Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40551458›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of neurology2025

Utility, Costs and Cost-Utility of Amyloid-PET in the Diagnostic Process of Memory Clinic Patients: A Trial-Based Economic Evaluation From AMYPAD-DPMS.

Ingrid S van Maurik, Daniele Altomare, Lyduine E Collij, Camilia Caprioglio, Christian Moro, Valentina Garibotto, Jean-François Demonet, Philip Scheltens, Gill Farrer, Rosella Gismondi and 16 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

26 authors.

Ingrid S van MaurikAlzheimer Center Amsterdam, Neurology Amsterdam UMC Location VUmc Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6919-8340
Daniele AltomareCompetence Centre on Ageing (CCA), Department of Business Economics, Health and Social Care (DEASS), University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland (SUPSI), Manno, Switzerland.
Lyduine E CollijDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Camilia CaprioglioLaboratory of Neuroimaging of Aging (LANVIE), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Christian MoroLaboratory of Neuroimaging of Aging (LANVIE), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Valentina GaribottoDivision of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Medical Imaging, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jean-François DemonetLeenaards Memory Center, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Philip ScheltensAlzheimer Center Amsterdam, Neurology Amsterdam UMC Location VUmc Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Gill FarrerGE Healthcare, Amersham, UK.
Rosella GismondiLife Molecular Imaging GmbH, Berlin, Germany.
Andrew W StephensLife Molecular Imaging GmbH, Berlin, Germany.
Jean Domingo GispertBarcelonaβeta Brain Research Center (BBRC), Pasqual Maragall Foundation, Barcelona, Spain.
José Luis MolinuevoBarcelonaβeta Brain Research Center (BBRC), Pasqual Maragall Foundation, Barcelona, Spain.
Oriol Grau-RiveraBarcelonaβeta Brain Research Center (BBRC), Pasqual Maragall Foundation, Barcelona, Spain.
Paul EdisonDivision of Neurology, Department of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6551-2002
Zuzana WalkerDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Frank JessenDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Alexander DzrezgaGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Bonn-Cologne, Germany.
Philip ZeyenDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Pierre PayouxDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Laure Saint-AubertDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Julien DelrieuGérontopôle, Department of Geriatrics, Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Agneta NordbergDepartment of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Center of Alzheimer Research, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Frederik BarkhofDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Giovanni B FrisoniLaboratory of Neuroimaging of Aging (LANVIE), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Johannes BerkhofAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Department of Epidemiology and Data Science Amsterdam Public Health Institute Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

IMI2 JU 115952
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAmyloid positron emission tomography (PET) is instrumental in achieving an accurate diagnosis and may help to limit health-seeking behavior. Currently, amyloid-PET is not routinely used in clinical practice due to lack of evidence on cost-utility. We assessed the cost-utility of early versus no amyloid-PET in the diagnostic work-up of memory clinic patients after 6 months.

methodsWe assessed cost-utility of patients enrolled in AMYPAD-DPMS (EudraCT Number: 2017-002527-21) from six European memory clinics and randomized in ARM1; early amyloid-PET, ARM2; no amyloid-PET or ARM3; (amyloid-PET at request of the managing physician). ARM3 was not part of the cost-utility analysis. The EuroQol classification system (EQ-5D-5L), visual analogue scale (VAS), and ICEpop Capability measure for older people (ICECAP-O) were collected at baseline and 6 months. Costs were calculated from cost diaries at baseline, 3 and 6 months. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated using EQ-5D-5L and a societal perspective.

resultsFrom April 2018, to October 2020, 844 participants were screened and 840 were randomized (290 ARM1; 270 ARM2 and 280 ARM3). N = 514 (250 ARM1; 264 ARM2) were included in the economic evaluation. Amyloid-PET resulted in higher costs at 6 months (ARM1 vs. ARM2 ∆€1384, bootstrapped 95% CI [7, 2761]). No significant difference in EQ-5D-5L, VAS or ICECAP-O was found. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was €461,333 per QALY.

conclusionAlthough patients receive an early etiological diagnosis, the cost-utility after 6 months is not favorable for amyloid-PET. The cost-utility will need to be reassessed when considering amyloid-PET to select patients for anti-amyloid biologics.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseCost-Benefit AnalysisMemory DisordersPositron-Emission TomographyAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedAlzheimer's diseaseamyloid‐PETcost‐utilityearly diagnosis

Identifiers

PMID40551458
PMCPMC12185784

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.