Home › Research › Biomarkers
Expected wait times for access to a disease-modifying Alzheimer's treatment in England: A modelling study
Mattke S, Tang Y, Hanson M.. Journal of health services research & policy, 2023-11-06
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Objectives We previously analysed the preparedness to deliver a disease-modifying Alzheimer's treatment in the United Kingdom and predicted substantial wait times. This study updates the prediction for the National Health Service (NHS) in England, using an improved model and newer data. Methods We reviewed published data on capacity for diagnosis of cognitive impairment combined with expert input and constructed a model for wait times to access from 2023 to 2043. The model tracks patients from initial evaluation in primary care, cognitive testing by a dementia specialist, confirmatory biomarker testing with positron emission tomography (PET) scans or examination of cerebrospinal fluid and infusion delivery. Capacity for specialist visits and PET scans are assumed to be capacity constrained, and cerebrospinal fluid testing and infusion delivery to be scalable. Results Capacity constraints were projected to result in substantial wait times: patients referred to specialists based on a brief cognitive test, which is the current standard of care, would expect an overall initial wait times of 56 months in 2023, increasing to 129 months in 2029 and then falling slowly to around 100 months. Use of a blood test for the confirmation of Alzheimer's pathology as an additional triage step, would reduce wait times to around 17 to 25 months. Discussion The NHS England lacks capacity to provide timely access to a disease-modifying treatment, which is estimated to result in significant wait times and potentially avoidable disease progression. Better diagnostic tools at initial evaluation may reduce delays.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Mattke, S., Tang, Y., & Hanson, M. (2024). Expected wait times for access to a disease-modifying Alzheimer's treatment in England: A modelling study. Journal of health services research & policy. https://doi.org/10.1177/13558196231211141
Vancouver
Mattke S, Tang Y, Hanson M. Expected wait times for access to a disease-modifying Alzheimer's treatment in England: A modelling study. Journal of health services research & policy. 2024. doi:10.1177/13558196231211141. PMID: 37931615.
BibTeX
@article{mattke2024-37931615,
author = {Mattke, S. and Tang, Y. and Hanson, M.},
title = {{Expected wait times for access to a disease-modifying Alzheimer's treatment in England: A modelling study}},
journal = {Journal of health services research \& policy},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1177/13558196231211141},
pmid = {37931615},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/13558196231211141}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Capacity constraints were projected to result in substantial wait times: patients referred to specialists based on a brief cognitive test, which is the current standard of care, would expect an overall initial wait times of 56 months in 2023, increasing to 129 months in 2029 and then falling slowly to around 100 months.
- Discussion The NHS England lacks capacity to provide timely access to a disease-modifying treatment, which is estimated to result in significant wait times and potentially avoidable disease progression.
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 health services research & policy) |
| 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 37931615) |
| 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 in Biomarkers
208 studies in the library are filed under Biomarkers with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Biomarkers hub.