4.7 Article

Estimating prevalence of early Alzheimer's disease in the United States, accounting for racial and ethnic diversity

期刊

ALZHEIMERS & DEMENTIA
卷 19, 期 5, 页码 1841-1848

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/alz.12822

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; cerebral amyloid beta; clinical trials; dementia; ethnicity; mild cognitive impairment; prevalence; race; underserved populations; United States

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Updated estimates of the US AD population, including under-represented populations, are needed to improve clinical trial diversity. The results indicate that a small proportion of early-stage AD cases are likely to be diagnosed, particularly among minority populations. Setting recruitment goals reflecting the diversity of the AD patient population and supporting efforts toward timely diagnosis may improve under-representation in clinical trials.
Introduction Updated estimates of the US Alzheimer's disease (AD) population, including under-represented populations, are needed to improve clinical trial diversity. Methods A step-wise approach calculating prevalent numbers from clinical syndrome to biomarker-positive mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD and mild AD was developed, using age-and-race/ethnicity-stratified data where available. Results The estimated percentage of Americans aged >= 65 years with MCI due to AD was 9.2% of non-Hispanic Whites, 13.6% of non-Hispanic Blacks, 11.1% Hispanics, and 9.7% other race/ethnicities. The estimated percentage of Americans aged >= 65 years with mild dementia due to AD among non-Hispanic Whites was 3.7%, non-Hispanic Blacks 7.0%, Hispanics 5.3%, and 3.9% other race/ethnicities. Of these early-stage AD cases, few are likely diagnosed, ranging from 13% of prevalent non-Hispanic Black cases to 27% of non-Hispanic White cases. Discussion Under-representation in clinical trials may be improved by setting recruitment goals reflecting the diversity of the AD patient population and supporting efforts toward timely diagnosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据