Real-world diagnosis and management of mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease dementia in the United Kingdom

Objectives Early diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and mild Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia is crucial for effective disease management and optimizing patient outcomes. We sought to better understand the MCI and mild AD dementia medical journey from the perspective of patients, care partners, and physicians. Methods We conducted online surveys in the United States among patients/care partners and physicians in 2021. Results 103 patients with all-cause MCI or mild AD dementia aged 46–90 years, 150 care partners for someone with all-cause MCI or mild AD dementia, and 301 physicians (101 of which were primary care physicians, [PCPs]) completed surveys. Most patient/care partners reported that experiencing forgetfulness (71%) and short-term memory loss (68%) occurred before talking to a healthcare professional. Most patients (73%) followed a common medical journey, in which the initial discussion with a PCP took place 15 months after symptom onset. However, only 33% and 39% were diagnosed and treated by a PCP, respectively. Most (74%) PCPs viewed themselves as coordinators of care for their patients with MCI and mild AD dementia. Over one-third (37%) of patients/care partners viewed PCPs as the care coordinator. Conclusions PCPs play a vital role in the timely diagnosis and treatment of MCI and mild AD dementia but often are not considered the care coordinator. For the majority of patients, the initial discussion with a PCP took place 15 months after symptom onset; therefore, it is important to educate patients/care partners and PCPs on MCI and AD risk factors, early symptom recognition, and the need for early diagnosis and treatment. PCPs could improve patient care and outcomes by building their understanding of the need for early AD diagnosis and treatment and improving the efficiency of the patient medical journey by serving as coordinators of care.

Medical Journey of Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment and Mild Alzheimer's Disease Dementia: A Cross-sectional Survey of Patients, Care Partners, and Neurologists.

BackgroundAn Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnosis made in the earliest symptomatic stages substantially benefits patients and their care partners. However, little is known regarding the clinical, healthcare system-level, and patient-specific barriers that hinder timely diagnosis and treatment.ObjectiveTo explore real-world practices surrounding the diagnostic journey and management of mild cognitive impairment (MCI)/AD dementia patients.MethodsData were drawn from Adelphi Real World Dementia Disease Specific Programme™, a cross-sectional survey of physicians treating MCI/AD dementia patients in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Japan between 2022 and 2024.ResultsOverall, 779 physicians reported data on 5551 patients. Physicians indicated current disease severity for 5421 patients; 37.2% had MCI (87.3% with suspected prodromal AD and 12.7% undetermined etiology), 17.2% AD with mild dementia, 31.1% AD with moderate dementia, and 14.5% AD with severe dementia. When not immediately diagnosed, the median time from first consultation to initial diagnosis was 8.9 and 12.6 weeks when patients first consulted and were diagnosed by either a primary care practitioner (PCP) or a specialist, respectively, compared with 21.6 weeks when a PCP referred to a specialist for diagnosis. Diagnostic delays were predominantly due to specialist wait times. Few patients had diagnostic AD biomarker tests (cerebrospinal fluid testing 9.5%, amyloid positron emission tomography 3.7%, AD-blood tests 5.3%).ConclusionsTimely MCI and AD diagnosis is impeded by referral delays and limited use of biomarker testing. Addressing these critical care gaps requires enhanced physician training, reduced wait times and increased biomarker utilization for early management.

