Harmonized diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease: recommendations
- 2014
-
In: Journal of Internal Medicine. - : Wiley. - 0954-6820 .- 1365-2796. ; 275:3, s. 204-213
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BackgroundTwo major sets of criteria for the clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) recently have been published, one from an International Working Group (IWG) and the other from working groups convened by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the Alzheimer's Association (AA) in the United States. These criteria both aim to support a clinical diagnosis with in vivo evidence of AD pathology, using imaging methods and detection of biofluid biomarkers, and emphasize an aetiological diagnosis even in the prodromal stages of the disorder. Nonetheless, there are substantial differences in these two sets of criteria. MethodsAn international group of investigators with experience in the clinical diagnosis of AD met at the Key Symposium in Stockholm, Sweden on 6 & 7 December 2012, to develop recommendations to harmonize these criteria. The group was led by individuals who were integral to the development of both the IWG and the NIA-AA criteria. The similarities and differences between the two sets of criteria were identified and open discussion focused on ways to resolve the differences and thus yield a harmonized set of criteria. ResultsBased on both published evidence as well as the group's collective clinical experience, the group was tasked with achieving consensus, if not unanimity, as it developed recommendations for harmonized clinical diagnostic criteria for AD. ConclusionThe recommendations are to: (i) define AD as a brain disorder, regardless of clinical status; (ii) refer to the clinically expressed disorder, including its prodromal stages, as symptomatic AD; (iii) after the successful completion of standardization efforts, consider incorporating biomarkers into diagnostic algorithms for AD; and (iv) allow nonamnestic, atypical presentations to be included as symptomatic AD, especially when there is supportive biomarker evidence.
|
|
| 8. |
- Vermunt, L., et al.
(author)
-
Duration of preclinical, prodromal, and dementia stages of Alzheimer's disease in relation to age, sex, and APOE genotype
- 2019
-
In: Alzheimers & Dementia. - : Wiley. - 1552-5260 .- 1552-5279. ; 15:7, s. 888-898
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Introduction: We estimated the age-specific duration of the preclinical, prodromal, and dementia stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and the influence of sex, setting, apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype, and cerebrospinal fluid tau on disease duration. Methods: We performed multistate modeling in a combined sample of 6 cohorts (n = 3268) with death as the end stage and estimated the preclinical, prodromal, and dementia stage duration. Results: The overall AD duration varied between 24 years (age 60) and 15 years (age 80). For individuals presenting with preclinical AD, age 70, the estimated preclinical AD duration was 10 years, prodromal AD 4 years, and dementia 6 years. Male sex, clinical setting, APOE epsilon 4 allele carriership, and abnormal cerebrospinal fluid tau were associated with a shorter duration, and these effects depended on disease stage. Discussion: Estimates of AD disease duration become more accurate if age, sex, setting, APOE, and cerebrospinal fluid tau are taken into account. This will be relevant for clinical practice and trial design. (C) 2019 the Alzheimer's Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 9. |
- Wimo, A, et al.
(author)
-
An economic evaluation of donepezil in mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease: results of a 1-year, double-blind, randomized trial
- 2003
-
In: Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders. - : S. Karger AG. - 1420-8008 .- 1421-9824. ; 15:1, s. 44-54
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The costs and consequences of donepezil versus placebo treatment in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease (AD) were evaluated as part of a 1-year prospective, double-blind, randomized, multinational clinical trial. Patients received either donepezil (n = 142; 5 mg/day for 28 days followed by 10 mg/day according to the clinician’s judgement) or placebo (n = 144). Unit costs were assessed in 1999 Swedish kronas (SEK) and converted to US dollars (USD). Donepezil-treated patients gained functional benefits relative to placebo on the Progressive Deterioration Scale (p = 0.042) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living scale (p = 0.025) at week 52. Caregivers of donepezil-treated patients spent an average of 400 h less annually providing care than caregivers of placebo-treated patients. Mean annual healthcare costs were SEK 137,752 (USD 16,438) per patient for the donepezil group and SEK 135,314 (USD 16,147) in the placebo group. With the average annual cost of donepezil at SEK 10,723 (USD 1,280) per patient, the SEK 2,438 (USD 291) cost difference represented a 77% cost offset. When caregiver time and healthcare costs were included, mean annual costs were SEK 209,244 (USD 24,969) per patient in the donepezil group and SEK 218,434 (USD 26,066) in the placebo group, a total saving associated with donepezil treatment of SEK 9,190 (USD 1,097) per patient [95% CI of SEK –43,959 (USD –5,246), SEK 25,581 (USD 3,053); p = 0.6]. The positive effects on the efficacy outcome measures combined with no additional costs from a societal perspective indicate that donepezil is a cost-effective treatment, representing an improved strategy for the management of patients with AD.
|
|
| 10. |
- Winblad, B, et al.
(author)
-
3-year study of donepezil therapy in Alzheimer's disease: effects of early and continuous therapy
- 2006
-
In: Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders. - : S. Karger AG. - 1420-8008 .- 1421-9824. ; 21:5-6, s. 353-363
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Delays in the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease, and, therefore, delays in treatment, may have a detrimental effect on a patient’s long-term well-being. This studyassessed the effects of postponing donepezil treatment for 1 year by comparing patients treated continuously for 3 years with those who received placebo for 1 year followed by open-label donepezil for 2 years. Patients (n = 286) with possible or probable Alzheimer’s disease (according to DSM-IV, NINCDS-ADRDA, and Mini-Mental State Examination criteria; see text) were randomized to receive donepezil (5 mg/day for 4 weeks, 10 mg/day thereafter) or placebo (delayed-start group) for 1 year. Of the 192 completers, 157 began a 2-year, open-label phase of donepezil treatment. Outcome measures were the Gottfries-Bråne-Steen scale, the Mini-Mental State Examination, the Global Deterioration Scale, the Progressive Deterioration Scale, the Neuropsychiatric Inventory, and safety (adverse events). Mixed regression analysis was used to compare changes between the groups over 3 years on the efficacy measures. There was a trend for patients receiving continuous therapy to have less global deterioration (Gottfries-Bråne-Steen scale) than those who had delayed treatment (p = 0.056). Small but statistically significant differences between the groups were observed for the secondary measures of cognitive function (Mini-Mental State Examination; p<i> = </i>0.004) and cognitive and functional abilities (Global Deterioration Scale; p = 0.0231) in favor of continuous donepezil therapy. Over 90% of the patients in both cohorts experienced one treatment-emergent adverse event; most were considered mild or moderate. In conclusion, patients in whom the start of treatment is delayed may demonstrate slightly reduced benefits as compared with those seen in patients starting donepezil therapy early in the course of Alzheimer’s disease. These data support the long-term efficacy and safety of donepezil.
|
|
