Prognosis of Alzheimer’s disease; what do patients and care partners want to know?

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-100841/v1

Download PDF

Research

Prognosis of Alzheimer’s disease; what do patients and care partners want to know?

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-100841/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: Prognostic studies in the context of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) mainly predicted time to dementia. However, it is questionable whether onset of dementia is the most relevant outcome along the AD disease trajectory from the perspective of patients and their care partners. Therefore, we aimed to identify the most relevant outcomes from the viewpoint of patients and care partners.

Methods: We used a two-step, mixed-methods approach. As a first step we conducted four focus groups in the Netherlands to elicit a comprehensive list of outcomes considered important by patients (n=12) and care partners (n=14) in the prognosis of AD. The focus groups resulted in a list of 59 items, divided into five categories. Next, in an online European survey, we asked participants (n=232; 99 patients, 133 care partners) to rate the importance of all 59 items (5-point Likert scale). As participants were likely to rate a large number of outcomes as ‘important’ (4) or ‘very important’ (5), we subsequently asked them to select the three items they considered most important.

Results: The top-10 lists of items most frequently mentioned as ‘most important’ by patients and care partners were merged into one core outcome list, comprising 13 items. Both patients and care partners selected outcomes from the category ‘cognition’ most often, followed by items in the categories ‘functioning and dependency’ and ‘physical health’. No items from the category ‘behavior and neuropsychiatry’ and ‘social environment’ ended up in our core list of relevant outcomes.

Conclusions: We identified a core list of outcomes relevant to patients and care partner, and found that prognostic information related to cognitive decline, dependency, and physical health are considered most relevant by both patients and their care partners.

Neurology

Alzheimer’s disease

Outcome

Patient

Caregiver

Mild Cognitive Impairment

Subjective Cognitive Decline.

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder, characterized by cognitive decline and dementia.¹ Dementia is in fact a late stage of this disease, that takes decades to develop. Pre-dementia stages of AD include preclinical AD, which may express as subjective cognitive decline (SCD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI).¹ Advances in biomarker-based diagnostic testing allow for an AD diagnosis in pre-dementia stages.² However, the question asked immediately after “doctor, what is wrong with me?”, is “what can I expect?”.³ The establishment of an individual prognosis is still challenging due to the high variability in disease course and phenotypic manifestation.¹ In addition, it is not fully known which information patients and care partners would value most about their course of the disease.

Until now, prognostic studies mainly attempted to predict progression to dementia. While the syndrome diagnosis of dementia is an important endpoint in research, it may be rather an arbitrary point along the entire disease trajectory from the perspective of patients and care partners.^{4, 5} Which endpoints are most relevant to patient has not yet been thoroughly assessed. In addition, factors that are important for patients to know about the future may differ from those of care partners. As care partners have an significant role when making (dementia) care-related decisions, it is important to identify both patient- and care partner-relevant outcomes in the prognosis of AD.^{6, 7}

In addition, it can be debated whether the data we collect at memory clinics during routine follow-up, cover the prognostic information most relevant to patients and care partners. There is increasing interest in so called patient-reported outcomes (PROs).⁸ These include aspects such as (health related) quality of life, activities of daily living and interpersonal functioning from the perspective of patients and care partners, which may be missed during our current, routine check-ups. Some existing outcome instruments, such as TOPICS-MDS, are already based on patient report.^{9, 10} These outcome sets however have mostly been developed without consulting patients and caregivers about what is relevant to them. A few former studies that took into account patients’ perspectives mostly focused on specific disease outcomes or on experiences with specific treatments.^{11, 12} The few available studies which focused on relevant outcomes from the perspective of patients were based on interviews in small samples.^{13, 14} In the current study, taking the viewpoints of patients and care partners as the starting point, we aimed to identify outcomes in the disease course of AD relevant to patients and care partners from multiple European countries.

2.1 Design

In this mixed-method, multi-center study, we used a two-step approach with four focus groups followed by an online survey that was distributed in multiple European countries. Written informed consent was obtained from participants of the focus groups and digital informed consent was obtained from participants of the online survey. Local boards of the Medical Ethics Committee reviewed and approved this study.

