Search

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a highly prevalent condition and its prevalence is expected to further increase due to the aging of the general population. It is obvious that the diagnosis of AD has implications for driving. Finally, driving discussions are also emotionally charged because driving is associated with independence and personal identity. However, it is not clear how to implement this in clinical practice and the Belgian law on driving is rather vague in its referral to neurodegenerative brain diseases in general nor does it provide clear-cut instructions for dementia or AD compared to for example driving for patients with epilepsy and as such does not prove to be very helpful. The present article reviews what is known from both literature and existing guidelines and proposes a consensus recommendation tailored to the Belgian situation agreed by both AD experts and the Belgian Road Safety Institute endorsed by the Belgian Medical Association. It is concluded that the decision about driving fitness should be considered as a dynamic process where the driving fitness is assessed and discussed early after diagnosis and closely monitored by the treating physician. The diagnosis of AD on itself definitely does not imply the immediate and full revocation of a driving license nor does it implicate a necessary referral for a formal on-road driving assessment. There is no evidence to recommend a reduced exposure or a mandatory co-pilot. A MMSE-based framework to trichotomise AD patients as safe, indeterminate or unsafe is presented. The final decision on driving fitness can only be made after careful history taking and clinical examination, neuropsychological, functional and behavioral evaluation and, only for selected cases, a formal assessment of driving performance., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

We conducted a survey regarding the medical care of patients with dementia in expert settings in Belgium. Open, unrestricted and motivated answers were centralized, blindly interpreted and structured into categories. The report of the results was then submitted to the participants in subsequent plenary meetings and through email. Fourteen experts responded to the questionnaire, confirming that recent propositions to modify Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnostic criteria and options have stirred up debate among well-informed and dedicated experts in the field. The opinions were not unanimous and illustrate how difficult it is to find a standardized method of diagnosing this disease. The responses to the survey suggest that application of a step-by-step pragmatic method is used in practice. Only when the combination of clinical findings and classical structural neuro-imaging is insufficient for a diagnosis or suggests an atypical presentation, additional biomarkers are considered. Interestingly, few differences, if any, were observed between the use of biomarkers in MCI and in AD. In conclusion, the Belgian experts consulted in this survey were generally in agreement with the new diagnostic criteria for AD, although some concern was expressed about them being too "amyloidocentric". Although the clinical examination, including a full neuropsychological evaluation, is still considered as the basis for diagnosis, most experts also stated that they use biomarkers to help with diagnosis.

We conducted a survey regarding the medical care of patients with dementia in expert settings in Belgium. Open, unrestricted and motivated answers were centralized, blindly interpreted and structured into categories. The report of the results was then submitted to the participants in subsequent plenary meetings and through email. Fourteen experts responded to the questionnaire, confirming that recent propositions to modify Alzheimer’s disease (AD) diagnostic criteria and options have stirred up debate among well-informed and dedicated experts in the field. The opinions were not unanimous and illustrate how difficult it is to find a standardized method of diagnosing this disease. The responses to the survey suggest that application of a step-by-step pragmatic method is used in practice. Only when the combination of clinical findings and classical structural neuro-imaging is insufficient for a diagnosis or suggests an atypical presentation, additional biomarkers are considered. Interestingly, few differences, if any, were observed between the use of biomarkers in MCI and in AD. In conclusion, the Belgian experts consulted in this survey were generally in agreement with the new diagnostic criteria for AD, although some concern was expressed about them being too “amyloidocentric”. Although the clinical examination, including a full neuropsychological evaluation, is still considered as the basis for diagnosis, most experts also stated that they use biomarkers to help with diagnosis., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published