4.7 Article

Description of a European memory clinic cohort undergoing amyloid-PET: The AMYPAD Diagnostic and Patient Management Study

Journal

ALZHEIMERS & DEMENTIA
Volume 19, Issue 3, Pages 844-856

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/alz.12696

Keywords

amyloid; Alzheimer's; dementia; memory clinic population; mild cognitive impairment; PET; subjective cognitive decline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The AMYPAD Diagnostic and Patient Management Study aims to investigate the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of amyloid-PET in Europe. Participants with subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, or dementia were recruited in eight European memory clinics and randomized into three study arms. The baseline features of the participants were representative of a memory clinic population, ensuring the generalizability of the study results.
Introduction AMYPAD Diagnostic and Patient Management Study (DPMS) aims to investigate the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of amyloid-PET in Europe. Here we present participants' baseline features and discuss the representativeness of the cohort. Methods Participants with subjective cognitive decline plus (SCD+), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or dementia were recruited in eight European memory clinics from April 16, 2018, to October 30, 2020, and randomized into three arms: ARM1, early amyloid-PET; ARM2, late amyloid-PET; and ARM3, free-choice. Results A total of 840 participants (244 SCD+, 341 MCI, and 255 dementia) were enrolled. Sociodemographic/clinical features did not differ significantly among recruiting memory clinics or with previously reported cohorts. The randomization assigned 35% of participants to ARM1, 32% to ARM2, and 33% to ARM3; cognitive stages were distributed equally across the arms. Discussion The features of AMYPAD-DPMS participants are as expected for a memory clinic population. This ensures the generalizability of future study results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available