Ron L H Handels1, Claire A G Wolfs2, Pauline Aalten2, Manuela A Joore3, Frans R J Verhey2, Johan L Severens4. 1. Alzheimer Centre Limburg, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: f.verhey@maastrichtuniversity.nl. 2. Alzheimer Centre Limburg, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Health Organization, Policy, and Economics, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 4. Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to systematically review the literature on economic evaluations of interventions for the early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related disorders and to describe their general and methodological characteristics. We focused on the diagnostic aspects of the decision models to assess the applicability of existing decision models for the evaluation of the recently revised diagnostic research criteria for AD. METHODS: PubMed and the National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation database were searched for English-language publications related to economic evaluations on diagnostic technologies. Trial-based economic evaluations were assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list. Modeling studies were assessed using the framework for quality assessment of decision-analytic models. RESULTS: The search retrieved 2109 items, from which eight decision-analytic modeling studies and one trial-based economic evaluation met all eligibility criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Diversity among the study objective and characteristics was considerable and, despite considerable methodological quality, several flaws were indicated. Recommendations were focused on diagnostic aspects and the applicability of existing models for the evaluation of recently revised diagnostic research criteria for AD.
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to systematically review the literature on economic evaluations of interventions for the early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related disorders and to describe their general and methodological characteristics. We focused on the diagnostic aspects of the decision models to assess the applicability of existing decision models for the evaluation of the recently revised diagnostic research criteria for AD. METHODS: PubMed and the National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation database were searched for English-language publications related to economic evaluations on diagnostic technologies. Trial-based economic evaluations were assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list. Modeling studies were assessed using the framework for quality assessment of decision-analytic models. RESULTS: The search retrieved 2109 items, from which eight decision-analytic modeling studies and one trial-based economic evaluation met all eligibility criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Diversity among the study objective and characteristics was considerable and, despite considerable methodological quality, several flaws were indicated. Recommendations were focused on diagnostic aspects and the applicability of existing models for the evaluation of recently revised diagnostic research criteria for AD.
Authors: Piotr Lewczuk; Peter Riederer; Sid E O'Bryant; Marcel M Verbeek; Bruno Dubois; Pieter Jelle Visser; Kurt A Jellinger; Sebastiaan Engelborghs; Alfredo Ramirez; Lucilla Parnetti; Clifford R Jack; Charlotte E Teunissen; Harald Hampel; Alberto Lleó; Frank Jessen; Lidia Glodzik; Mony J de Leon; Anne M Fagan; José Luis Molinuevo; Willemijn J Jansen; Bengt Winblad; Leslie M Shaw; Ulf Andreasson; Markus Otto; Brit Mollenhauer; Jens Wiltfang; Martin R Turner; Inga Zerr; Ron Handels; Alexander G Thompson; Gunilla Johansson; Natalia Ermann; John Q Trojanowski; Ilker Karaca; Holger Wagner; Patrick Oeckl; Linda van Waalwijk van Doorn; Maria Bjerke; Dimitrios Kapogiannis; H Bea Kuiperij; Lucia Farotti; Yi Li; Brian A Gordon; Stéphane Epelbaum; Stephanie J B Vos; Catharina J M Klijn; William E Van Nostrand; Carolina Minguillon; Matthias Schmitz; Carla Gallo; Andrea Lopez Mato; Florence Thibaut; Simone Lista; Daniel Alcolea; Henrik Zetterberg; Kaj Blennow; Johannes Kornhuber Journal: World J Biol Psychiatry Date: 2017-10-27 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Arno de Wilde; Ingrid S van Maurik; Marleen Kunneman; Femke Bouwman; Marissa Zwan; Eline A J Willemse; Geert Jan Biessels; Mirella Minkman; Ruth Pel; Niki S M Schoonenboom; Ellen M A Smets; Mike P Wattjes; Frederik Barkhof; Andrew Stephens; Erik J van Lier; Richard Batrla-Utermann; Philip Scheltens; Charlotte E Teunissen; Bart N M van Berckel; Wiesje M van der Flier Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2017-01-23
Authors: T I Armina Padmasawitri; Gerardus W Frederix; Bachti Alisjahbana; Olaf Klungel; Anke M Hövels Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Maria Karagiannidou; Raphael Wittenberg; Filipa Isabel Trigo Landeiro; A-La Park; Andra Fry; Martin Knapp; Alastair M Gray; Antje Tockhorn-Heidenreich; Amparo Yovanna Castro Sanchez; Isaac Ghinai; Ron Handels; Pascal Lecomte; Jane Wolstenholme Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 2.692