2.2 Focus groups (step 1)

We took on a qualitative, bottom-up approach, using focus groups to elicit a comprehensive list of patient and care partner relevant outcomes in the progression of Alzheimer’s disease to serve as input for the online survey (step 2).

2.2.1 Participants

We conducted four focus groups. Three focus groups were conducted in an academic hospital (Alzheimer center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC) and one focus group in a local hospital (Alrijne Hospital Leiden) between July 2019 and October 2019. Participants were recruited from the memory clinics in both hospitals. We purposefully selected participants to compose heterogeneous groups in terms of gender, age, education and disease stage (AD dementia, MCI, or SCD). Patients were eligible if they were diagnosed with AD dementia, MCI, or SCD at the memory clinic. Patients were not eligible if (1) their MMSE score was less than 18, (2) they had a psychiatric disorder, (3) they reported hallucinations or (4) they did not speak or understand Dutch. Care partners were eligible if they were a relative or loved one involved in care for someone with a diagnosis AD dementia, MCI, or SCD. Care partners were not eligible if they were younger than 18 years old or if they did not speak or understand Dutch.

2.2.3 Procedures

Each focus group consisted of two parts. In the first part, we used a photo elicitation method, aimed at stimulating participants to think about and express what is most important to them in life. We showed the participants thirteen pictures related to everyday situations and activities. We asked the participants to select one or more pictures that reflected what is important to them in life. Then, we asked them to explain why they selected this picture. The second part of the focus groups was aimed at obtaining a comprehensive list of concrete outcomes. We therefore asked the participants to formulate as many answers as possible to two main questions:

What do you want to know about the course of the symptoms?
If there was a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, on which specific aspect should this have an effect?

For each question, participants were first given five minutes to write their answers on individual sticky notes. Then, one by one participants were asked to read out loud and explain one of the outcomes they had written down. We collected and placed the sticky notes on large paper sheets, broadly clustering them into categories. In subsequent rounds, the participants expanded these lists with outcomes that had not yet been mentioned. After all outcomes had been read out loud and broadly categorized, participants were asked if they could think of any additional outcomes of relevance to them, which were then added. Audio recordings were made of all focus groups, and the sticky notes on the paper sheets were also saved.

2.2.4 Analysis

One author (AM) transcribed the audiotaped focus groups using intelligent verbatim transcription. A second author (EDB) checked the transcripts for completeness. The transcripts were analyzed in MAXQDA software ¹⁵ using a process of inductive and deductive thematic analysis (directed content analysis). One author (AM) generated a ‘start list’ of codes based on literature, prior to coding. Subsequently, two authors (AM and LNCV) coded the transcripts independently, adding, adjusting and categorizing the codes based on the transcripts and the answers from the sticky notes. Afterwards, they compared and discussed the differences in coding until consensus was reached. After the fourth focus groups, data saturation was achieved, i.e., no new outcomes were identified based on the data from the fourth focus group compared to the previous three focus groups.

The final list consisted of 60 outcomes, which were subdivided into five categories. The item ‘How long am I able to decide whether I want euthanasia?’ is only relevant in the Netherlands, because euthanasia is not legally permitted in the other European countries, and the final list used in the European survey thus included 59 items.

2.3 Online survey (step 2)

Subsequently, we employed a quantitative, online European survey to determine the most relevant items among the outcomes identified in the focus groups.

2.3.2 Participants

Participants were recruited via multiple routes. We recruited patients and care partners through memory clinics in the Netherlands, Slovenia and Slovakia, who were then sent a link to the online survey. In addition, the online survey was sent to members (patients and care partners) of the dementia association Demensförbundet in Sweden. Finally, Alzheimer Europe sent a link to the online survey to members (patients and care partners) of its European Working group of People with Dementia. Alzheimer Europe also invited three of its member associations (i.e. national Alzheimer associations) to share this link with members of other similar English-speaking national working groups of people with dementia and carers.

Patients were eligible to participate if they had a diagnosis of dementia, MCI or SCD. Care partners were eligible if they were a relative or loved one involved in caring for someone with a diagnosis of dementia, MCI or SCD. Care partners were not eligible if they were younger than 18 years old.

