Slide 1:Statistical Issues for DevelopingAlzheimer Screening Tests
J. Wesson Ashford, M.D., Ph.D.
Stanford / VA Alzheimer’s Center
VAMC, Palo Alto, California
&
Helena C. Kraemer, Ph.D.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
Stanford University, Palo Alto, California
June 19, 2005
Washington, D.C.
Slides at: www.medafile.com (Dr. Ashford’s lectures)
Slide 2:Screening for Alzheimer’s DiseaseWhat does it mean?
Annual assessments (or bi- or semi-)
Positive screen recommends more tests
Contrast with current lack of system
50% not diagnosed until moderate AD
Screening will progressively improve
Change over time can be detected
Slide 3:AD Can Be Readily Diagnosed
A diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease can be made with a high degree of certainty
Using NINCDS-ADRDA criteria, accuracy in autopsy-verified cases is approximately 90%
Diagnosis is a 2-step process:
Detection through screening (test vs. family concern)
Confirmation through patient history and physical, caregiver interview, brain imaging, and appropriate laboratory studies McKhann G et al. Neurology. 1984;34:939-944.
Kazee AM et al. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 1993;7:152-164.
Ashford JW et al, Psychiaric Annals, 1996;26:262-268.
It is possible to make a diagnosis of AD with as high a degree of certainty as with other neurological and psychiatric disorders It is possible to make a diagnosis of AD with as high a degree of certainty as with other neurological and psychiatric disorders
Slide 4:AD is Under-diagnosed
Early Alzheimer’s disease is subtle, the diagnosis continues to be missed
it is easy for family members to avoid the problem and compensate for the patient
physicians tend to miss the initial signs and symptoms
Less than half of AD patients are diagnosed
Estimates are that 25% to 50% of cases remain undiagnosed
Diagnoses are missed at all levels of severity: mild, moderate, severe
No definitive laboratory test for diagnosing AD exists
Efforts to develop biomarkers, early recognition by brain scan have not provided a screening methodology Evans DA. Milbank Quarterly. 1990; 68:267-289
Slide 5:Reasons to Diagnose Alzheimer’s Disease Early Social
Undiagnosed AD patients face avoidable problems
social, financial
Early education of caregivers
how to handle patient (choices, getting started)
Advance planning while patient is competent
will, proxy, power of attorney, advance directives
Reduce family stress and misunderstanding
caregiver burden, blame, denial
Promote safety
driving, compliance, cooking, etc.
Patient’s and Family’s right to know
especially about genetic risks
Promote advocacy
for research and treatment development
Slide 6:Reasons to Diagnose Alzheimer’s Disease Early Medical
Early diagnosis and appropriate intervention may lessen disease burden and early treatment may improve overall course substantially
Neurophysiological pathways in patients with AD are still viable and are a target for treatment
Specific treatments now available
(anti-cholinesterases, memantine)
Improve cognition
Improve function (ADLs)
Delay conversion to AD from Mild Cognitive Impairment
Slow underlying disease process, the sooner the better
Decreased development of behavior problems
Delay nursing home placement, possibly over 20 months
Delay nursing home placement longer if started earlier
Slide 7:UNDERLYING CONTINUUM OF ALZHEIMER SEVERITY- progressive disruption of neuroplasticity - (Ashford & Jarvik, 1985; Ashford et al., 1995; Ashford, 2004)?? unidimensional, but how to measure ??
CROSS-SECTIONAL MEASURES
DEMENTIA SEVERITY (cognitive, ADL)
COGNITIVE SCALE SCORE
Z-SCORE
PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS
BRAIN ATROPHY, DYSFUNCTION
AUTOPSY MEASURES: plaques, tangles
TIME TO DEATH
LONGITUDINAL MEASUREMENT
TIME INTO THE DISEASE PROCESS
Considerable heterogeneity in disease clinical presentation and brain distribution
AAMI / MCI/ early AD -- + -- DEMENTIA ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE CONTINUUM Ashford et al., 1995; Ashford & Schmitt, 2001 derived from CERAD dataset Slide 9:Alzheimer’s Disease Categories
NORMAL
MILD COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT (MCI) CRITERIA
Memory complaint, preferably corroborated by an informant
Objective memory impairment
Normal general cognitive function
Intact activities of daily living
Not demented
American Academy of Neurology
Petersen et al., 2001 – Neurology 56:1133
Earlier descriptions by:
Jonker, Hooyer, 1990
Flicker, Ferris, Reisberg, 1991
Zaudig, 1992
DEMENTIA OF ALZHEIMER TYPE (DSM-IV - APA) Kraemer et al., 2004
Yesavavage et al., 2002 Markov Chain model ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE CATEGORIZATION Slide 11:Current Approaches to Early Assessment
Genetic vulnerability testing (trait not diagnosis)
Vulnerability factors
education, occupation, head injury (not diagnosis)
Early concern
Alzheimer Association’s 10 warning signs, ADL dysfunction
Dementia severity assessment tools (lack early power)
Positive diagnostic tests (too invasive for screening)
CSF – tau levels elevated, amyloid levels low
Brain scan – PET –
NFTs: DDNP
