Search

Objectives: The implementation of disease‐modifying treatments for Alzheimer's Disease (AD) will require cost‐effective diagnostic processes. As part of The Precision Medicine In AD consortium (PMI‐AD) project, the aim is to analyze the baseline costs of diagnosing early AD at memory clinics in Norway, Slovenia, and the Netherlands. Methods: The costs of cognitive testing and a clinical examination, apolipoprotein E, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), positron emission tomography and blood‐based biomarkers (BBM), which are used in different combinations in the three countries, were analyzed. Standardized unit costs, adjusted for GDP per capita and based on Swedish conditions were applied. The costs were expressed in euros (€) as of 2019. A diagnostic set comprising clinical examination, cognitive testing, MRI and CSF was defined as the gold standard, with MRI mainly used as an exclusion filter. Results: Cost data were available for 994 persons in Norway, 169 in Slovenia and 1015 in the Netherlands. The mean diagnostic costs were 1478 (95% confidence interval 1433–1523) € in Norway, 851 (731–970) € in Slovenia and 1184 (1135–1232) € in the Netherlands. Norway had the highest unit costs but also the greatest use of tests. With a uniform diagnostic test set applied, the diagnostic costs were 1264 (1238–1291) €, in Norway, 843 (771–914) € in Slovenia and 1184 (1156–1213) € in the Netherlands. There were no major cost differences between the final set of diagnoses. Conclusions: The total costs for setting a diagnosis of AD varied somewhat in the three countries, depending on unit costs and use of tests. These costs are relatively low in comparison to the societal costs of AD. Key points: The introduction of blood‐based biomarkers for detecting Alzheimer's Disease (AD) can change the diagnostic process.Given the expected demands for treatment of cognitive disorders such as AD, the costs and capacity of the diagnostic work‐up are of great importance for care funders and planners.Our study incorporating diagnostic costs from three distinct European regions provides valuable inputs for cost‐effectiveness studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives:To identify caregiver profiles of persons with mild to moderate dementia and to investigate differences between identified caregiver profiles, using baseline data of the international prospective cohort study Actifcare. Methods:A latent class analysis was used to discover different caregiver profiles based on disease related characteristics of 453 persons with dementia and their 453 informal caregivers. These profiles were compared with regard to quality of life (CarerQoL score), depressive symptoms (HADS-D score) and perseverance time. Results:A 5-class model was identified, with the best Bayesian Information Criterion value, significant likelihood ratio test (p< 0.001), high entropy score (0.88) and substantive interpretability. The classes could be differentiated on two axes: (i) caregivers' age, relationship with persons with dementia, severity of dementia, and (ii) tendency towards stress and difficulty adapting to stress. Classes showed significant differences with all dependent variables, and were labelled ‘older low strain’, ‘older intermediate strain’, ‘older high strain’, ‘younger low strain’ and ‘younger high strain’. Conclusion:Differences exist between types of caregivers that explain variability in quality of life, depressive symptoms and perseverance time. Our findings may give direction for tailored interventions for caregivers of persons with dementia, which may improve social health and reduce health care costs. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: There is growing interest in geriatric care for community-dwelling older people. There are, however, relatively few reports on the economics of this type of care. This article reports about the cost-effectiveness of the Dutch Geriatric Intervention Program (DGIP) compared to usual care in frail older people at 6-month follow-up from a health care system's point of view., Methods: We conducted this economic evaluation in an observer-blind randomized controlled trial (Dutch EASYcare Study: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00105378). Difference in treatment effect was calculated as the difference in proportions of successfully treated patients (prevented functional decline accompanied by improved well-being). Incremental treatment costs were calculated as the difference in mean total care costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was expressed as total cost per successful treatment. Bootstrap methods were used to determine confidence intervals (CI) for these measures., Results: The average cost of the intervention under study (DGIP) was 998 euros (95% CI, 888-1108). The increment in total cost resulting from DGIP was a little over 761 euros (-3336 to 4687). Hospitalization and institutionalization costs were less; home care, adult day care, and meals-on-wheels costs were higher. There was a significant difference in proportions of successful treatments of 22.3% (4.3-41.4). The number needed to treat was approximately 4.7 (2.3-18.0). The ICER is 3418 euros per successful treatment (-21,458 to 45,362). The new treatment is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of 34,000 euros., Conclusion: The results of this economic evaluation suggest that DGIP is an effective addition to primary care for frail older people at a reasonable cost.