2.3.3 Design

The survey was created in the online survey tool Survalyzer.¹⁶ We translated the survey into five different languages (Dutch, English, Slovak, Slovenian and Swedish) and created separate versions for patients and care partners. Both versions consisted of two parts. In part 1, we collected background information about the participants, including age, gender, ethnicity, education, disease stage and year of diagnosis. In part 2, we first asked participants to rate their importance of all 59 items (1-unimporant, 2-not very important, 3-neutral, 4-important, 5-very important). Participants had the option to add missing items. As we anticipated that participants would rank most items as (very) important, we subsequently provided them with the items that they rated as ‘important’ or ‘very important’ and asked them to select the three most important items. This stepped approach facilitated the identification of the most relevant items out of the long list of 59 items that resulted from the focus groups.

2.3.4 Analysis

Data was analyzed using version 22.0 of SPSS for Windows. Frequencies and percentages were calculated, resulting in two lists of the 10 items most frequently rated as most relevant by patients and care partners respectively. We assessed concordance of these two lists between patients and care partners and subsequently compiled a final list of important items merging the top-10 lists of both patients and care partners.

3.1 Focus groups

In total, 12 patients and 14 care partners participated in the focus groups. Seven patients and care partners participated as a couple in the focus groups. Median age (IQR) of the patients was 66 (61–72) years and n = 6 (50%) were female. There were n = 5 (41%) patients with AD dementia, n = 3 (25%) with MCI and n = 4 (33%) with SCD. Mean ± SD time since diagnosis was 3 ± 1 years. Care partners had a median (IQR) age of 69 (54–74) years and n = 9 (64%) were female. N = 11 (79%) were care partner of a patient with AD dementia and n = 3 (21%) of a person with MCI. Mean time since diagnosis was 3 ± 1 years. Most care partners were a life partner (spouse) of the patient (n = 9; 64%) and was living with the patient (n = 9; 64%).

The focus groups revealed 59 outcomes of relevance, which we subdivided into five broad categories: 1) Cognition (12 items); 2) Functioning and dependency (18 items); 3) Behavior and neuropsychiatry (14 items); 4) Social environment (8 items); 5) Physical health (7 items). The appendix provides an overview of the list of 59 outcomes, ordered by five major categories.

1) Cognition

This category included outcomes such as learning, recognizing loved ones, planning and

organizing. The following quote is a concrete example of an AD dementia patient who wants to know how the memory symptoms will progress.

Quote 1: “How quickly does my memory deteriorate?”

2) Functioning and dependency

Patients with AD dementia gradually lose the ability to make important decisions and eventually become legally incapacitated. The following quote of an AD dementia care partner illustrates how patients and care partners expressed an interest in predicting the patient’s independency and ability to make decisions.

Quote 2: “My mother has always been an independent woman who does not accept help from others. So the first thing that came to my mind was: when is she no longer able to make decisions on her own?”

Closely related to dependency, patients and care partners mentioned outcomes related to everyday functioning and activities. The following quote by an individual with SCD illustrates the importance of the ability of performing hobbies, and other enjoyable activities.

Quote 3: “Singing, gardening, attending workshops. At this moment, I am able to do my hobbies. If I am no longer able to do my hobbies, than it is a great loss. I think it is important that I am able to do the things that I enjoy.”

3) Behavior and neuropsychiatry

This category comprises outcomes such as anxiety and depressive symptoms, living in accordance with personal values and beliefs and behavioral changes. Many participants pointed out the importance of maintaining, and being able to predict changes in, their personality and identity, as illustrated by, the quote below by an individual with SCD.

Quote 4: “My personality is important to me. I am always happy, that is what I am known for. I would like to know; when am I no longer myself?”

4) Social environment

The category social environment includes outcomes such as patient and care partner quality of life and having meaningful moments with loved ones. The following quote of an AD dementia care partner shows the financial importance of knowing how long you are able to do activities together.

Quote 5: “We consciously decided to make memories and do activities together as long as we are able to. And sometimes that costs money. If you know how long you can do meaningful activities together, then you can take that into account financially.”

5) Physical health

This category comprises outcomes such as the progression of problems regarding motor skills and biomarkers in the brain, as illustrated by the quote below by an AD dementia care partner.

Quote 6: “How long is he able to cycle?”

Also, some participants experience AD as a hopeless process, and they therefore want to know what their life expectancy is, like this AD dementia patient:

Quote 7: “It is a hopeless and long process. When can I expect the end?”