BackgroundUnderstanding the relationship among changes in Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), patient outcomes, and probability of progression is crucial for evaluating the long-term benefits of disease-modifying treatments. We examined associations among changes in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) stages and outcomes that are important to patients and their care partners including activities of daily living (ADLs), geriatric depression, neuropsychiatric features, cognitive impairment, and the probabilities of being transitioned to a long-term care facility (i.e., institutionalization). We also estimated the total time spent at each stage and annual transition probabilities in AD.MethodsThe study included participants with unimpaired cognition, mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD, and mild, moderate, and severe AD dementia in the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC) Uniform Data Set (UDS) database. The associations among change in AD stages and change in relevant outcomes were estimated using linear mixed models with random intercepts. The probability of transitioning to long-term care facilities was modeled using generalized estimating equations. The total length of time spent at AD stages and annual transition probabilities were estimated with multistate Markov models.ResultsThe estimated average time spent in each stage was 3.2 years in MCI due to AD and 2.2, 2.0, and 2.8 years for mild, moderate, and severe AD dementia, respectively. The annual probabilities of progressing from MCI to mild, moderate, and severe AD dementia were 20, 4, and 0.7%, respectively. The incremental change to the next stage of participants with unimpaired cognition, MCI, and mild, moderate, and severe AD dementia (to death) was 3.2, 20, 26.6, 31, and 25.3%, respectively. Changes in ADLs, neuropsychiatric features, and cognitive measures were greatest among participants who transitioned from MCI and mild AD dementia to more advanced stages. Participants with MCI and mild and moderate AD dementia had increasing odds of being transitioned to long-term care facilities over time during the follow-up period.ConclusionsThe findings demonstrated that participants with early stages AD (MCI or mild dementia) were associated with the largest changes in clinical scale scores. Early detection, diagnosis, and intervention by disease-modifying therapies are required for delaying AD progression. Additionally, estimates of transition probabilities can inform future studies and health economic modeling.

Objective:The present study aimed to compare the social function between mild cognitive impairment (MCI), mild Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia, and mild dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) using the Japanese version of Social Functioning in Dementia scale (SF-DEM-J).Methods:We interviewed 103 patients and family caregivers from June 2020 to March 2021: 54 patients with MCI, 34 with mild AD dementia, and 15 with mild DLB. We compared the caregiver-rated SF-DEM-J, Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), MMSE, age, length of education, Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), the University of California, Los Angeles Loneliness Scale (UCLA-LS), Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), and informant version of the Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES) between MCI, mild AD dementia, and mild DLB groups using Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn-Bonferroni correction for post-hoc analyses. We compared sex, living situation, and caregiver demographics between three groups using chi-square test. We performed correlation analysis between the score of each psychological test and the scores of SF-DEM-J within group using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient.Results:For SF-DEM-J, the score of section 2 (communicating with others) was significantly worse in mild AD dementia than in mild DLB. The scores of section 1 (spending with others) and section 3 (sensitivity to others) and the total score did not significantly differ between three groups. The score of section 1 was significantly associated with MMSE in MCI, with anxiety and disinhibition of NPI, and AES in mild AD dementia, and with GDS in mild DLB. The score of section 2 was significantly associated with AES in MCI and mild AD dementia, with UCLA-LS in MCI, and with the length of education in mild DLB. The score of section 3 was significantly associated with agitation and irritability of NPI in MCI and mild AD dementia. The total score was associated with UCLA-LS and AES in MCI, and with AES in mild AD dementia.Conclusion:Factors affecting social functioning differed between MCI, mild AD dementia, and mild DLB. Apathy, agitation and irritability affected social functioning in MCI and mild AD dementia while depressive mood affected social functioning in mild DLB.