Amyloid: Thioflavin-S, Congo-red derivatives
Need new screening tools (6th vital sign in elderly)
Slide 12:Available Short TestsUsed for Screening
MMSE 10 -- 15 min
Too long
7-Minute Screen 7 – 10 min
Too complex
Clock Drawing Test 2 – 4 min
Not sensitive
Mini-cog 3 – 5 min
To be considered
Memory Impairment Screen 4 min
To be considered
Need to know the cost of administering the test
Need to have prospective measurement of sensitivity and specificity for the target population
Need to develop progressively better tests
Control: What happens without screening? Total Population
Risk=P P Have AD
No effective intervention
Do not have AD
P’ Helena Kraemer, 2003 Testing: What happens with testing? Total Population No AD AD Unnecessary intervention OK No effective intervention Effective intervention
$ Testing $Testing $ Testing $ Testing
$ Intervention $ Intervention
Iatragenic Damage? Clinical Wash Clinical Wash Clinical Gain
Major(?) Loss Minor (?) Loss Minor(?) Loss Major(?) Gain
Some gain P P’ Se Se’ Sp Sp’
Helena Kraemer, 2003 Slide 15:$W = Cost–Worthiness Calculation
I = incidence (new occurrences each year, by age)
$T = cost of test, time to take (Subject, Tester)
Se = sensitivity of test = True positive / I
Sp = specificity of test = True negative / (1-I)
Cost:
$B = benefit of a true positive diagnosis
Estimate: (100 years – age ) x $1000
Save $50,000 NH cost / 1year (after treatment cost deduction)
$C = cost of a false positive diagnosis
$500 for further evaluation (time, stress of suspecting dementia)
True negative (real peace of mind) (no price)
False negative = false peace of mind (no price)
$W = ($B x I x Se) – ($C x (1-I) x (1-Sp)) - $T Kraemer, Evaluating Medical Tests, Sage, 1992
JW Ashford, MD PhD, 2003 Se, Sp
Se, Sp Sp, Se See: Raber et al., 2004 (CERAD dataset) JW Ashford, MD PhD, 2003 Mendiondo et al., 2003 Slide 25:Issues in Screening
ROC analysis provides independent values of test performance
how the screening test values affect the normal and patient populations
plots of their relationship with respect to each other (specificity vs sensitivity)
data must be derived from the represented population!!!
The value of the test must be calculated with respect to the risk of the disease
In the specific population to which it is being applied
Risk is affected by age, genotype, many other factors
Accounting for a priori probability is Bayesian analysis
The cost-benefit must be assessed:
Apply the test cost and the costs of false positive and false negative results
Apply the benefits of correct positive and negative results
Alzheimer’s disease is not a dichotomous diagnosis but a continuum
Diagnosis would be better described with a probabilistic statement
Item Response Theory would better calculate probability (Modern Test Theory)
Item Response Theory and Factor Analysis allow combination of test components Kraemer, 1992; Ashford & Schmitt, 2001
Mini-Mental State Exam items MMSE
items Based on Ashford et al., 1989; 1995; applied to CERAD data set Slide 26:Neuropsychological Testing (WAIS, WECHSLER)
Memory: Short-term, Remote
Verbal Function, Fluency
Visuo-Spatial Function
Attention
Executive Function
Abstract Thinking
Account for Education
Account for Prior Dysfunctions
Neuropsychological Testing (WAIS, WECHSLER)
Memory: Short-term, Remote
Verbal Function, Fluency
Visuo-Spatial Function
Attention
Executive Function
Abstract Thinking
Account for Education
Account for Prior Dysfunctions
See: Hambleton et al., 1990; Ashford & Schmitt, 2001) MMSE Item-Response Analysis Slide 29:Summary Requirements for Screening Test Evaluation
Sensitivity, specificity for the population to which test is to be applied
values change with level of disease being screened (must be prospective)
Portion of population at risk
Risks according to age, gender, genotype, family hx, education, etc.
Cost of test -$1, $10, $100, $1000
Need brief screen to replace MMSE (ASAP) - $10 Medicare allowance
Costs of false positive, false negative tests
Benefits of true positive, true negative
Longevity is increasing over time, needs to be factored in.
Cascaded tests – preliminary screen, confirmatory exam
Longitudinal tests may provide much more reliable information
Different tests for clinic (cascaded), research (outcomes)
Clinic: brief screen, brain scan; Research: CSF - is disease stopped?
Benefit to society relative to other societal needs.
Slide 30:Dementia Screening Test Requirements for the Future
For Alzheimer’s disease (other tests for non-AD)
Validated against more stringent tests – brain scans, CSF measures
Specificities and sensitivities valid for comparison with other tests
Item Response Theory analysis of discriminatory power on disability continuum
Multiple platforms:
Doctor’s offices
Best if computerized for rapid, objective assessment
World-Wide Web – based testing,
CD-distribution
KIOSK administration – drug stores, shopping malls
Very brief (about 1-minute)
Multiple test forms
so it can be repeated often, e.g., every 3 months
Cost-effective yearly after age 50
repeatable every 3 months over 65 years of age or with concerns
Sensitive to change over time
Nominal cost