For most participants, it appeared to be important to know more about the progression of the symptoms. However, a few participants expressed not being interested in the course of the symptoms, as illustrated by this quote from an AD dementia care partner.

Quote 8: “We live our lives from day to day. So, I do not want to know anything about symptom progression.”

3.2 Online survey

Table 1 presents the sample descriptives of the 232 participants from 13 European countries who completed the online survey. Of the 99 patients, n = 58 (59%) were female and median (IQR) age was 67 (61–73) years. There were n = 42 (42%) patients with dementia, n = 29 (29%) with MCI and n = 28 (29%) with SCD. The 133 care partners had a median (IQR) age of 62 (52–72) years and n = 78 (59%) were female. There were n = 103 (77%) care partners of a patient with dementia, n = 23 (17%) with MCI and n = 7 (5%) with SCD. The majority of the care partners was a life partner (spouse) of the patient (n = 76; 57%) and was living with the patient (n = 83; 62%).

Table 1

Online survey sample descriptives
	Online survey
	Patients (n = 99)	Care partners (n = 133)
Age, median (IQR)	67 (61–73)	62 (52–72)
Female, n (%)	58 (59%)	78 (59%)
Country, n (%)	The Netherlands: 50 (51%) Slovakia: 16 (16%) Slovenia: 13 (13%) Sweden: 3 (3%) Other: 17 (17%)*	The Netherlands: 50 (38%) Slovakia: 37 (28%) Slovenia: 10 (8%) Sweden: 21 (16%) Other: 15 (11%)**
Years of education, median (IQR)	16 (13–18)	15 (13–17)
Diagnosis of patient, n (%)
dementia	42 (42%)	103 (77%)
MCI	29 (29%)	23 (17%)
SCD	28 (29%)	7 (5%)
Time since diagnosis (years), mean ± SD	4 ± 5	3 ± 3
Relation to patient, n (%)
Partner/spouse	NA	76 (57%)
Child	NA	44 (33%)
Grandchild	NA	5 (4%)
Sister/brother (in law)	NA	3 (2%)
Other	NA	5 (4%)
Living with patient, n (%)	NA	83 (62%)
Notes.
* Ireland: 5 (5), United Kingdom: 4 (4), Switzerland: 2 (2), Belgium: 1 (1), Finland: 1 (1), Germany: 1 (1), Austria: 1 (1), Portugal: 1 (1), Czech Republic: 1 (1)
** Ireland: 6 (5), Switzerland: 3 (2), United Kingdom: 1 (1), Belgium: 1 (1), Finland: 1 (1), Germany: 1 (1), Austria: 1 (1), Portugal: 1 (1)

Figure 1 and the appendix display how frequent every item, grouped by category, was selected as one of the three most important outcomes by patients and care partners. For both patients and care partners, cognition-related items were most frequently selected, followed by functioning and dependency. Compared to patients, care partners selected more items related to ‘behavior and neuropsychiatry’ and ‘physical health’ as most important. Seven patients (7%) and three care partners (2%) indicated they did not want to know anything about the progression of the symptoms.

The top-10 lists of items most frequently mentioned as most important by patients and care partners were quite concordant, since seven items (70%) were selected by both groups. The overlapping seven items were memory deterioration, recognizing friends and family, patients’ ability to convey what they want to say, take care of their self, no longer recognize others, loss of legal capacity and live in their own home. In addition, the following items were most frequently identified as most important by patients only: ability to participate in conversations, learning and planning and organizing. Orientation in place, life expectancy and expected cognitive symptoms were most often selected as most important by care partners only. We merged the seven matching items and the six non-matching items, into a core outcome list of 13 most important items as shown in Table 2. The majority (9 items) of these 13 items is part of the category ‘cognition’, followed by three items in the category ‘functioning and dependency’ and one item in the category ‘physical health’. There were no items from the category ‘behavior and neuropsychiatry’ and ‘social environment’ in the core outcome list. Of note, the item ‘How long am I able to decide whether I want euthanasia?’, which was only included in the Dutch survey, was the 5th most important outcome in the Dutch sample, selected by six (16%) of Dutch participants.

