Anne-Marie Miller1, Mircea Balasa2, Kaj Blennow3, Mary Gardiner4, Aleksandra Rutkowska1, Philip Scheltens5, Charlotte E Teunissen6, Pieter Jelle Visser5,7, Bengt Winblad8, Gunhild Waldemar9, Brian Lawlor2,10. 1. Medical Gerontology, School of Medicine, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. 2. Global Brain Health Institute, Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. 3. Clinical Neurochemistry Lab, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden. 4. Immunology Laboratory, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. 5. Department of Neurology/Alzheimer Center, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Clinical Chemistry, Neurochemistry Lab and Biobank, Neurocampus Amsterdam, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, Alzheimer Centre Limburg, Maastricht University Medical Centre, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 8. Department NVS, Karolinska Institute, Centre for Alzheimer Research, Division of Neurogeriatrics, Huddinge, Sweden. 9. Department of Neurology, Danish Dementia Research Centre, Neuroscience Center, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 10. Mercer's Institute for Successful Ageing, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: BIOMARKAPD seeks to diminish the barriers associated with the clinical use of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarker analysis by reducing variation in CSF laboratory methodologies and generating consensus recommendations on their clinical interpretation and application for dementia diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: To examine the disparity in practitioner attitudes and clinical practice relating to the use of CSF biomarkers for dementia diagnosis across Europe. METHODS: Clinical dementia experts were surveyed on the prevalence of national consensus guidelines and analytical reimbursement across Europe, their biomarker platform preferences, lumbar puncture methodologies and application of reference values and cut-offs for CSF analysis. RESULTS: 74% of respondents (total n = 51) use CSF biomarkers in clinical practice and 69% perform lumbar punctures on an outpatient basis. Most use CSF biomarkers to diagnose atypical (84%) and early-onset cases of cognitive impairment (71%) and for the differential diagnosis of other dementias (69%). 82% state they are sufficiently informed about CSF biomarkers yet 61% report a lack of national consensus guidelines on their use for dementia diagnosis. 48% of countries represented do not reimburse clinical CSF analysis costs. 43% report using normal reference ranges derived from publications. CONCLUSION: Variations in attitude and practice relating to CSF biomarkers, widely recognised as barriers to their clinical acceptance, remain evident within and between countries across Europe, even in expert centres. These shortcomings must be addressed by developing consensus guidelines on CSF-related methodologies and their clinical application, to further their use for the diagnostic evaluation of dementia.
BACKGROUND: BIOMARKAPD seeks to diminish the barriers associated with the clinical use of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarker analysis by reducing variation in CSF laboratory methodologies and generating consensus recommendations on their clinical interpretation and application for dementia diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: To examine the disparity in practitioner attitudes and clinical practice relating to the use of CSF biomarkers for dementia diagnosis across Europe. METHODS: Clinical dementia experts were surveyed on the prevalence of national consensus guidelines and analytical reimbursement across Europe, their biomarker platform preferences, lumbar puncture methodologies and application of reference values and cut-offs for CSF analysis. RESULTS: 74% of respondents (total n = 51) use CSF biomarkers in clinical practice and 69% perform lumbar punctures on an outpatient basis. Most use CSF biomarkers to diagnose atypical (84%) and early-onset cases of cognitive impairment (71%) and for the differential diagnosis of other dementias (69%). 82% state they are sufficiently informed about CSF biomarkers yet 61% report a lack of national consensus guidelines on their use for dementia diagnosis. 48% of countries represented do not reimburse clinical CSF analysis costs. 43% report using normal reference ranges derived from publications. CONCLUSION: Variations in attitude and practice relating to CSF biomarkers, widely recognised as barriers to their clinical acceptance, remain evident within and between countries across Europe, even in expert centres. These shortcomings must be addressed by developing consensus guidelines on CSF-related methodologies and their clinical application, to further their use for the diagnostic evaluation of dementia.
Authors: Nira Cedres; Daniel Ferreira; Milan Nemy; Alejandra Machado; Joana B Pereira; Sara Shams; Lars-Olof Wahlund; Anna Zettergren; Olga Stepankova; Lenka Vyslouzilova; Maria Eriksdotter; Stefan Teipel; Michel J Grothe; Kaj Blennow; Henrik Zetterberg; Michael Schöll; Silke Kern; Ingmar Skoog; Eric Westman Journal: Neurology Date: 2022-08-02 Impact factor: 11.800
Authors: Harald Hampel; Leslie M Shaw; Paul Aisen; Christopher Chen; Alberto Lleó; Takeshi Iwatsubo; Atsushi Iwata; Masahito Yamada; Takeshi Ikeuchi; Jianping Jia; Huali Wang; Charlotte E Teunissen; Elaine Peskind; Kaj Blennow; Jeffrey Cummings; Andrea Vergallo Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 16.655
Authors: Daniela Bertens; Stephanie Vos; Patrick Kehoe; Henrike Wolf; Flavio Nobili; Alexandre Mendonça; Ineke van Rossum; Jacub Hort; Jose Luis Molinuevo; Michael Heneka; Ron Petersen; Philip Scheltens; Pieter Jelle Visser Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 6.982