Public perceptions related to healthcare preparedness to anti-amyloid therapies for Alzheimer's Disease in Japan.

Abstract

Background: The approval of lecanemab, an anti-amyloid therapy for Alzheimer's disease (AD), necessitates addressing healthcare preparedness for disease-modifying treatment (DMT) to ensure appropriate, safe, and sustainable drug administration. Understanding public perceptions on this matter is crucial. We aimed to assess discrepancies and similarities in the perceptions of Japanese trial-ready cohort study ('J-TRC webstudy') participants and clinical specialists in the fields of dementia treatment and radiology, concerning affairs related to challenges in DMT preparedness.

Methods: This was a cross-sectional prospective observational study conducted in November-December 2023. The J-TRC webstudy participants were invited to participate in an online survey using Google Forms, and clinical specialists were invited to complete a mail-based survey. Main questionnaire items had been designed to be common in both surveys, and their responses were analyzed for participant attributes, interests, attitudes, expectations, and concerns about DMTs without specifying lecanemab.

Results: Responses were obtained from n = 2,050 J-TRC webstudy participants and n = 1,518 clinical specialists. Compared to specialists, more J-TRC respondents perceived the eligible proportion for DMT as smaller (59.1% versus 30.7%), perceived the eligible severity for DMT as more limited (58.0% versus 24.5%), and perceived the efficacy of DMT as slightly more encouraging (29.3% versus 34.8%). In terms of treatment prioritization, both J-TRC respondents and specialist respondents exhibited similar levels of acceptance for prioritizing patients to treat: e.g., approximately two-thirds endorsed patient prioritization under hypothetical resource constraints or other reasons. A medical rationale emerged as the most compelling reason for acceptance of patient prioritization across the surveys. In contrast, the need to address vulnerable populations was the reason that led to the least acceptance of prioritization, followed by economic considerations.

Conclusions: Our findings offer valuable insights into the discrepancies in knowledge and perception between patients and healthcare providers. This could enhance the delivery of patient information in clinical settings and inform the discussion surrounding patient prioritization strategies.