Rafid Mustafa1, Jared R Brosch2, Gil D Rabinovici3, Bradford C Dickerson4, Maria C Carrillo5, Bradley S Glazier6, Sujuan Gao7, Martha Tierney5, Keith N Fargo5, Mary G Austrom8, Susan De Santi9, David G Clark10,11, Liana G Apostolova2,6,12. 1. Indiana University School of Medicine. 2. Departments of Neurology. 3. Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 4. Department of Neurology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. 5. Division of Medical & Scientific Relations, Alzheimer's Association, Chicago, IL. 6. Radiology. 7. Biostatistics. 8. Psychiatry. 9. Piramal Pharma Inc, Boston, MA. 10. Department of Neurology, Medical University of South Carolina. 11. Department of Neurology, Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center, Charleston, SC. 12. Medical and Molecular Genetics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Few studies to date have explored patient and caregiver views on the clinical use of amyloid positron emission tomography (PET). METHODS: A 7-item questionnaire assessing patient and caregiver views (510 total respondents) toward amyloid PET imaging was advertised broadly through alz.org/trialmatch. RESULTS: We received 510 unique responses from 48 US states, 2 Canadian provinces, the Dominican Republic, and Greece. Both patients and caregivers indicated that they would want to receive amyloid imaging if offered the opportunity. Over 88% of respondents had a positive response (∼10% with neutral and 2% with negative responses) to whether amyloid PET should be offered routinely and be reimbursed. Such information was felt to be useful for long-term legal, financial, and health care planning. Respondents identifying with early age cognitive decline (younger than 65 y) were more likely to explore options for disability insurance (P=0.03). Responders from the Midwest were more likely to utilize information from amyloid imaging for legal planning (P=0.02), disability insurance (P=0.02), and life insurance (P=0.04) than other US regions. DISCUSSION: Patients and caregivers supported the use of amyloid PET imaging in clinical practice and felt that the information would provide significant benefits particularly in terms of future planning.
INTRODUCTION: Few studies to date have explored patient and caregiver views on the clinical use of amyloid positron emission tomography (PET). METHODS: A 7-item questionnaire assessing patient and caregiver views (510 total respondents) toward amyloid PET imaging was advertised broadly through alz.org/trialmatch. RESULTS: We received 510 unique responses from 48 US states, 2 Canadian provinces, the Dominican Republic, and Greece. Both patients and caregivers indicated that they would want to receive amyloid imaging if offered the opportunity. Over 88% of respondents had a positive response (∼10% with neutral and 2% with negative responses) to whether amyloid PET should be offered routinely and be reimbursed. Such information was felt to be useful for long-term legal, financial, and health care planning. Respondents identifying with early age cognitive decline (younger than 65 y) were more likely to explore options for disability insurance (P=0.03). Responders from the Midwest were more likely to utilize information from amyloid imaging for legal planning (P=0.02), disability insurance (P=0.02), and life insurance (P=0.04) than other US regions. DISCUSSION: Patients and caregivers supported the use of amyloid PET imaging in clinical practice and felt that the information would provide significant benefits particularly in terms of future planning.
Authors: Rik Vandenberghe; Koen Van Laere; Adrian Ivanoiu; Eric Salmon; Christine Bastin; Eric Triau; Steen Hasselbalch; Ian Law; Allan Andersen; Alex Korner; Lennart Minthon; Gaëtan Garraux; Natalie Nelissen; Guy Bormans; Chris Buckley; Rikard Owenius; Lennart Thurfjell; Gill Farrar; David J Brooks Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Rik Ossenkoppele; Willemijn J Jansen; Gil D Rabinovici; Dirk L Knol; Wiesje M van der Flier; Bart N M van Berckel; Philip Scheltens; Pieter Jelle Visser; Sander C J Verfaillie; Marissa D Zwan; Sofie M Adriaanse; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Frederik Barkhof; William J Jagust; Bruce L Miller; Howard J Rosen; Susan M Landau; Victor L Villemagne; Christopher C Rowe; Dong Y Lee; Duk L Na; Sang W Seo; Marie Sarazin; Catherine M Roe; Osama Sabri; Henryk Barthel; Norman Koglin; John Hodges; Cristian E Leyton; Rik Vandenberghe; Koen van Laere; Alexander Drzezga; Stefan Forster; Timo Grimmer; Pascual Sánchez-Juan; Jose M Carril; Vincent Mok; Vincent Camus; William E Klunk; Ann D Cohen; Philipp T Meyer; Sabine Hellwig; Andrew Newberg; Kristian S Frederiksen; Adam S Fleisher; Mark A Mintun; David A Wolk; Agneta Nordberg; Juha O Rinne; Gaël Chételat; Alberto Lleo; Rafael Blesa; Juan Fortea; Karine Madsen; Karen M Rodrigue; David J Brooks Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-05-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Christopher M Clark; Julie A Schneider; Barry J Bedell; Thomas G Beach; Warren B Bilker; Mark A Mintun; Michael J Pontecorvo; Franz Hefti; Alan P Carpenter; Matthew L Flitter; Michael J Krautkramer; Hank F Kung; R Edward Coleman; P Murali Doraiswamy; Adam S Fleisher; Marwan N Sabbagh; Carl H Sadowsky; Eric P Reiman; P Eric M Reiman; Simone P Zehntner; Daniel M Skovronsky Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-01-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jennifer Hagerty Lingler; Marcie C Nightingale; Judith A Erlen; April L Kane; Charles F Reynolds; Richard Schulz; Steven T DeKosky Journal: Gerontologist Date: 2006-12
Authors: Clifford R Jack; David S Knopman; William J Jagust; Leslie M Shaw; Paul S Aisen; Michael W Weiner; Ronald C Petersen; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Christopher M Clark; Michael J Pontecorvo; Thomas G Beach; Barry J Bedell; R Edward Coleman; P Murali Doraiswamy; Adam S Fleisher; Eric M Reiman; Marwan N Sabbagh; Carl H Sadowsky; Julie A Schneider; Anupa Arora; Alan P Carpenter; Matthew L Flitter; Abhinay D Joshi; Michael J Krautkramer; Ming Lu; Mark A Mintun; Daniel M Skovronsky Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Effie M Mitsis; Heidi A Bender; Lale Kostakoglu; Josef Machac; Jane Martin; Jennifer L Woehr; Margaret C Sewell; Amy Aloysi; Martin A Goldstein; Clara Li; Mary Sano; Sam Gandy Journal: Mol Neurodegener Date: 2014-02-03 Impact factor: 14.195
Authors: Sarah M Bannon; Victoria A Grunberg; Heena R Manglani; Ethan G Lester; Christine Ritchie; Ana-Maria Vranceanu Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2022-04-18 Impact factor: 7.538
Authors: Jennifer H Lingler; J Scott Roberts; Hyejin Kim; Jonna L Morris; Lu Hu; Meghan Mattos; Eric McDade; Oscar L Lopez Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2018-05-30