- Joined
- Sep 2, 2003
- Messages
- 9,011
- Reaction score
- 4,725
There is a PET scan trial called ‘New IDEAS,’ which looks at amyloid PET imaging. This is a follow up on the IDEAS trial, which showed that doctors marginally change mgmt after amyloid PET scans (no surprise, to get a patient a PET scan in the trial one had to attest the scen could change mgmt). It also showed a slight reduction in $ for PET + patients, but this might have been due to the fact they had AD.
Here’s the summation. Results from IDEAS Study Published | ALZFORUM
The bottom line, IMO, is much ado about nothing. So now comes the next trial. This next trial explicitly calls for ethnic categorization: 2 African Americans, 2 Hispanics, and 3 Others. Is this ethical? I’m not so sure. If there’s a reason to study ethnic differences, like ethnic responses to tPA, I’d probably be in favor. Just getting PET scans on Black patients? Seems like we’d be treating one group differently than another. THere are pressures to participate here, particularly if you work for a huge hospital: you’ll get PET center referrals. But is it actually ethical?
So far I’ve heard that Blacks and Hispanics have greater vascular contributions, so might have more amyloid negatives. Is this a meaningful outcome? Is THIS worth studying, rather than, say, trying to address these discrepancies?
If I had more confidence in the phenotypes getting into this trial, I’d probably say sure - let’s validate Amyloid PET in URMs. Since there’s very little standardization, that won’t happen. I’m also bothered by the absence of Asians. No-one seems to give a **** about the Vietnamese and Cambodian urban poor with terrible vascular disease and social-economic disadvantages. Tagging overlapping wise people from the SDN forum: @Nutmeg @MOHS_01 @Hernandez @jdh71 @gostudy @Homer J. Simpson @Fireman Thoughts?
Edit: summation of the New Ideas trial here: New IDEAS: Imaging Dementia-Evidence for Amyloid Scanning Study - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov
Here’s the summation. Results from IDEAS Study Published | ALZFORUM
The bottom line, IMO, is much ado about nothing. So now comes the next trial. This next trial explicitly calls for ethnic categorization: 2 African Americans, 2 Hispanics, and 3 Others. Is this ethical? I’m not so sure. If there’s a reason to study ethnic differences, like ethnic responses to tPA, I’d probably be in favor. Just getting PET scans on Black patients? Seems like we’d be treating one group differently than another. THere are pressures to participate here, particularly if you work for a huge hospital: you’ll get PET center referrals. But is it actually ethical?
So far I’ve heard that Blacks and Hispanics have greater vascular contributions, so might have more amyloid negatives. Is this a meaningful outcome? Is THIS worth studying, rather than, say, trying to address these discrepancies?
If I had more confidence in the phenotypes getting into this trial, I’d probably say sure - let’s validate Amyloid PET in URMs. Since there’s very little standardization, that won’t happen. I’m also bothered by the absence of Asians. No-one seems to give a **** about the Vietnamese and Cambodian urban poor with terrible vascular disease and social-economic disadvantages. Tagging overlapping wise people from the SDN forum: @Nutmeg @MOHS_01 @Hernandez @jdh71 @gostudy @Homer J. Simpson @Fireman Thoughts?
Edit: summation of the New Ideas trial here: New IDEAS: Imaging Dementia-Evidence for Amyloid Scanning Study - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov
Last edited: