TY - JOUR
T1 - A cost-consequence analysis of different screening procedures in alzheimer's disease
T2 - Results from the MOPEAD Project
AU - Wimo, Anders
AU - Belger, Mark
AU - Bon, Jaka
AU - Jessen, Frank
AU - Dumas, Annette
AU - Kramberger, Milica G.
AU - Jamilis, Laura
AU - Johansson, Gunilla
AU - Rodrigo Salas, Adrian
AU - Gomez, Octavio Rodriguez
AU - Sannemann, Lena
AU - Stoekenbroek, Malou
AU - Gurruchaga Telleria, Miren
AU - Valero, Sergi
AU - Vermunt, Lisa
AU - Waterink, Lisa
AU - Winblad, Bengt
AU - Jelle Visser, Peter
AU - Zwan, Marissa
AU - Boada, Merce
N1 - Funding Information:
The European public-private partnership the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI-2), with the grant agreement number 115985 with the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) partner Eli Lilly.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 - The authors. Published by IOS Press.
Copyright:
Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Background: For care planning and support, under-detection and late diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a great challenge. Models of Patient-Engagement for Alzheimer's Disease (MOPEAD) is an EU-funded project aiming at testing different strategies to improve this situation. Objective: To make a cost-consequence analysis of MOPEAD. Methods: Four screening strategies were tested in five countries (Germany, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden): 1) a web-approach; 2) Open-House initiative; 3) in primary care; and 4) by diabetes specialists. Persons-at-risk of AD in all strategies were offered referral to a hospital-based specialist. The primary health-economic outcome was the cost per true-positive case (TP) of AD from the screened population. Results: Of 2,847 screened persons, 1,121 screened positive (39%), 402 were evaluated at memory clinics (14%), and 236 got an AD diagnosis (8%). The cost per TP of those screened was €3,115 with the web-approach, €2,722 with the Open-House, €1,530 in primary care, and €1,190 by diabetes specialists. Sensitivity analyses that more likely reflect the real-world situation confirmed the results. The number-needed-to-screen was 30 with the web-approach, 8 with the Open-House and primary care, and 6 with the diabetes specialists. There were country differences in terms of screening rates, referrals to memory clinics, staff-types involved, and costs per TP. Conclusion: In primary care and by the diabetes specialist, the costs per TP/screened population were lowest, but the capacity of such settings to identify cases with AD-risk must be discussed. Hence new diagnostic strategies such as web-solutions and Open-House initiatives may be valuable after modifications.
AB - Background: For care planning and support, under-detection and late diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a great challenge. Models of Patient-Engagement for Alzheimer's Disease (MOPEAD) is an EU-funded project aiming at testing different strategies to improve this situation. Objective: To make a cost-consequence analysis of MOPEAD. Methods: Four screening strategies were tested in five countries (Germany, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden): 1) a web-approach; 2) Open-House initiative; 3) in primary care; and 4) by diabetes specialists. Persons-at-risk of AD in all strategies were offered referral to a hospital-based specialist. The primary health-economic outcome was the cost per true-positive case (TP) of AD from the screened population. Results: Of 2,847 screened persons, 1,121 screened positive (39%), 402 were evaluated at memory clinics (14%), and 236 got an AD diagnosis (8%). The cost per TP of those screened was €3,115 with the web-approach, €2,722 with the Open-House, €1,530 in primary care, and €1,190 by diabetes specialists. Sensitivity analyses that more likely reflect the real-world situation confirmed the results. The number-needed-to-screen was 30 with the web-approach, 8 with the Open-House and primary care, and 6 with the diabetes specialists. There were country differences in terms of screening rates, referrals to memory clinics, staff-types involved, and costs per TP. Conclusion: In primary care and by the diabetes specialist, the costs per TP/screened population were lowest, but the capacity of such settings to identify cases with AD-risk must be discussed. Hence new diagnostic strategies such as web-solutions and Open-House initiatives may be valuable after modifications.
KW - Alzheimer's disease
KW - cost analysis
KW - cost-consequence analysis
KW - costs
KW - dementia
KW - diagnosis
KW - diagnostic work-up
KW - screening
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85116468008&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3233/JAD-210303
DO - 10.3233/JAD-210303
M3 - Article
C2 - 34420954
SN - 1387-2877
VL - 83
SP - 1149
EP - 1159
JO - Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
JF - Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
IS - 3
ER -