Table 2

Core outcome list
Outcomes	Category	Frequency
Outcomes	Category	Patients (n = 99)	Care partner (n = 133)
Memory deterioration How quickly does my memory deteriorate?	Cognition	34 (34%)	51 (38%)
Recognizing friends and family How long am I able to recognize my family and friends?	Cognition	41 (41%)	39 (29%)
Ability to convey what I want to say How long am I able to convey what I want to say?	Cognition	23 (23%)	26 (19%)
Ability to take care of myself How long am I able to take care of myself?	Functioning and dependency	22 (22%)	22 (16%)
No longer recognize anyone When do I no longer recognize anyone?	Cognition	12 (12.1%)	19 (14%)
Loss of legal capacity When are discussions underway about the (possible) need for legal incapacitation?	Functioning and dependency	10 (10%)	14 (11%)
Living on your own home How long am I able to live in my own home?	Functioning and dependency	11 (11%)	14 (11%)
Orientation in place** How long am I able to find my way back home?	Cognition	8 (8%)	15 (11%)
Life expectancy** What is my life expectancy?	Physical health	5 (5%)	15 (11%)
Ability to participate in conversations* How long am I able to participate in conversations?	Cognition	12 (12%)	6 (5%)
Expected cognitive symptoms** Which cognitive symptoms should I expect?	Cognition	5 (5%)	11 (8%)
Learning* How long am I able to learn new things?	Cognition	9 (9%)	6 (5%)
Planning and organizing* How long am I able to plan and organize everyday activities?	Cognition	11 (11%)	4 (3%)
Legend.
*Most important to patients only
** Most important to care partners only
The top 10 lists of both patients and care partners were merged into one core outcome list, comprising of 13 items.

In this pan-European study, we identified a core list with outcomes relevant to patients and care partners in the disease trajectory of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Patients and care partners largely identified similar outcomes as most important, including memory deterioration, loss of legal capacity, no longer recognizing (significant) others, and the patients’ ability to convey what they want to say, take care of their self and live in their own home. Most selected outcomes were from the category ‘cognition’, followed by items in the categories ‘functioning and dependency’ and ‘physical health’.

Many patients perceive the neuropsychological examination as stressful, yet our results show that they highly value a prognosis in terms of cognitive outcomes. Patients and care partners are keen to know about the (expected) course of the cognitive outcomes.¹⁷ The current study underlines that we should bridge the gap between cognitive test scores and daily functioning, by making an effort to translate numerical cognitive test results to the cognitive outcomes such as mentioned in this study.

Contrary to our expectation, outcomes from the category ‘behavior and neuropsychiatry’, such as anxiety and apathy, were not often selected by our participants as most important. This finding is in correspondence with results from a previous study, reporting that anxiety and depressive symptoms were not highly prioritized by patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and their care partners.¹¹ Nonetheless, behavioral and psychological symptoms are highly prevalent across the entire spectrum of AD, with 96% of the patients showing at least one symptom.^{18, 19} Former studies reported that these symptoms were associated with increased risk of institutionalization, difficulties in daily functioning and caregiver burden.^{20, 21} We could speculate that symptoms from the category ‘behavior and neuropsychiatry’ may be more relevant at a later stage, or that patients and care partners may not have realized that these symptoms are related to AD. Alternatively, these symptoms may not be the most striking aspect of managing AD in everyday life, and this could be different in other types of dementia such as dementia with Lewy bodies or frontotemporal dementia, where behavioral and psychological signs and symptoms are more in the foreground.^{22, 23}

We observed large variability in the importance rating of individual items, as 33 out of the list of 59 were rated as ‘most important’ by at least one patient or caregiver. When scrutinizing the individual items, some showed some overlap with other items from the same category. For example the items ‘How long am I able to recognize my family and friends’ and ‘When do I no longer recognize anyone?’ from the category cognition showed resemblance since they both focused on the ability to recognize others. Nevertheless, on a category level, it was clear that most patients and care partners identified items related to cognitive decline and functional dependence as most important. In view of the large variability in items selected as most important, it was even more remarkable that outcomes deemed relevant by patients and care partners were very similar. Seven out of ten items in both the patient and care partner top10-lists were concordant, justifying us merging these lists into one core outcome list of 13 items. For both patients and care partners, outcomes from the category ‘cognition’ and ‘functioning and dependency’ were identified as most important. However, the differences are also interesting. Care partners for example indicated a strong wish to know the patient’s life expectancy. Patients on the other hand emphasized the importance of maintaining their ability to participate meaningfully in conversations. By merging the top-10 lists of both patients and care partners into one core outcome list, the perspectives of both stakeholder groups are equally well represented.

