Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:06:36.534Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

NICE guidelines and the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: evidence-based medicine may be discriminatory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

R. Stewart*
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Columns
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2001 

Arshad et al (Reference Arshad, Sridharan and Brown2001) raise important concerns that UK guidelines for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), 2001) may be counterproductive for patients with learning disabilities. Potential for discrimination does not by any means stop here. A particular difficulty they highlight is the central role of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) instrument in determining treatment ‘eligibility’ and response. Scores on the MMSE are strongly influenced by previous education and cross-cultural validity is poor. The guidelines are, therefore, unhelpful for people with lower educational attainment or for growing numbers of older people from minority ethnic groups in the UK. Comorbid cerebrovascular disease will also be more frequent in people from more disadvantaged backgrounds and, in particular, minority ethnic groups such as African—Caribbean populations (Reference Stewart, Dundas and HowardStewart et al, 1999). This reduces the likelihood of a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (and therefore eligibility for anti-cholinesterase treatment) according to standard diagnostic criteria (Reference McKhann, Drachman and FolsteinMcKhann et al, 1984), despite growing evidence for overlapping pathological processes in dementia (Reference Holmes, Cairns and LantosHolmes et al, 1999).

For sub-populations who are under-represented in clinical trial samples (minority ethnic groups, people with lower educational attainment, people with learning disability, people with comorbid cerebrovascular disease), the best that can be hoped for is that a considerably weaker evidence base might emerge some years in the future. By this time large numbers of people may have failed to receive potentially beneficial treatment. The problem does not lie with treatment guidelines themselves but with how they are applied at the level of individuals and services — in particular regarding groups with Alzheimer's disease for whom a 26-year-old cognitive screen and/or 17-year-old diagnostic criteria are unhelpful. Evidence-based medicine is a noble ideal. However, clinical practice that is restricted to the evidence base may amount to institutionalised discrimination.

References

Arshad, P., Sridharan, B. & Brown, R. (2001) Treatment of Alzheimer's disease in people with learning disabilities: NICE guidelines (letter). British Journal of Psychiatry, 179, 74.Google Scholar
Holmes, C., Cairns, N., Lantos, P., et al (1999) Validity of current clinical criteria for Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia and dementia with Lewy bodies. British Journal of Psychiatry, 174, 4550.Google Scholar
McKhann, G., Drachman, D., Folstein, M., et al (1984) Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. Report of the NINCDS–ADRDA work group under the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease. Neurology 34, 939944.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2001) Guidance on the Use of Donepezil, Rivastigmine and Galantamine for the Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease. London: NICE.Google Scholar
Stewart, J. A., Dundas, R., Howard, R. S., et al (1999) Ethnic differences in incidence of stroke: prospective study with stroke register. British Medical Journal, 318, 967971.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.