Today’s therapies must be put in the context of both currently available treatments as well as treatment trials with exciting potential for use in the near future. Current clinical trial methodologies do not allow for clear separation of symptomatic treatments from disease-modifying therapies; it may be unproductive to maintain this distinction given the current range of treatments available. A more currently relevant focus is added value. Therapies should aim to provide added value through incremental benefits above and beyond existing treatments, as well as enduring benefits.

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) treatment guidelines are not used by physicians only. Healthcare payers often make use of these guidelines to delimit coverage. Cost concerns will also impact AD treatments after generic cholinesterase inhibitors are made available; it is widely believed that a great number of patients will switch to generics. Therefore, treatment guidelines must account for the possible adverse effects of switching therapies as well as the desirability of persistent treatment. There are many AD treatment guidelines, among them the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) Management of Dementia Guidelines, which are currently being revised. The Institute for the Study on Aging (ISOA) Management of Alzheimer’s Disease in Managed Care Guideline also presents a different approach for a different audience.

The first step to creating evidence-based best practices guidelines is to determine what is meant by “evidence.” A system of classification exists for examining forms of evidence: Class I evidence is provided by one or more well-designed, randomized, controlled clinical trials, including overviews or meta-analyses of such trials. Class II evidence is provided by well-designed observational studies with concurrent controls; for example, case-control studies that generate hypotheses about epidemiologic associations. Class III evidence is provided by expert opinion, case series, case reports, and studies with historical controls.