Sousa‐Pinto, Bernardo

Abstract BACKGROUND This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic test accuracy of blood‐based biomarkers (BBMs) for detecting Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology in cognitively impaired individuals in specialized care settings. The overarching goal is to inform the development of a clinical practice guideline, led by the Alzheimer's Association, for use in clinical practice. METHODS A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted from January 2019 to November 2024. Studies evaluating the diagnostic test accuracy of plasma phosphorylated tau (p‐tau) and amyloid beta (Aβ) tests (p‐tau217, %p‐tau217, p‐tau181, p‐tau231, and Aβ42/Aβ40) compared to reference standard tests (cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] AD biomarkers, amyloid positron emission tomography [PET], or neuropathology) in individuals with cognitive impairment (mild cognitive impairment or dementia) in specialized care settings were included. Pooled diagnostic test accuracy measures were calculated, including sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios. Across a range of pre‐test probabilities, we evaluated how much a positive or a negative test result would lead to a change in the probability of having amyloid positivity (post‐test probability). All analyses were conducted for each test within each biomarker. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. RESULTS Across 49 observational studies meeting eligibility criteria, 31 different BBM tests were examined. When evaluated using a single cut‐point, the diagnostic test accuracy varied considerably across tests: the pooled sensitivity ranged from 49.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 41.2–57.4) to 91.4% (95% CI: 86.6–94.6), and the pooled specificity ranged from 61.5% (95% CI: 45.6–75.3) to 96.7% (95% CI: 87.8–99.2). Differences in post‐test probability based on a range of pre‐test probabilities varied greatly across tests. Furthermore, the certainty of evidence across tests ranged from moderate to very low. Most included studies were judged to be at high risk of bias, particularly in domains related to patient selection, index test conduct, and reference standard. CONCLUSION This systematic review provides a comprehensive synthesis of the current evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of BBMs for detecting AD pathology in cognitively impaired individuals in specialized care settings. The findings serve as a foundation for an accompanying clinical practice guideline that provides evidence‐based recommendations for BBM use in the clinical diagnostic pathway. Given continuous developments in this rapidly evolving field, ongoing evaluation will be critical to ensure the synthesized evidence and clinical guidelines remain up to date and maintain clinical relevance. Highlights This is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta‐analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of blood‐based biomarker (BBM) tests specifically in individuals with objective cognitive impairment seen in specialized care settings. Across 49 studies, BBM test performance varied widely. Pooled sensitivity ranged from 49.3% to 91.4% and specificity from 61.5% to 96.7%, depending on the analyte and assay platform. This review followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of evidence. This review served as the evidence base for the Alzheimer's Association's new clinical practice guidelines on BBMs, providing structured, evidence‐based guidance for implementing BBMs in the diagnostic workup of suspected Alzheimer's disease. The review underscores that BBM test performance is assay‐ and platform specific and advises clinicians and laboratory directors to interpret results in the context of the specific test used and integrate the results with a comprehensive clinical assessment.

ImportanceImplementing multidisciplinary teams for treatment of complex brain tumors needing awake craniotomies is associated with significant costs. To date, there is a paucity of analysis on the cost utility of introducing advanced multidisciplinary standardized teams to enable awake craniotomies.ObjectiveTo assess the cost utility of introducing a standardized program of awake craniotomies.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA retrospective economic evaluation was conducted at Mayo Clinic Florida. All patients with single, unilateral lesions who underwent elective awake craniotomies between January 2016 and December 2021 were considered eligible for inclusion. The economic perspective of the health care institution and a time horizon of 1 year were considered. Data were analyzed from October 2022 to May 2023.ExposureTreatment with an awake craniotomy before standardization (2016-2018) compared with treatment with awake craniotomy after standardization (2018-2021).Main Outcomes and MeasuresPatient demographics, perioperative, and postoperative outcomes, including length of stay, intensive care (ICU) admission, extent of resection, readmission rates, and 1-year mortality were compared between patients undergoing surgery before and after standardization. Direct medical costs were estimated from Medicare reimbursement rates for all billed procedures. A cost-utility analysis was performed considering differences in direct medical costs and in 1-year mortality within the periods before and after standardization of procedures. Uncertainty was explored in probability sensitivity analysis.ResultsA total of 164 patients (mean [SD] age, 49.9 [15.7] years; 98 [60%] male patients) were included in the study. Of those, 56 underwent surgery before and 108 after implementation of procedure standardization. Procedure standardization was associated with reductions in length of stay from a mean (SD) of 3.34 (1.79) to 2.46 (1.61) days (difference, 0.88 days; 95% CI, 0.33-1.42 days; P = .002), length of stay in ICU from a mean (SD) of 1.32 (0.69) to 0.99 (0.90) nights (difference, 0.33 nights; 95% CI, 0.06-0.60 nights; P = .02), 30-day readmission rate from 14% (8 patients) in the prestandardization cohort to 5% (5 patients) (difference, 9%; 95% CI, 19.6%-0.3%; P = .03), while extent of resection and intraoperative complication rates were similar between both cohorts. The standardized protocol was associated with mean (SD) savings of $7088.80 ($12 389.50) and decreases in 1-year mortality (dominant intervention). This protocol was found to be cost saving in 75.5% of all simulations in probability sensitivity analysis.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this economic evaluation of standardization of awake craniotomy, there was a generalized reduction in length of stay, ICU admission time, and direct medical costs with implementation of an optimized protocol. This was achieved without compromising patient outcomes and with similar extent of resection, complication rates, and reduced readmission rates.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Degenerative spine disease is a leading cause of disability, with increasing prevalence in the older patients. While age has been identified as an independent predictor of outcomes, its predictive value is limited for similar older patients. Here, we aimed to determine the most predictive frailty score of adverse events in patients aged 80 and older undergoing instrumented lumbar fusion. METHODS: We proceeded with a multisite (3 tertiary academic centers) retrospective review including patients undergoing instrumented fusion aged 80 and older from January 2010 to present. A composite end point encompassing 30-day return to operating room, readmission, and mortality was created. We estimated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for frailty scores (Modified Frailty Index-5 [MFI-5], Modified Frailty Index-11 [MFI-11], and Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI]) in relation to that composite score. In addition, we estimated the association between each score and the composite end point by means of logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 153 patients with an average age of 85 years at the time of surgery were included. We observed a 30-day readmission rate of 11.1%, reoperation of 3.9%, and mortality of 0.6%. The overall rate of the composite end point at 30 days was 25 (15.1%). The AUC for MFI-5 was 0.597 (0.501-0.693), for MFI-11 was 0.620 (0.518-0.723), and for CCI was 0.564 (0.453-0.675). The association between the scores and composite end point did not reach statistical significance for MFI-5 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.45 [0.98-2.15], P = .061) and CCI (OR = 1.13 [0.97-1.31], P = .113) but was statistically significant for MFI-11 (OR = 1.46 [1.07-2.00], P = .018). CONCLUSION: This is the largest study comparing frailty index scores in octogenarians undergoing instrumented lumbar fusion. Our findings suggest that while MFI-11 score correlated with adverse events, the predictive ability of existing scores remains limited, highlighting the need for better approaches to identify select patients at age extremes.

