Introduction We compared the automated Elecsys and manual Innotest immunoassays for cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Alzheimer's disease biomarkers in a multicenter diagnostic setting. Methods We collected CSF samples from 137 participants in eight local memory clinics. Amyloid β(1–42) (Aβ42), total tau (t-tau), and phosphorylated tau (p-tau) were centrally analyzed with Innotest and Elecsys assays. Concordances between methods were assessed. Results Biomarker results strongly correlated between assays with Spearman's ρ 0.94 for Aβ42, 0.98 for t-tau, and 0.98 for p-tau. Using Gaussian mixture modeling, cohort-specific cut-points were estimated at 1092 pg/mL for Aβ42, 235 pg/mL for t-tau, and 24 pg/mL for p-tau. We found an excellent concordance of biomarker abnormality between assays of 97% for Aβ42 and 96% for both t-tau and p-tau. Discussion The high concordances between Elecsys and Innotest in this nonacademic, multicenter cohort support the use of Elecsys for CSF Alzheimer's disease diagnostics and allow conversion of results between methods.

Background: CSF biomarkers amyloid-β 1–42 (Aβ42), total tau (tau) and tau phosphorylated at threonine 181 (ptau-181) are useful diagnostic markers for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). We examined the impact of these biomarkers in the diagnostic process in a non-academic memory clinic. Methods: One hundred and nine patients with available CSF were included from the local hospital memory clinic. Initially, patients were clinically diagnosed, and the clinician indicated their confidence in the diagnosis. Next the CSF results were presented, and the clinician re-evaluated his initial diagnosis. The main outcomes were changes in initial diagnosis and diagnostic confidence. Results: Forty-seven patients were initially diagnosed with AD, 26 were diagnosed with another type of dementia, 18 were diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment, and 18 received a non-dementia diagnosis. All biomarkers distinguished between AD and non-dementia (p < 0.01); tau and ptau-181 also distinguished AD from other types of dementia (p < 0.001). After CSF biomarker levels were revealed, 11 diagnoses changed. In 31% of the diagnoses, the clinician gained confidence, while in 10% confidence decreased. Conclusion: We found that knowledge of CSF biomarker profiles changed the diagnosis in 10% of the cases, and confidence in the diagnosis increased for one third of the patients.

Introduction We aimed to describe clinician-patient communication in the diagnostic process of memory clinics, specifically clinician behavior known to facilitate knowledgeable participation of patients during consultations. Methods In this multicenter, observational study, we audio-recorded routine diagnostic consultations of 41 clinicians and 136 patients/caregivers at eight memory clinics. Patients/caregivers completed surveys after each audiotaped consultation. We used a study-specific coding scheme to categorize communication behavior. Results Clinicians often provided information on (results of) diagnostic testing. They infrequently invited questions and/or checked understanding. Clinician behavior to involve patients in decision-making about diagnostic testing was limited. Of note, patients/caregivers rarely expressed their information or involvement preferences. Yet, approximately, one quarter of them would have liked to receive more information. Discussion Involving patients more explicitly by means of shared decision-making could benefit the quality of care provided in memory clinics because it enables clinicians to attune the diagnostic workup to the individual patient's needs.

prophylactic low-dose oral haloperidol did not reduce delirium incidence in acutely hospitalised older patients. Therefore, prophylactic use of haloperidol in this population is not recommended.

Background We aimed to explore clinicians' communication, including the discussion of diagnosis, cause, prognosis and care planning, in routine post-diagnostic testing consultations with patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). Methods Thematic content analysis was used to analyze audiotaped consultations in which 10 clinicians (eight neurologists and two geriatricians) from 7 memory clinics, disclosed diagnostic information to 13 MCI patients and their care partners. We assessed clinician-patient communication regarding diagnostic label, cause, prognosis and care planning to identify core findings. Results Core findings were: clinicians 1) differed in how they informed about the MCI label; 2) tentatively addressed cause of symptoms; 3) (implicitly) steered against further biomarker testing; 4) rarely informed about the patient's risk of developing dementia; 5) often informed about the expected course of symptoms emphasizing potential symptom stabilization and/ or improvement, and; 6) did not engage in a conversation on long-term (care) planning.