Insulin modulates aspects of brain function relevant to Alzheimer disease and can be delivered to the brain using intranasal devices. To date, the use of intranasal insulin to treat persons with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease dementia remains to be examined in a multi-site trial. To examine the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of intranasal insulin for the treatment of persons with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer disease dementia in a phase 2/3 multisite clinical trial. A randomized (1:1) double-blind clinical trial was conducted between 2014 and 2018. Participants received 40 IU of insulin or placebo for 12 months during the blinded phase, which was followed by a 6-month open-label extension phase. The clinical trial was conducted at 27 sites of the Alzheimer's Therapeutic Research Institute. A total of 432 adults were screened, and 144 adults were excluded. Inclusion criteria included adults aged 55 to 85 years with a diagnosis of amnestic mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer disease (based on National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer Association criteria), a score of 20 or higher on the Mini-Mental State Examination, a clinical dementia rating of 0.5 or 1.0, and a delayed logical memory score within a specified range. A total of 289 participants were randomized. Among the first 49 participants, the first device (device 1) used to administer intranasal insulin treatment had inconsistent reliability. A new device (device 2) was used for the remaining 240 participants, who were designated the primary intention-to-treat population. Data were analyzed from August 2018 to March 2019. Participants received 40 IU of insulin (Humulin-RU-100; Lilly) or placebo (diluent) daily for 12 months (blinded phase) followed by a 6-month open-label extension phase. Insulin was administered with 2 intranasal delivery devices. The primary outcome (mean score change on the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale 12) was evaluated at 3-month intervals. Secondary clinical outcomes were assessed at 6-month intervals. Cerebrospinal fluid collection and magnetic resonance imaging scans occurred at baseline and 12 months. A total of 289 participants (155 men [54.6%]; mean [SD] age, 70.9 [7.1] years) were randomized. Of those, 260 participants completed the blinded phase, and 240 participants completed the open-label extension phase. For the first 49 participants, the first device used to administer treatment had inconsistent reliability. A second device was used for the remaining 240 participants (123 men [51.3%]; mean [SD] age, 70.8 [7.1] years), who were designated the primary intention-to-treat population. No differences were observed between treatment arms for the primary outcome (mean score change on ADAS-cog-12 from baseline to month 12) in the device 2 ITT cohort (0.0258 points; 95% CI, -1.771 to 1.822 points; P = .98) or for the other clinical or cerebrospinal fluid outcomes in the primary (second device) intention-to-treat analysis. No clinically important adverse events were associated with treatment. In this study, no cognitive or functional benefits were observed with intranasal insulin treatment over a 12-month period among the primary intention-to-treat cohort. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01767909.

Objective To investigate the effect of the revision of Chinese Versions ofReading the Mind in the EyesTest(RME) on the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and mild Alzheimer's dementia (AD). Methods We compared performance on the cognitive test battery between 96 patients with MCI and 55 patients with AD and 95 control individuals. Neuropsychological tests, encompassing RME-T, Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT), were conducted on 96 patients with MCI, 55 patients with AD and 95 healthy control individuals. Completion rate of RME-T in the normal group and the total scores and each item score of RME-T were analyzed, and the feature between RME-T and RME-S (RME-short) was compared. Results The total score of RME-T was (23.7±4.7) in normal group, (19.9±4.9) in MCI group, and (19.9±7.5) in AD group. There were significant differences in the total score of RME-T among the three groups (t=13.9, P 0.05). However, the total score of RME-S was highly correlated with each item score of RME-S (P AUC(RME-T) in normal and AD groups (P 0.05). Conclusions RME has good reliability and validity, and RME-S is better than RME-T in internal consistency, which is more suitable for identifying mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease in Chinese population, and it is worthy of further popularization and application. Key words: Neuropsychological tests; Cognition disorders; Alzheimer disease

To evaluate the potential impact of revised criteria for mild cognitive impairment (MCI), developed by a work group sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association, on the diagnosis of very mild and mild Alzheimer disease (AD)dementia. Retrospective review of ratings of functional impairment across diagnostic categories. Alzheimer's Disease Centers and the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center. Individuals (N=17 535) with normal cognition,MCI, or AD dementia. The functional ratings of individuals with normal cognition, MCI, or AD dementia who were evaluated at Alzheimer's Disease Centers and submitted to the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center were assessed in accordance with the definition of "functional independence" allowed by the revised criteria. Pairwise demographic differences between the 3 diagnostic groups were tested using t tests for continuous variables and 2 for categorical variables. Almost all (99.8%) individuals currently diagnosed with very mild AD dementia and the large majority(92.7%) of those diagnosed with mild AD dementia could be reclassified as having MCI with the revised criteria,based on their level of impairment in the Clinical Dementia Rating domains for performance of instrumental activities of daily living in the community and at home.Large percentages of these individuals with AD dementia also meet the revised "functional independence" criterion for MCI as measured by the Functional Assessment Questionnaire. The categorical distinction between MCI and milder stages of AD dementia has been compromised by the revised criteria. The resulting diagnostic overlap supports the premise that "MCI due to AD" represents the earliest symptomatic stage of AD.

BackgroundAlzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurological disorder and the most common cause of dementia. The clinical continuum of AD ranges from asymptomatic disease to mild cognitive impairment (MCI), followed by AD dementia, categorized as mild, moderate, or severe. Almost one-third of patients suspected of having MCI or mild AD dementia are referred to specialists including psychiatrists. We sought to better understand the role that psychiatrists play in the diagnosis, treatment, and management of patients with all-cause MCI or mild AD dementia.MethodsWe conducted an anonymous, online survey among physicians in the United States between February 4, 2021, and March 1, 2021. We surveyed psychiatrists, primary care physicians (PCPs), geriatricians, and neurologists who treat patients with all-cause MCI or mild AD dementia.ResultsA total of 301 physicians participated in the survey, 50 of whom were psychiatrists. Of their patients with all-cause MCI or mild AD dementia, psychiatrists reported personally diagnosing two-thirds (67%). Psychiatrists used various methods to diagnose MCI or mild AD dementia including mental status testing (94%), review of patient medical history (86%), and neurological exams (61%). Upon diagnosis, psychiatrists reported most commonly discussing treatments (86%), management strategies (80%), disease progression (72%), and etiology of MCI or mild AD dementia (72%) with their patients. Most psychiatrists surveyed (82%) reported receiving advanced formal training in MCI and AD dementia care, primarily via residency training (38%), continuing medical education (22%) or fellowship (18%). Additionally, almost all psychiatrists (92%) reported receiving referrals for ongoing management of patients with MCI or mild AD dementia, primarily from PCPs or neurologists. However, only 46% of psychiatrists viewed themselves as the coordinator of care for their patients with MCI or mild AD dementia.ConclusionsMany psychiatrists indicated that they were well-informed about MCI and AD dementia and have a strong interest in providing care for these patients. They can provide timely and accurate diagnosis of clinical MCI and mild AD dementia and develop optimal treatment plans for patients. Although many psychiatrists consider other physicians to be the care coordinators for patients with MCI and mild AD dementia, psychiatrists can play a key role in diagnosing and managing patients with MCI and mild AD dementia.Graphical

IntroductionAlzheimer’s disease (AD) is a chronic and progressive neurodegenerative disease that places a substantial burden on patients and caregivers. Aducanumab is the first AD therapy approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to reduce a defining pathophysiological feature of the disease, brain amyloid plaques. In the phase 3 clinical trial EMERGE (NCT02484547), aducanumab reduced clinical decline in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD and mild AD dementia and confirmed amyloid pathology.MethodsWe used a Markov modeling approach to predict the long-term clinical benefits of aducanumab for patients with early AD based on EMERGE efficacy data. In the model, patients could transition between AD severity levels (MCI due to AD; mild, moderate, and severe AD dementia) and care settings (community vs. institution) or transition to death. The intervention was aducanumab added to standard of care (SOC), and the comparator was SOC alone. Data sources for base-case and scenario analyses included EMERGE, published National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center analyses, and other published literature.ResultsPer patient over a lifetime horizon, aducanumab treatment corresponded to 0.65 incremental patient quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and 0.09 fewer caregiver QALYs lost compared with patients treated with SOC. Aducanumab treatment translated to a lower lifetime probability of transitioning to AD dementia, a lower lifetime probability of transitioning to institutionalization (25.2% vs. 29.4%), delays in the median time to transition to AD dementia (7.50 vs. 4.92 years from MCI to moderate AD dementia or worse), and an incremental median time in the community of 1.32 years compared with SOC.ConclusionThe model predicted long-term benefits of aducanumab treatment in patients with MCI due to AD and mild AD dementia and their caregivers. The predicted outcomes provide a foundation for healthcare decision-makers and policymakers to understand the potential clinical and socioeconomic value of aducanumab.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40120-021-00273-0.