BACKGROUND: Management of degenerative disease of the spine has evolved to favor minimally invasive techniques, including nonrobotic-assisted and robotic-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). Value-based spending is being increasingly implemented to control rising costs in the US healthcare system. With an aging population, it is fundamental to understand which procedure(s) may be most cost-effective. OBJECTIVE: To compare robotic and nonrobotic MIS-TLIF through a cost-utility analysis. METHODS: We considered direct medical costs related to surgical intervention and to the hospital stay, as well as 1-yr utilities. We estimated costs by assessing all cases involving adults undergoing robotic surgery at a single institution and an equal number of patients undergoing nonrobotic surgery, matched by demographic and clinical characteristics. We adopted a willingness to pay of $50 000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Uncertainty was addressed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Costs were estimated based on a total of 76 patients, including 38 undergoing robot-assisted and 38 matched patients undergoing nonrobot MIS-TLIF. Using point estimates, robotic surgery was projected to cost $21 546.80 and to be associated with 0.68 QALY, and nonrobotic surgery was projected to cost $22 398.98 and to be associated with 0.67 QALY. Robotic surgery was found to be more cost-effective strategy, with cost-effectiveness being sensitive operating room/materials and room costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis identified robotic surgery as cost-effective in 63% of simulations. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that at a willingness to pay of $50 000/QALY, robotic-assisted MIS-TLIF was cost-effective in 63% of simulations. Cost-effectiveness depends on operating room and room (admission) costs, with potentially different results under distinct neurosurgical practices.

Abstract Background En bloc spondylectomy is the gold standard for surgical resection of sacral chordomas (CHO), but the effect of extent of resection on recurrence and survival in patients with CHO of the cervical spine remains elusive. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane were systematically reviewed. Patients with cervical CHO treated at three tertiary-care academic institutions were reviewed for inclusion. We performed an individual participant data meta-analysis to assess the overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) after en bloc-gross total resection (GTR) and intralesional-GTR compared to subtotal resection (STR). We then performed an intention-to-treat analysis including all patients with attempted en bloc resection in the en bloc group, regardless of the surgical margins. Results There was a total of 13 series including 161 patients with cervical CHO, including our current series of 22 patients. GTR (en bloc-GTR + intralesional-GTR) was associated with a significant decrease in the risk of local progression (pooled hazard ratio (PHR) = 0.22; 95% CI = 0.08–0.59; p = 0.003) and risk of death (PHR = 0.31; 95%; CI:0.12–0.83; p = 0.020). A meta-regression analyses determined that intralesional-GTR improved PFS (PHR = 0.35; 95%CI = 0.16–0.76; p = 0.009) as well as OS (PHR = 0.25; 95%CI = 0.08–0.79; p = 0.019) when compared to STR. En bloc-GTR was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of local progression (PHR = 0.06; 95%CI = 0.01–0.77; p = 0.030), but not a decreased OS (PHR = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.19–1.27; p = 0.145). Our intention-to-treat analyses revealed a near significant improvement in OS for the en bloc group (PHR: 0.15; 95%CI:0.02–1.22; p = 0.054), and nearly identical improvement in PFS. Radiation data was not available for the studies included in the meta-analysis. Conclusion This is the first and only meta-analysis of patients with cervical CHO. We found that both en bloc-GTR and intralesional-GTR resulted in improved local tumor control when compared to STR.