There are many challenges encountered in the health technology assessment (HTA) of treatments for the management of neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s disease. A recent example where such challenges were visible was the assessment of aducanumab, a medication developed for Alzheimer’s disease. As part of the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) Neuronet project, a series of workshops were held to understand the gaps in neurodegenerative disease research and identify the key research priorities, from the perspective of different stakeholders, that can inform decision-making and enable timely access to effective and safe treatments.

Three workshops were organised by Neuronet to consult with HTA and regulatory experts, people with dementia and their supporters, and academic and industry researchers. The first consultation was with the European Working Group of People with Dementia and their supporters, and their feedback was fed into the following two workshops which were conducted with HTA and regulatory experts, and with researchers. Discussions during the workshops were used to develop a summary of the gaps in research, and priorities from the perspective of each stakeholder group to be submitted to IMI to inform future research funding allocation.

Key priorities that were highlighted from an HTA and regulatory perspective were the collection of longitudinal data to understand the natural history of the disease, the generation of data on long-term clinical outcomes and the use of trial endpoints that are relevant to clinical practice. There is also a need for disease-modifying treatments that is yet to be met in this disease area. Furthermore, the involvement of the public, particularly people with dementia and relevant organisations, in setting research priorities and informing study designs was highlighted as a priority by all stakeholders.

There are key priorities for future neurodegenerative research from an HTA and regulatory perspective to address current gaps and challenges. It is important to involve different stakeholders in priority setting and decision-making to produce relevant and satisfactory research outputs.

People with dementia may benefit from palliative care which specifically addresses the needs of patients and families affected by this life-limiting disease. On behalf of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC), we recently performed a Delphi study to define domains for palliative care in dementia and to provide recommendations for optimal care. An international panel of experts in palliative care, dementia care or both, achieved consensus on almost all domains and recommendations, but the domain concerning the applicability of palliative care to dementia required revision.

To examine in detail, the opinions of the international panel of 64 experts around the applicability of palliative care, we explored feedback they provided in the Delphi process. To examine which experts found it less important or less applicable, ordinal regression analyses related characteristics of the panelists to ratings of overall importance of the applicability domain, and to agreement with the domain's four recommendations.

Some experts expressed concerns about bringing up end-of-life issues prematurely and about relabeling dementia care as palliative care. Multivariable analyses with the two outcomes of importance and agreement with applicability indicated that younger or less experienced experts and those whose expertise was predominantly in dementia care found palliative care in dementia less important and less applicable.

Benefits of palliative care in dementia are acknowledged by experts worldwide, but there is some controversy around its early introduction. Further studies should weigh concerns expressed around care receiving a “palliative” label versus the benefits of applying palliative care early.

Dementia involves a progressive decline in many functional areas. Policy and practice guidelines should cover the entire course of the disease from early detection to the end-of-life. The present study aimed to evaluate the contents of national dementia strategies with a focus on palliative care content.

We employed qualitative content analyses. Sixteen national dementia strategies from 14 countries were reviewed. Using open coding, the contents were compared to the domains and recommendations of the palliative care in dementia white paper of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC).

Although palliative care was not explicitly referred to in eight of the 14 countries and only to a limited extent in three countries, a number of domains from the EAPC white paper were well represented, including “person-centered care, communication, and shared decision making”; “continuity of care”; and “family care and involvement.” Three countries that referred to palliative care did so explicitly, with two domains being well represented: “education of the health care team”; and “societal and ethical issues.” The strategies all lacked reference to the domain of “prognostication and timely recognition of dying” and to spiritual caregiving.

National dementia strategies cover part of the recent definition of palliative care in dementia, although they do not frequently label these references as “palliative care.” In view of the growing numbers of people dying with dementia, preparation for the last phase of life should be added to national strategies.