2016 Alzheimer's disease facts and figures

An understanding of patients’ care goals in the context of a serious illness is an essential element of high-quality care, allowing clinicians to align the care provided with what is most important to the patient. Early discussions about goals of care are associated with better quality of life, reduced use of nonbeneficial medical care near death, enhanced goal-consistent care, positive family outcomes, and reduced costs. Existing evidence does not support the commonly held belief that communication about end-of-life issues increases patient distress. However, conversations about care goals are often conducted by physicians who do not know the patient, do not routinely address patients’ nonmedical goals, and often fail to provide patients with sufficient information about prognosis to allow appropriate decisions; in addition, they tend to occur so late in the patient’s illness that their impact on care processes is reduced. This article (1) reviews the evidence and describes best practices in conversations about serious illness care goals and (2) offers practical advice for clinicians and health care systems about developing a systematic approach to quality and timing of such communication to assure that each patient has a personalized serious illness care plan. Best practices in discussing goals of care include the following: sharing prognostic information, eliciting decision-making preferences, understanding fears and goals, exploring views on trade-offs and impaired function, and wishes for family involvement. Several interventions hold promise in systematizing conversations with patients about serious illness care goals: better education of physicians; systems to identify and trigger early discussions for appropriate patients; patient and family education; structured formats to guide discussions; dedicated, structured sections in the electronic health record for recording information; and continuous measurement. We conclude that communication about serious illness care goals is an intervention that should be systematically integrated into our clinical care structures and processes.

Communication About Serious Illness Care Goals: A Review and Synthesis of Best Practices

This article describes the public health impact of Alzheimer's disease (AD), including incidence and prevalence, mortality and morbidity, use and costs of care, and the overall impact on family caregivers, the dementia workforce and society. The Special Report discusses consumers' and primary care physicians' perspectives on awareness, diagnosis and treatment of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), including MCI due to Alzheimer's disease. An estimated 6.5 million Americans age 65 and older are living with Alzheimer's dementia today. This number could grow to 13.8 million by 2060 barring the development of medical breakthroughs to prevent, slow or cure AD. Official death certificates recorded 121,499 deaths from AD in 2019, the latest year for which data are available. Alzheimer's disease was officially listed as the sixth‐leading cause of death in the United States in 2019 and the seventh‐leading cause of death in 2020 and 2021, when COVID‐19 entered the ranks of the top ten causes of death. Alzheimer's remains the fifth‐leading cause of death among Americans age 65 and older. Between 2000 and 2019, deaths from stroke, heart disease and HIV decreased, whereas reported deaths from AD increased more than 145%. More than 11 million family members and other unpaid caregivers provided an estimated 16 billion hours of care to people with Alzheimer's or other dementias in 2021. These figures reflect a decline in the number of caregivers compared with a decade earlier, as well as an increase in the amount of care provided by each remaining caregiver. Unpaid dementia caregiving was valued at $271.6 billion in 2021. Its costs, however, extend to family caregivers’ increased risk for emotional distress and negative mental and physical health outcomes — costs that have been aggravated by COVID‐19. Members of the dementia care workforce have also been affected by COVID‐19. As essential care workers, some have opted to change jobs to protect their own health and the health of their families. However, this occurs at a time when more members of the dementia care workforce are needed. Average per‐person Medicare payments for services to beneficiaries age 65 and older with AD or other dementias are almost three times as great as payments for beneficiaries without these conditions, and Medicaid payments are more than 22 times as great. Total payments in 2022 for health care, long‐term care and hospice services for people age 65 and older with dementia are estimated to be $321 billion. A recent survey commissioned by the Alzheimer's Association revealed several barriers to consumers’ understanding of MCI. The survey showed low awareness of MCI among Americans, a reluctance among Americans to see their doctor after noticing MCI symptoms, and persistent challenges for primary care physicians in diagnosing MCI. Survey results indicate the need to improve MCI awareness and diagnosis, especially in underserved communities, and to encourage greater participation in MCI‐related clinical trials.

2022 Alzheimer's disease facts and figures

Background
Extensive evidence shows that well over 50% of people prefer to be cared for and to die at home provided circumstances allow choice. Despite best efforts and policies, one-third or less of all deaths take place at home in many countries of the world.

Objectives
1. To quantify the effect of home palliative care services for adult patients with advanced illness and their family caregivers on patients' odds of dying at home; 2. to examine the clinical effectiveness of home palliative care services on other outcomes for patients and their caregivers such as symptom control, quality of life, caregiver distress and satisfaction with care; 3. to compare the resource use and costs associated with these services; 4. to critically appraise and summarise the current evidence on cost-effectiveness.

