Jonathan Gooblar1, Brian D Carpenter2, Mary A Coats3, John C Morris4, B Joy Snider5. 1. Department of Psychology, St. Louis, MO, USA. Electronic address: jgooblar@wustl.edu. 2. Department of Psychology, St. Louis, MO, USA. 3. Knight Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, St. Louis, MO, USA. 4. Knight Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, St. Louis, MO, USA; Department of Neurology, St. Louis, MO, USA; Department of Pathology and Immunology, St. Louis, MO, USA; Department of Physical Therapy, St. Louis, MO, USA; Department of Occupational Therapy of the School of Medicine, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA. 5. Knight Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, St. Louis, MO, USA; Department of Neurology, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) proteins have become accepted biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in research settings. The extent of their use, perceived utility, and influence on decision making in clinical settings, however, are less well studied. METHODS: Clinicians who evaluate older adults (N = 193) were randomized to view normal, borderline, AD-consistent, or no CSF information in two vignettes portraying patients with borderline and mild AD symptoms. Clinicians also reported on the use and perceived utility of CSF biomarkers. RESULTS: Although clinicians reported infrequent use and low perceived utility of CSF biomarkers, viewing AD-consistent CSF values made clinicians more likely to make an AD-related diagnosis, increased diagnostic confidence, and led clinicians to initiate treatment more often than clinicians who had no CSF information. CONCLUSIONS: CSF biomarkers influence decision making depending on the extent to which biomarkers reflect AD pathology, consistency between clinical-pathologic information, and the ambiguity of protein values.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) proteins have become accepted biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in research settings. The extent of their use, perceived utility, and influence on decision making in clinical settings, however, are less well studied. METHODS: Clinicians who evaluate older adults (N = 193) were randomized to view normal, borderline, AD-consistent, or no CSF information in two vignettes portraying patients with borderline and mild AD symptoms. Clinicians also reported on the use and perceived utility of CSF biomarkers. RESULTS: Although clinicians reported infrequent use and low perceived utility of CSF biomarkers, viewing AD-consistent CSF values made clinicians more likely to make an AD-related diagnosis, increased diagnostic confidence, and led clinicians to initiate treatment more often than clinicians who had no CSF information. CONCLUSIONS: CSF biomarkers influence decision making depending on the extent to which biomarkers reflect AD pathology, consistency between clinical-pathologic information, and the ambiguity of protein values.
Authors: Guy M McKhann; David S Knopman; Howard Chertkow; Bradley T Hyman; Clifford R Jack; Claudia H Kawas; William E Klunk; Walter J Koroshetz; Jennifer J Manly; Richard Mayeux; Richard C Mohs; John C Morris; Martin N Rossor; Philip Scheltens; Maria C Carrillo; Bill Thies; Sandra Weintraub; Creighton H Phelps Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Reisa A Sperling; Paul S Aisen; Laurel A Beckett; David A Bennett; Suzanne Craft; Anne M Fagan; Takeshi Iwatsubo; Clifford R Jack; Jeffrey Kaye; Thomas J Montine; Denise C Park; Eric M Reiman; Christopher C Rowe; Eric Siemers; Yaakov Stern; Kristine Yaffe; Maria C Carrillo; Bill Thies; Marcelle Morrison-Bogorad; Molly V Wagster; Creighton H Phelps Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: N Mattsson; E Rosén; O Hansson; N Andreasen; L Parnetti; M Jonsson; S-K Herukka; W M van der Flier; M A Blankenstein; M Ewers; K Rich; E Kaiser; M M Verbeek; M Olde Rikkert; M Tsolaki; E Mulugeta; D Aarsland; P J Visser; J Schröder; J Marcusson; M de Leon; H Hampel; P Scheltens; A Wallin; M Eriksdotter-Jönhagen; L Minthon; B Winblad; K Blennow; H Zetterberg Journal: Neurology Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Jon B Toledo; Johannes Brettschneider; Murray Grossman; Steven E Arnold; William T Hu; Sharon X Xie; Virginia M-Y Lee; Leslie M Shaw; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2012-04-22 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: N S M Schoonenboom; F E Reesink; N A Verwey; M I Kester; C E Teunissen; P M van de Ven; Y A L Pijnenburg; M A Blankenstein; A J Rozemuller; P Scheltens; W M van der Flier Journal: Neurology Date: 2011-12-14 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Bruno Dubois; Howard H Feldman; Claudia Jacova; Jeffrey L Cummings; Steven T Dekosky; Pascale Barberger-Gateau; André Delacourte; Giovanni Frisoni; Nick C Fox; Douglas Galasko; Serge Gauthier; Harald Hampel; Gregory A Jicha; Kenichi Meguro; John O'Brien; Florence Pasquier; Philippe Robert; Martin Rossor; Steven Salloway; Marie Sarazin; Leonardo C de Souza; Yaakov Stern; Pieter J Visser; Philip Scheltens Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2010-10-09 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Anne M Fagan; Mark A Mintun; Aarti R Shah; Patricia Aldea; Catherine M Roe; Robert H Mach; Daniel Marcus; John C Morris; David M Holtzman Journal: EMBO Mol Med Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 12.137
Authors: Eva María Triviño-Ibáñez; Raquel Sánchez-Vañó; Pablo Sopena-Novales; Juan Carlos Romero-Fábrega; Antonio Rodríguez-Fernández; Cristóbal Carnero Pardo; María Dolores Martínez Lozano; Manuel Gómez-Río Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 1.817
Authors: Matteo Cotta Ramusino; Giulia Perini; Daniele Altomare; Paola Barbarino; Wendy Weidner; Gabriella Salvini Porro; Frederik Barkhof; Gil D Rabinovici; Wiesje M van der Flier; Giovanni B Frisoni; Valentina Garibotto; Stefan Teipel; Marina Boccardi Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 9.236