To our knowledge, this is the first study that has investigated outcomes of relevance to patients and care partners in the disease trajectory of AD (AD dementia, MCI and SCD) in multiple European countries, using a mixed-method approach. A former review reported comparable results in relevant outcomes of patients with MCI or AD and their care partners and health care providers.²⁴ This review identified some outcomes mentioned in our study, e.g. memory, mental health, activities of daily living and maintenance of identity. Outcomes that we did not replicate are eating behaviors, apathy and self-efficacy in the ability to manage memory impairment. In addition, a recent qualitative study examined what matters most to patients and care partners across the AD continuum, by means of interviews only.²⁵ They also observed that memory (e.g. forgetting friends/family) was reported as one of the most challenging issues by the majority of the participants. In addition, they reported that the impacts of AD vary across the disease-severity spectrum. Emotional impacts (e.g. more frustrated) and social impacts (e.g. decreased social activities) were most commonly reported in the early stages of AD. However, care partners of patients with mild to severe AD reported impacts on their own daily responsibilities as most important.

Strengths

One of the strengths of our study is the two stepped, mixed-methods approach, whereby we first used a qualitative bottom up strategy to generate a comprehensive list of outcomes, and then a quantitative approach to provide a selection of most important outcomes from the perspectives of a large sample of patients and care partners. Also, we included participants from 13 different European countries, which greatly enhances generalizability.

Limitations

Among the potential limitations is our use of an online survey, which may have led to an underrepresentation of patients with severe cognitive symptoms and computer illiterate patients. On the other hand, one might argue that with diagnosis of AD occurring in an increasingly early stage, the preferences and wishes with respect to prognosis of these groups are most relevant in this context. Another potential limitation is that identifying the most important items in the online survey was challenging for participants. To support participants in identifying what mattered most to them, we used a stepped approach that made it easier for the participants to select the three items they considered most important. In addition, the fact that behavior and neuropsychiatry were not mentioned as relevant outcomes may be partly due to patients and care partners being unaware that these outcomes are possible and quite likely consequences of AD.

Implications for clinical practice and further research

Information on individual disease trajectories can support patients, care partners and health care providers to plan and organize care. We will use the results of the current study to collect patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the context of the European ADDITION project. Subsequently, we will integrate these PROs into a disease progression model, which could help to provide patients and care partners with personalized information on their expected disease course. A previous study constructed biomarker-based models for prediction of progression to dementia in MCI patients.²⁶ The next step is to predict other outcomes relevant to patients and care partners.

Based on our results, it can be debated whether the data we routinely collect during follow-up at the memory clinic (i.e. medical exam, cognitive testing) sufficiently reflects the outcomes that are most relevant. We should focus more on data collection of PROs, such as identified in the current study. Moreover, previous studies investigated the views of healthcare professionals regarding important outcomes in AD, and reported driving,¹³ patient and care partner quality of life,^{13, 27} maintaining personality and identity¹³ and behavior changes^{13, 28} as relevant. These did however not end up in our core outcome list from the perspective of patients and care partners. This would suggest that important outcomes from the perspective of healthcare professionals are additionally relevant and could also be taken into account when investigating PROMs in AD-studies. Of note, seven (7.1%) patients and three (2.3%) care partners reported that they did not want to know anything about the progression of the symptoms in our study. Therefore, it is important to adopt a process of shared decision making in memory clinics ,²⁹ in which patients, care partners and clinician decide together on the prognostic information about the course of AD which is most relevant to patients and their care partners.

