Estimating demand for potential disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer's disease in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Phase three trials of the monoclonal antibodies lecanemab and donanemab, which target brain amyloid, have reported statistically significant differences in clinical end-points in early Alzheimer's disease. These drugs are already in use in some countries and are going through the regulatory approval process for use in the UK. Concerns have been raised about the ability of healthcare systems, including those in the UK, to deliver these treatments, considering the resources required for their administration and monitoring. AIMS: To estimate the scale of real-world demand for monoclonal antibodies for Alzheimer's disease in the UK. METHOD: We used anonymised patient record databases from two National Health Service trusts for the year 2019 to collect clinical, demographic, cognitive and neuroimaging data for these cohorts. Eligibility for treatment was assessed using the inclusion criteria from the clinical trials of donanemab and lecanemab, with consideration given to diagnosis, cognitive performance, cerebrovascular disease and willingness to receive treatment. RESULTS: We examined the records of 82 386 people referred to services covering around 2.2 million people. After applying the trial criteria, we estimate that a maximum of 906 people per year would start treatment with monoclonal antibodies in the two services, equating to 30 200 people if extrapolated nationally. CONCLUSIONS: Monoclonal antibody treatments for Alzheimer's disease are likely to present a significant challenge for healthcare services to deliver in terms of the neuroimaging and treatment delivery. The data provided here allows health services to understand the potential demand and plan accordingly.

Perspectives on the diagnosis and management of functional cognitive disorder: An international Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Current proposed criteria for functional cognitive disorder (FCD) have not been externally validated. We sought to analyse the current perspectives of cognitive specialists in the diagnosis and management of FCD in comparison with neurodegenerative conditions. METHODS: International experts in cognitive disorders were invited to assess seven illustrative clinical vignettes containing history and bedside characteristics alone. Participants assigned a probable diagnosis and selected the appropriate investigation and treatment. Qualitative, quantitative and inter-rater agreement analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: Eighteen diagnostic terminologies were assigned by 45 cognitive experts from 12 countries with a median of 13 years of experience, across the seven scenarios. Accurate discrimination between FCD and neurodegeneration was observed, independently of background and years of experience: 100% of the neurodegenerative vignettes were correctly classified and 75%-88% of the FCD diagnoses were attributed to non-neurodegenerative causes. There was <50% agreement in the terminology used for FCD, in comparison with 87%-92% agreement for neurodegenerative syndromes. Blood tests and neuropsychological evaluation were the leading diagnostic modalities for FCD. Diagnostic communication, psychotherapy and psychiatry referral were the main suggested management strategies in FCD. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the feasibility of distinguishing between FCD and neurodegeneration based on relevant patient characteristics and history details. These characteristics need further validation and operationalisation. Heterogeneous labelling and framing pose clinical and research challenges reflecting a lack of agreement in the field. Careful consideration of FCD diagnosis is advised, particularly in the presence of comorbidities. This study informs future research on diagnostic tools and evidence-based interventions.