BackgroundThe primary criteria for diagnosing mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) or probable mild AD dementia rely partly on cognitive assessments and the presence of amyloid plaques. Although these criteria exhibit high sensitivity in predicting AD among cognitively impaired patients, their specificity remains limited. Notably, up to 25% of non-demented patients with amyloid plaques may be misdiagnosed with MCI due to AD, when in fact they suffer from a different brain disorder. The introduction of anti-amyloid antibodies complicates this scenario. Physicians must prioritize which amyloid-positive MCI patients receive these treatments, as not all are suitable candidates. Specifically those with non-AD amyloid pathologies are not primary targets for amyloid-modifying therapies. Consequently there is an escalating medical necessity for highly specific blood biomarkers that can accurately detect pre-dementia AD, thus optimizing amyloid antibody prescription.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to evaluate a predictive model based on peripheral biomarkers to identify MCI and mild dementia patients who will develop AD dementia symptoms in cognitively impaired population with high specificity.DesignPeripheral biomarkers were identified in a gene transfer-based animal model of AD and then validated during a retrospective multi-center clinical study.SettingParticipants from 7 retrospective cohorts (US, EU and Australia).ParticipantsThis study followed 345 cognitively impaired individuals over up to 13 years, including 193 with MCI and 152 with mild dementia, starting from their initial visits. The final diagnoses, established during their last assessments, classified 249 participants as AD patients and 96 as having non-AD brain disorders, based on the specific diagnostic criteria for each disorder subtype. Amyloid status, assessed at baseline, was available for 82.9% of the participants, with 61.9% testing positive for amyloid. Both amyloid-positive and negative individuals were represented in each clinical group. Some of the AD patients had co-morbidities such as metabolic disorders, chronic diseases, or cardiovascular pathologies.MeasurementsWe developed targeted mass spectrometry assays for 81 blood-based biomarkers, encompassing 45 proteins and 36 metabolites previously identified in AAV-AD rats.MethodsWe analyzed blood samples from study participants for the 81 biomarkers. The B-HEALED test, a machine learning-based diagnostic tool, was developed to differentiate AD patients, including 123 with Prodromal AD and 126 with mild AD dementia, from 96 individuals with non-AD brain disorders. The model was trained using 70% of the data, selecting relevant biomarkers, calibrating the algorithm, and establishing cutoff values. The remaining 30% served as an external test dataset for blind validation of the predictive accuracy.ResultsIntegrating a combination of 19 blood biomarkers and participant age, the B-HEALED model successfully distinguished participants that will develop AD dementia symptoms (82 with Prodromal AD and 83 with AD dementia) from non-AD subjects (71 individuals) with a specificity of 93.0% and sensitivity of 65.4% (AUROC=81.9%, p<0.001) during internal validation. When the amyloid status (derived from CSF or PET scans) and the B-HEALED model were applied in association, with individuals being categorized as AD if they tested positive in both tests, we achieved 100% specificity and 52.8% sensitivity. This performance was consistent in blind external validation, underscoring the model’s reliability on independent datasets.ConclusionsThe B-HEALED test, utilizing multiomics blood-based biomarkers, demonstrates high predictive specificity in identifying AD patients within the cognitively impaired population, minimizing false positives. When used alongside amyloid screening, it effectively identifies a nearly pure prodromal AD cohort. These results bear significant implications for refining clinical trial inclusion criteria, facilitating drug development and validation, and accurately identifying patients who will benefit the most from disease-modifying AD treatments.

Magnetic resonance imaging measures of brain volumes across the EXPEDITION trials in mild and moderate Alzheimer's disease dementia.

A quantitative analysis of brain volume can assist in thediagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) which isususally accompanied by brain atrophy. With an automated analysis program Quick Brain Volumetry (QBraVo) developed for volumetric measurements, we measured regional volumes and ratios to evaluate their performance in discriminating AD dementia (ADD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients from normal controls (NC). Validation of QBraVo was based on intra-rater and inter-rater reliability with a manual measurement. The regional volumes and ratios to total intracranial volume (TIV) and to total brain volume (TBV) or total cerebrospinal fluid volume (TCV) were compared among subjects. The regional volume to total cerebellar volume ratio named Standardized Atrophy Volume Ratio (SAVR) was calculated to compare brain atrophy. Diagnostic performances to distinguish among NC, MCI, and ADD were compared between MMSE, SAVR, and the predictive model. In total, 56 NCs, 44 MCI, and 45 ADD patients were enrolled. The average run time of QBraVo was 5min 36seconds. Intra-rater reliability was 0.999. Inter-rater reliability was high for TBV, TCV, and TIV (R = 0.97, 0.89 and 0.93, respectively). The medial temporal SAVR showed the highest performance for discriminating ADD from NC (AUC = 0.808, diagnostic accuracy = 80.2%). The predictive model using both MMSE and medial temporal SAVR improved the diagnostic performance for MCI in NC (AUC = 0.844, diagnostic accuracy = 79%). Our results demonstrated QBraVo is a fast and accurate method to measure brain volume. The regional volume calculated as SAVR could help to diagnose ADD and MCI and increase diagnostic accuracy for MCI.

This study examined how awareness of diagnostic label impacted self-reported quality of life (QOL) in persons with varying degrees of cognitive impairment. Older adults (n = 259) with normal cognition, Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), or mild Alzheimer's disease dementia (AD) completed tests of cognition and self-report questionnaires that assessed diagnosis awareness and multiple domains of QOL: cognitive problems, activities of daily living, physical functioning, mental wellbeing, and perceptions of one's daily life. We compared measures of QOL by cognitive performance, diagnosis awareness, and diagnostic group. Persons with MCI or AD who were aware of their diagnosis reported lower average satisfaction with daily life (QOL-AD), basic functioning (BADL Scale), and physical wellbeing (SF-12 PCS), and more difficulties in daily life (DEM-QOL) than those who were unaware (all p ≤ .007). Controlling for gender, those expecting their condition to worsen over time reported greater depression (GDS), higher stress (PSS), lower quality of daily life (QOL-AD, DEM-QOL), and more cognitive difficulties (CDS) compared to others (all p < .05). Persons aware of their diagnostic label-either MCI or AD-and its prognosis report lower QOL than those unaware of these facts about themselves. These relationships are independent of the severity of cognitive impairment.

IntroductionAlzheimer’s disease (AD) is a progressive, neurodegenerative disease and is the most common cause of dementia. Lecanemab is a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting amyloid protofibrils for the treatment of early AD. In the phase II BAN2401-G000-201 trial (NCT01767311), lecanemab reduced amyloid accumulated in the brain and slowed progression on key global and cognitive scales evaluating efficacy after 18 months of treatment.MethodsA disease simulation model was used to predict the long-term clinical outcomes of lecanemab for patients with early AD [i.e., mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD and mild AD dementia] on the basis of BAN2401-G000-201 trial data and published literature. The model captures the pathophysiology and management of AD, with a focus on simulating the effects of disease modification and early intervention on disease progression. The model compares lecanemab in addition to standard of care (SoC) versus SoC alone.ResultsLecanemab treatment was estimated to slow the rate of disease progression, resulting in an extended duration of MCI due to AD and mild AD dementia and shortened duration in moderate and severe AD dementia. The mean time to mild, moderate, and severe AD dementia was longer for patients in the lecanemab + SoC group than for patients in the SoC group by 2.51, 3.13, and 2.34 years, respectively. On base-case analysis, lecanemab was associated with 0.73 incremental life years (LY) and 0.75 incremental quality-adjusted LYs (QALY), and the caregiver QALYs lost was reduced by 0.03 years. The model also predicted a lower lifetime probability of admission to institutional care in lecanemab + SoC versus SoC group (25% versus 31%).ConclusionThe model results demonstrate the potential clinical value of lecanemab for patients with early AD and how it can slow the rate of disease progression and reduce the lifetime probability for institutionalized care.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40120-022-00350-y.