In addition, to follow patients more efficiently, we could make more use of online opportunities, and this has particularly become relevant in the current times with COVID19 related regulations that hamper physical visits. We will incorporate our core outcome list in a large-scale online data-collection of PROs, supplemented with outcomes that are deemed relevant from the perspective of the professionals (e.g. quality of life and behavior changes). In our online data collection, in addition to questionnaires on quality of life and activities of daily living, we include questions about their social environment, patients’ ability to participate in conversations, to recognize loved ones and to keep up hobbies. Some outcomes identified in our study are too abstract or otherwise impossible to inquiry by means of a questionnaire (e.g. how long am I able to convey what I want to say?). Acknowledging these uncertainties and the impossibility to adequately answer these questions might help them cope.³⁰

Conclusion

This study resulted in a comprehensive core list of 13 outcomes in the AD trajectory relevant to both patients and care partners. These outcomes can be incorporated in patient care, research, for example via online survey. Integration of these outcomes into a disease progression model can help to provide patients and care partners with personalized information on prognosis of AD.

AD: Alzheimer’s disease; MCI: mild cognitive impairment; SCD: subjective cognitive decline; PROs: patient-reported outcomes; MMSE: Minimal-Mental State Examination

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was evaluated on ethical grounds and approved by the local boards of the Medical Ethics Committee (Amsterdam UMC (approval no.2019.282), Karolinska Institutet Stockholm, University Medical Centre Ljubjana and Institute of Neuroimmunilogy AD centre Slovakia). All participants provided informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

This project has received funding from the EU Joint Programme- Neurodegenerative Disease Research (JPND). The sponsors had no involvement in the study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Authors’ contributions

AM provided input on the study design, collected, analyzed and interpreted data and drafted the manuscript. ISM, EDB EMMG, LJ, MGK, PN, AD, DG contributed to data collection and revised the manuscript. PS revised the manuscript. WMF provided input on analysis and interpretation of data, contributed to drafting the manuscript, and was responsible for study supervision. LNCV designed the study, provided input on analysis and interpretation of data, contributed to drafting the manuscript, and was responsible for study supervision.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

