Search

Dementias are expensive diseases: the net annual cost in European healthcare is about € 28.000 per case with a strong stage dependency, of which medical care accounts for about 19%. Diagnostic costs, on the other hand, account for only a small proportion of the total costs. With changes in the guidelines, biomarker tests are becoming increasingly important. At present, the concrete economic impact of biomarker-based diagnosis is largely unknown. To determine the actual costs of diagnostic procedures based on guidelines, we conducted a survey among the members of the German Memory Clinic Network (DNG). From 15 expert centres, the staff engagement time for all procedures was collected. Based on the individual engagement times of the different professions, the total of personnel costs for diagnostics was calculated using current gross personnel costs. The total sum of diagnostic costs (personnel plus procedures) was calculated for three different scenarios e. g. € 633,97 for diagnostics without biomarkers, € 1.214,90 for diagnostics with CSF biomarkers and € 4.740,58 € for diagnostics with FDG- plus Amyloid-PET. In addition, the actual diagnostic costs of the current practice in expert memory clinics were estimated, taking into account personnel costs, costs for the different procedures and the frequency of their use across all patients. This results in total average costs of € 1.394,43 per case as the mean across all centres (personnel costs € 351,72, costs for diagnostic procedures € 1.042,71). The results show that state-of-the-art diagnosis of dementia and pre-dementia states, such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI) requires financial resources, which are currently not fully reimbursed in Germany. The need for a biomarker-based etiological diagnosis of dementia and pre-dementia states will increase, due to availability of disease-modifying treatments. Therefore, the current gap of reimbursement must be filled by new models of compensation., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Parkinson's disease (PD) is the second most common neurodegenerative disorder and is further associated with progressive cognitive decline. In respect to motor phenotype, there is some evidence that akinetic-rigid PD is associated with a faster rate of cognitive decline in general and a greater risk of developing dementia.The objective of this study was to examine cognitive profiles among patients with PD by motor phenotypes and its relation to cognitive function., Methods: Demographic, clinical and neuropsychological cross-sectional baseline data of the DEMPARK/LANDSCAPE study, a multicentre longitudinal cohort study of 538 patients with PD were analysed, stratified by motor phenotype and cognitive syndrome. Analyses were performed for all patients and for each diagnostic group separately, controlling for age, gender, education and disease duration., Results: Compared with the tremor-dominant phenotype, akinetic-rigid patients performed worse in executive functions such as working memory (Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised backward; p=0.012), formal-lexical word fluency (p=0.043), card sorting (p=0.006), attention (Trail Making Test version A; p=0.024) and visuospatial abilities (Leistungsprüfungssystem test 9; p=0.006). Akinetic-rigid neuropsychological test scores for the executive and attentive domain correlated negatively with non-tremor motor scores. Covariate-adjusted binary logistic regression analyses showed significant odds for PD-mild cognitive impairment for not-determined as compared with tremor-dominant (OR=3.198) and akinetic-rigid PD (OR=2.059). The odds for PD-dementia were significant for akinetic-rigid as compared with tremor-dominant phenotype (OR=8.314)., Conclusion: The three motor phenotypes of PD differ in cognitive performance, showing that cognitive deficits seem to be less severe in tremor-dominant PD. While these data are cross-sectional, longitudinal data are needed to shed more light on these differential findings., Competing Interests: Competing interests: GD has received lecture fees from Boston Scientific and has been serving as a consultant for Boston Scientific. He received royalties from Thieme Publishers. He is a government employee and receives through his institution funding for his research from the German Research Council, the German Ministry of Education and Research, and Medtronic. KW received reimbursement of congress fees from BIAL and Desitin; and grants from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the German Research Foundation., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)