Search methods
We searched 12 electronic databases up to November 2012. We checked the reference lists of all included studies, 49 relevant systematic reviews, four key textbooks and recent conference abstracts. We contacted 17 experts and researchers for unpublished data.

Selection criteria
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before and after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series (ITSs) evaluating the impact of home palliative care services on outcomes for adults with advanced illness or their family caregivers, or both.

Data collection and analysis
One review author assessed the identified titles and abstracts. Two independent reviewers performed assessment of all potentially relevant studies, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality. We carried out meta-analysis where appropriate and calculated numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNTBs) for the primary outcome (death at home).

Main results
We identified 23 studies (16 RCTs, 6 of high quality), including 37,561 participants and 4042 family caregivers, largely with advanced cancer but also congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), HIV/AIDS and multiple sclerosis (MS), among other conditions. Meta-analysis showed increased odds of dying at home (odds ratio (OR) 2.21, 95% CI 1.31 to 3.71; Z = 2.98, P value = 0.003; Chi2 = 20.57, degrees of freedom (df) = 6, P value = 0.002; I2 = 71%; NNTB 5, 95% CI 3 to 14 (seven trials with 1222 participants, three of high quality)). In addition, narrative synthesis showed evidence of small but statistically significant beneficial effects of home palliative care services compared to usual care on reducing symptom burden for patients (three trials, two of high quality, and one CBA with 2107 participants) and of no effect on caregiver grief (three RCTs, two of high quality, and one CBA with 2113 caregivers). Evidence on cost-effectiveness (six studies) is inconclusive.

Authors' conclusions
The results provide clear and reliable evidence that home palliative care increases the chance of dying at home and reduces symptom burden in particular for patients with cancer, without impacting on caregiver grief. This justifies providing home palliative care for patients who wish to die at home. More work is needed to study cost-effectiveness especially for people with non-malignant conditions, assessing place of death and appropriate outcomes that are sensitive to change and valid in these populations, and to compare different models of home palliative care, in powered studies.

/pdf/effectiveness-and-cost-effectiveness-of-home-palliative-care-27st4o4429.pdf

Effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of home palliative care services for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers

Importance Although many patients with end-stage cancer are offered chemotherapy to improve quality of life (QOL), the association between chemotherapy and QOL amid progressive metastatic disease has not been well-studied. American Society for Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend palliative chemotherapy only for solid tumor patients with good performance status. Objective To evaluate the association between chemotherapy use and QOL near death (QOD) as a function of patients’ performance status. Design, Setting, and Participants A multi-institutional, longitudinal cohort study of patients with end-stage cancer recruited between September 2002 and February 2008. Chemotherapy use (n = 158 [50.6%]) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status were assessed at baseline (median = 3.8 months before death) and patients with progressive metastatic cancer (N = 312) following at least 1 chemotherapy regimen were followed prospectively until death at 6 outpatient oncology clinics in the United States. Main Outcomes and Measures Patient QOD was determined using validated caregiver ratings of patients’ physical and mental distress in their final week. Results Chemotherapy use was not associated with patient survival controlling for clinical setting and patients’ performance status. Among patients with good (ECOG score = 1) baseline performance status, chemotherapy use compared with nonuse was associated with worse QOD (odds ratio [OR], 0.35; 95% CI, 0.17-0.75;P = .01). Baseline chemotherapy use was not associated with QOD among patients with moderate (ECOG score = 2) baseline performance status (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.51-2.21;P = .87) or poor (ECOG score = 3) baseline performance status (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.46-3.89;P = .59). Conclusions and Relevance Although palliative chemotherapy is used to improve QOL for patients with end-stage cancer, its use did not improve QOD for patients with moderate or poor performance status and worsened QOD for patients with good performance status. The QOD in patients with end-stage cancer is not improved, and can be harmed, by chemotherapy use near death, even in patients with good performance status.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/articlepdf/2398177/coi150045.pdf

Chemotherapy Use, Performance Status, and Quality of Life at the End of Life

In 2009, 28.4% (95% CI, 27.9%-28.5%) of hospice use at the time of death was for 3 days or less. Of these late hospice referrals, 40.3% (95% CI, 39.7%-40.8%) were preceded by hospitalization with an ICU stay. Conclusion and Relevance Among Medicare beneficiaries who died in 2009 and 2005 compared with 2000, a lower proportion died in an acute care hospital, although both ICU use and the rate of health care transitions increased in the last month of life.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/1568250/joc120140_470_477.pdf

Thomas Scupp

Papers

Change in End-of-Life Care for Medicare Beneficiaries: Site of Death, Place of Care, and Health Care Transitions in 2000, 2005, and 2009