La Joie R, Visani AV, Baker SL, Brown JA, Bourakova V, Cha J, et al. Prospective longitudinal atrophy in Alzheimer's disease correlates with the intensity and topography of baseline tau-PET. Science translational medicine. 2020;12(524).
Schmidt-Richberg A, Ledig C, Guerrero R, Molina-Abril H, Frangi A, Rueckert D. Learning Biomarker Models for Progression Estimation of Alzheimer's Disease. PloS one. 2016;11(4):e0153040.
Kunneman M, Smets EMA, Bouwman FH, Schoonenboom NSM, Zwan MD, Pel-Littel R, et al. Clinicians' views on conversations and shared decision making in diagnostic testing for Alzheimer's disease: The ABIDE project. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N Y). 2017;3(3):305-13.
Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Hammitt JK, Concannon TW, Auerbach HR, Fang C, et al. Willingness-to-pay for predictive tests with no immediate treatment implications: a survey of US residents. Health economics. 2012;21(3):238-51.
Neumann PJ, Hammitt JK, Mueller C, Fillit HM, Hill J, Tetteh NA, et al. Public attitudes about genetic testing for Alzheimer's disease. Health affairs (Project Hope). 2001;20(5):252-64.
Brodaty H, Donkin M. Family caregivers of people with dementia. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience. 2009;11(2):217-28.
Mohamed S, Rosenheck R, Lyketsos CG, Schneider LS. Caregiver burden in Alzheimer disease: cross-sectional and longitudinal patient correlates. The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry. 2010;18(10):917-27.
Patrick DL, Burke LB, Powers JH, Scott JA, Rock EP, Dawisha S, et al. Patient-reported outcomes to support medical product labeling claims: FDA perspective. Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. 2007;10 Suppl 2:S125-37.
Topics-MDS. Radboud University Medical Center, Department of Geriatric Medicine; [Available from: https://topics-mds.eu/.
Gordon MF, Lenderking WR, Duhig A, Chandler J, Lundy JJ, Miller DS, et al. Development of a patient-reported outcome instrument to assess complex activities of daily living and interpersonal functioning in persons with mild cognitive impairment: The qualitative research phase. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2016;12(1):75-84.
Barrios PG, González RP, Hanna SM, Lunde AM, Fields JA, Locke DE, et al. Priority of Treatment Outcomes for Caregivers and Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment: Preliminary Analyses. Neurology and therapy. 2016;5(2):183-92.
Hauber AB, Mohamed AF, Johnson FR, Cook M, Arrighi HM, Zhang J, et al. Understanding the relative importance of preserving functional abilities in Alzheimer's disease in the United States and Germany. Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation. 2014;23(6):1813-21.
Bronner K, Perneczky R, McCabe R, Kurz A, Hamann J. Which medical and social decision topics are important after early diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease from the perspectives of people with Alzheimer's Disease, spouses and professionals? BMC research notes. 2016;9:149.
Dai B, Mao Z, Mei J, Levkoff S, Wang H, Pacheco M, et al. Caregivers in China: knowledge of mild cognitive impairment. PloS one. 2013;8(1):e53928.
software V. MAXQDA 12, software for Qualitative Data Analasis. [computer software]. Berin, Germany: VERBI Software; 1995-2016.
BV SN. Survalyzer to survey & analyze Utrecht [Available from: https://education.survalyzer.com/.
Teng EL, Manly JJ. Neuropsychological testing: helpful or harmful? Alzheimer disease and associated disorders. 2005;19(4):267-71.
Petrovic M, Hurt C, Collins D, Burns A, Camus V, Liperoti R, et al. Clustering of behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia (BPSD): a European Alzheimer's disease consortium (EADC) study. Acta clinica Belgica. 2007;62(6):426-32.
David A Wolk BCD. Clinical features and diagnosis of Alzheimer disease. UpToDate. 2019.
Clyburn LD, Stones MJ, Hadjistavropoulos T, Tuokko H. Predicting caregiver burden and depression in Alzheimer's disease. The journals of gerontology Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences. 2000;55(1):S2-13.
Yaffe K, Fox P, Newcomer R, Sands L, Lindquist K, Dane K, et al. Patient and caregiver characteristics and nursing home placement in patients with dementia. Jama. 2002;287(16):2090-7.
Johnson JK, Diehl J, Mendez MF, Neuhaus J, Shapira JS, Forman M, et al. Frontotemporal lobar degeneration: demographic characteristics of 353 patients. Archives of neurology. 2005;62(6):925-30.
McKeith IG, Boeve BF, Dickson DW, Halliday G, Taylor JP, Weintraub D, et al. Diagnosis and management of dementia with Lewy bodies: Fourth consensus report of the DLB Consortium. Neurology. 2017;89(1):88-100.
Tochel C, Smith M, Baldwin H, Gustavsson A, Ly A, Bexelius C, et al. What outcomes are important to patients with mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer's disease, their caregivers, and health-care professionals? A systematic review. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2019;11:231-47.
DiBenedetti DB, Slota C, Wronski SL, Vradenburg G, Comer M, Callahan LF, et al. Assessing what matters most to patients with or at risk for Alzheimer's and care partners: a qualitative study evaluating symptoms, impacts, and outcomes. Alzheimer's research & therapy. 2020;12(1):90.
van Maurik IS, Vos SJ, Bos I, Bouwman FH, Teunissen CE, Scheltens P, et al. Biomarker-based prognosis for people with mild cognitive impairment (ABIDE): a modelling study. The Lancet Neurology. 2019;18(11):1034-44.
Jones RW, Mackell J, Berthet K, Knox S. Assessing attitudes and behaviours surrounding Alzheimer's disease in Europe: key findings of the Important Perspectives on Alzheimer's Care and Treatment (IMPACT) survey. The journal of nutrition, health & aging. 2010;14(7):525-30.
Yektatalab S, Sharif F, Kaveh MH, Fallahi Khoshknab M, Petramfar P. Living with and caring for patients with Alzheimer's disease in nursing homes. Journal of caring sciences. 2013;2(3):187-95.
van der Flier WM, Kunneman M, Bouwman FH, Petersen RC, Smets EMA. Diagnostic dilemmas in Alzheimer's disease: Room for shared decision making. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N Y). 2017;3(3):301-4.
Visser LNC, Pelt SAR, Kunneman M, Bouwman FH, Claus JJ, Kalisvaart KJ, et al. Communicating uncertainties when disclosing diagnostic test results for (Alzheimer's) dementia in the memory clinic: The ABIDE project. Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy. 2020;23(1):52-62.

Additionalfile1.docx
Additional file 1. Supplemental Appendix.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Prognosis of Alzheimer’s disease; what do patients and care partners want to know?

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Methods

3. Results

4. Discussion

List of Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1