Home › Research › Biomarkers
Current Capacity for Diagnosing Alzheimer's Disease in Germany and Implications for Wait Times
Mattke S, Tang Y, Hanson M, von Arnim CAF, Frölich L, Grimmer T, Onur OA, Perneczky R et al.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2024-01-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Background Amyloid-targeting therapies for Alzheimer's disease (AD) might become available in Germany soon. The combination of a large pool of prevalent cases and a complex diagnostic process to determine eligibility for these treatments is likely to challenge health systems' capacity. Objective To analyze Germany's healthcare system capacity to identify treatment-eligible patients in a timely and equitable manner. Methods We modeled patients' diagnostic journey and projects wait times due to capacity constraints for AD specialist visits and PET scans from 2024 to 2043. Model parameters were derived from published data and expert input. Results Wait times would be ∼50 months over the model horizon, if patients were referred to specialists based on a brief cognitive assessment in primary care. Wait times for patients with social health insurance are projected to be 1.9 times those of patients with private insurance, with peak wait times of around 76 and 40 months, respectively. Adding a blood test for the AD pathology as additional triage step would reduce wait times to below 24 months. Conclusions In spite of having a well-resourced health system, Germany is projected to be unable to cope with the demand for biomarker-based AD diagnosis, if a disease-modifying AD treatment were introduced. As these treatments might become available by the end of 2024, decisive action, in particular dissemination of high-performing AD blood tests for triage in primary care, will be needed to prevent delays in access and potentially avoidable and inequitable disease progression.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Mattke, S., Tang, Y., Hanson, M., von Arnim, C. A. F., Frölich, L., Grimmer, T., et al. (2024). Current Capacity for Diagnosing Alzheimer's Disease in Germany and Implications for Wait Times. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-240728
Vancouver
Mattke S, Tang Y, Hanson M, von Arnim CAF, Frölich L, Grimmer T, et al. Current Capacity for Diagnosing Alzheimer's Disease in Germany and Implications for Wait Times. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2024. doi:10.3233/jad-240728. PMID: 39302379.
BibTeX
@article{mattke2024-39302379,
author = {Mattke, S. and Tang, Y. and Hanson, M. and von Arnim, C. A. F. and Frölich, L. and Grimmer, T. and Onur, O. A. and Perneczky, R. and others},
title = {{Current Capacity for Diagnosing Alzheimer's Disease in Germany and Implications for Wait Times}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.3233/jad-240728},
pmid = {39302379},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-240728}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Wait times would be ∼50 months over the model horizon, if patients were referred to specialists based on a brief cognitive assessment in primary care.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39302379) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 24 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also tagged “capacity”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “capacity”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.