TL;DR
Turn quiet afternoons into listening time
- Thousands of audiobooks, podcasts and originals
- Listen on your phone, tablet or Echo — also offline
- Cancel anytime
A study of Sutter Health’s multidisciplinary review board reports that it helped general neurologists assess patients for amyloid-targeting Alzheimer’s therapies and provide treatment closer to home. Among 447 reviewed cases, 344 patients were considered eligible; the authors say safety results need to be read alongside patient selection and ongoing monitoring.
Sutter Health’s multidisciplinary Alzheimer’s review board helped general neurologists evaluate patients for amyloid-targeting treatments while care remained local, according to a study published in October 2026. The report analyzed 447 reviewed cases, of which 344 patients, or 77%, were considered eligible for treatment; it also describes treatment-related imaging findings and the need for continued safety monitoring.
The Advanced Therapeutics for Alzheimer’s Disease (ATAD) Review Board meets weekly online and brings together cognitive neurologists, a neuroradiologist, a pharmacist and a registered nurse program manager. It reviews referrals and supports eligibility decisions, while the patient’s local general neurologist remains responsible for prescribing, follow-up and monitoring. The board can also advise when possible side effects emerge.
From November 2023 through December 2025, the board received 574 referrals. The study’s authors analyzed 447 fully reviewed cases submitted by 51 general neurologists. Of the 344 patients considered eligible, 214 began an amyloid-targeting therapy through general neurology. The annual referral count rose from 163 in 2024 to 404 in 2025, a change the authors say suggests increased use of the model.
Among treated patients, the study reports any radiographic amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) in 17.4% of lecanemab recipients and 28.8% of donanemab recipients. Symptomatic ARIA was reported in 2.6% and 1.7%, respectively. The authors say those rates were below rates in pivotal phase 3 trials and consistent with real-world studies from specialty memory clinics, but caution that patient selection—including a lower share of patients with a higher-risk APOE genotype—may have affected the results.
Specialist Input Closer to Home
The report addresses a practical access problem: newer Alzheimer’s therapies can be offered to some patients with early symptomatic disease, but treatment involves specialized assessment and repeated MRI scans because ARIA can occur. The model is designed to extend specialist review beyond memory centers without shifting prescribing and routine follow-up away from a patient’s local neurologist.
Sutter cares for more than 3.6 million patients and has more than 100 general neurologists, while its five cognitive and behavioral neurologists are based at two specialty memory centers, according to the report. A virtual board may help connect those limited specialist resources with community practices. The study describes experience within Sutter’s system; it does not establish that the same outcomes would follow in every health system.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How Sutter Built the Review Board
Amyloid-targeting therapies can slow disease progression in appropriately selected people with early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease, the source report says. Their use requires more than a prescription: clinicians must conduct diagnostic workups, assess suitability and arrange repeated MRI monitoring for ARIA, a potential treatment side effect.
Sutter embedded the ATAD board in its Neuroscience Service Line, which funded program infrastructure and helped establish a consistent workflow. The board also operates as a learning network: referring neurologists can take part in case discussions, hear the reasoning behind eligibility decisions and submit patients again if questions arise during treatment. The findings were published in Alzheimer’s & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring in a paper led by Armen Moughamian and colleagues.
“Our model brings the right expertise to the patient’s local neurologist, helping more people be evaluated closer to home while preserving rigorous review, monitoring and shared decision-making.”
— Armen Moughamian, lead author and Sutter Neuroscience Service Line memory chief
Safety Findings Need Caution
The reported ARIA rates are observations from Sutter patients, not proof that the board itself caused lower rates. The authors note that patient selection may have influenced the results, including the lower proportion of patients with a higher-risk APOE genotype. The study’s comparison with clinical trials and specialty-clinic studies does not, on its own, establish that the patient groups or care settings were identical.
The manuscript also reports two deaths among patients receiving treatment and says it is uncertain whether the therapies contributed. The supplied report does not give further details about those deaths. It also does not establish whether the referral increase continued after 2025 or whether the model’s results can be replicated outside Sutter.
Monitoring and Wider Adoption
For patients treated through the model, the immediate next step remains ongoing follow-up and MRI monitoring under their care teams, with the review board available to advise on eligibility questions or possible side effects. The report emphasizes that safety depends on careful selection, counseling and monitoring, rather than specialist review alone.
The authors suggest that other health systems could consider multidisciplinary review boards to expand access while preserving specialist input. Whether such programs produce comparable eligibility, safety and access outcomes elsewhere will require experience and evidence from those systems. The study presents Sutter’s results through December 2025; additional data would be needed to show how the program performs over a longer period.
Key Questions
What is Sutter Health’s ATAD Review Board?
It is a weekly virtual multidisciplinary board that supports general neurologists assessing patients for amyloid-targeting Alzheimer’s therapies. Its participants include cognitive neurology, neuroradiology, pharmacy and nursing expertise.
How many patients were considered eligible?
Among 447 fully reviewed cases submitted from November 2023 through December 2025, 344 patients, or 77%, were considered eligible. Of those eligible patients, 214 began treatment through general neurology.
What safety findings did the study report?
Among treated patients, any radiographic ARIA was reported in 17.4% of lecanemab recipients and 28.8% of donanemab recipients. The authors caution that patient selection may have affected these rates; they also report two deaths where the role of treatment was uncertain.
Does the study show that the model will work elsewhere?
No. The paper describes results within Sutter Health’s system. Its authors propose that other systems could use similar boards, but results in other settings have not been established by this study.
Source: rss
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
