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 newer amyloid-targeting Alzheimer’s therapies and deliver treatment outside specialty memory centers. The authors say the model supported local care while maintaining specialist input, but the study is observational and reported two deaths among treated patients whose connection to therapy is uncertain.
Sutter Health’s multidisciplinary review board helped general neurologists evaluate patients for newer Alzheimer’s treatments and provide therapy through community neurology, according to a study published in Alzheimer’s & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring. The report covers referrals from November 2023 through December 2025 and describes a system intended to extend specialist oversight beyond Sutter’s two memory centers while patients receive care closer to home.
Sutter’s 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. Local general neurologists submit cases for help with treatment eligibility and can seek advice if side effects arise. The local clinician remains responsible for prescribing, follow-up and monitoring.
The board received 574 referrals during the period studied. Researchers analyzed 447 fully reviewed cases submitted by 51 general neurologists; 344 patients, or 77%, were judged eligible for treatment. Of those eligible, 214 began an amyloid-targeting therapy through general neurology. The figures describe this Sutter program, not the share of all people with Alzheimer’s who may qualify for treatment.
Among treated patients, the study reported any radiographic amyloid-related imaging abnormalities, or ARIA, in 17.4% of lecanemab patients and 28.8% of donanemab patients. Symptomatic ARIA was reported in 2.6% and 1.7%, respectively. The authors said these rates were below those in the pivotal phase 3 trials and in line with real-world studies at specialty memory clinics. They cautioned that patient selection, including a lower proportion of people with a higher-risk APOE genotype, may have influenced the results.
Bringing Specialist Review Closer
The model addresses a practical access problem: newer amyloid-targeting therapies can slow disease progression in appropriately selected people with early symptomatic Alzheimer’s, but treatment requires detailed evaluation and repeated MRI scans to monitor for ARIA, which can have serious effects. A health system that relies only on specialty memory clinics may limit how many patients can be assessed and treated.
Sutter serves more than 3.6 million patients and has more than 100 general neurologists, compared with five cognitive and behavioral neurologists concentrated at two specialty centers, according to the report. A shared review board gives community clinicians access to that specialist expertise without requiring every treatment decision to be made at a memory center. The authors present the approach as a possible model for other health systems, not as proof that it will work the same way elsewhere.
Referral volume rose 148% year over year, from 163 cases in 2024 to 404 in 2025, the study reported. That increase suggests wider use of the board within Sutter, though referral counts alone do not show whether the program improved patient outcomes or reduced travel and delays.
Alzheimer's amyloid-targeting therapy monitoring
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How Sutter Built the Review Board
Amyloid-targeting therapies are intended for selected patients with early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease. Their use involves more than prescribing: clinicians need diagnostic workups, decisions about who is suitable, and repeated MRI monitoring for ARIA. These requirements call for coordination among neurology, imaging, pharmacy and nursing.
Sutter embedded ATAD in its Neuroscience Service Line, which funded program infrastructure, supported a consistent workflow and circulated updated guidance across the system. The review board also functions as a learning network: referring neurologists can join case discussions, hear the rationale for eligibility decisions and submit patients again if questions emerge during treatment.
In the journal paper, lead author Armen Moughamian, chief of memory for Sutter’s Neuroscience Service Line and medical director of the Ray Dolby Brain Health Center at Sutter’s CPMC, said the model brings expertise to a patient’s local neurologist while retaining review, monitoring and shared decision-making. Co-author Shawn Kile, chair of Sutter’s Neuroscience Service Line, said the program is designed to move expertise and support across the system rather than require patients to travel to a tertiary center for every part of care.
“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 memory specialist
Safety Findings Need Caution
The findings come from a report on one health system’s experience; they do not establish that the model itself caused the reported ARIA rates or that those rates will apply to other populations. The authors note that patient selection may have affected safety results, including the relatively lower share of patients with a higher-risk APOE genotype. The study also does not, in the supplied report, provide a comparison group of patients treated without board oversight.
The manuscript reports two deaths among patients receiving treatment and says it is unclear whether the therapies contributed. That uncertainty underlines the need for counseling and monitoring, but the reported information does not establish a cause of death. The source material also does not specify how long patients were followed or provide enough detail to compare outcomes across the full pool of referrals.
Further Results and Wider Use
The journal publication documents Sutter’s experience through December 2025. The supplied report does not announce a new rollout date, a planned expansion or a next study milestone. The authors suggest that similar multidisciplinary review boards could help other health systems widen access while retaining specialist input; whether other systems adopt the approach, and how it performs in different settings, remains to be seen.
For Sutter, the model’s continuing value will depend on ongoing eligibility review, MRI monitoring, follow-up and clear communication with patients about potential benefits and risks. Further data on patient outcomes and safety over time would help clarify whether the approach can maintain careful oversight as local treatment activity grows.
Key Questions
What is Sutter Health’s ATAD Review Board?
It is a weekly virtual review group that brings together cognitive neurologists, a neuroradiologist, a pharmacist and a nurse program manager to advise general neurologists on amyloid-targeting Alzheimer’s treatment.
How many patients were treated through general neurology?
Among 447 fully reviewed cases, 344 patients were considered eligible. Of those, 214 began an amyloid-targeting therapy through general neurology during the period covered by the study.
What side effects did the study report?
The study recorded radiographic ARIA in 17.4% of lecanemab patients and 28.8% of donanemab patients; symptomatic ARIA was reported in 2.6% and 1.7%, respectively. The authors said patient selection may have influenced these rates.
Did the study link the two reported deaths to treatment?
No. The manuscript reported two deaths among patients receiving therapy but said it was unclear whether the treatments contributed. The information provided does not establish a cause.
Does the study prove the model is safe for other health systems?
No. It describes one system’s experience and does not establish that the same outcomes would occur elsewhere. The authors propose the model as a possible approach; its results in other settings remain unknown.
Source: rss
Fall Picks
fall essentials
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
