Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39044504›Full record

ArticleThe journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease2024

Optimising Alzheimer's Disease Diagnosis and Treatment: Assessing Cost-Utility of Integrating Blood Biomarkers in Clinical Practice for Disease-Modifying Treatment.

S Aye, R Handels, B Winblad, L Jönsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Cost-effectiveness of testing biofluid biomarkers to diagnose Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

S AyeSandar Aye, Karolinska Institutet, BioClinicum J9:20, Akademiska stråket 171 64 Solna, Sweden, Phone: +46 704347761, Email: sandar.aye@ki.se.
R Handels
B Winblad
L Jönsson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent developments in blood biomarkers (BBM) have shown promising results in diagnosing amyloid pathology in Alzheimer's Disease (AD). However, information on how these BBMs can best be used in clinical settings to optimise clinical decision-making and long-term health outcomes for individuals with AD is still lacking.

objectivesWe aim to assess the potential value of BBM in AD diagnosis within the context of disease-modifying treatment (DMT).

designWe developed a decision analytic model to evaluate the long-term health outcomes using BBM in AD diagnosis. We compared standard of care (SOC) diagnosis workflow to the integration of BBM as a (1) referral decision tool in primary health center (PHC) and (2) triaging tool for invasive CSF examination in specialist memory clinic (MC). We combined a decision tree and a Markov model to simulate the patient's diagnostic journey, treatment decisions following diagnosis and long-term health outcomes. Input parameters for the model were identified from published literature and registry data analysis. We conducted a cost-utility analysis from the societal perspective using a one-year cycle length and a 30-year (lifetime) horizon. MEASUREMENTS: We reported the simulated outcomes in the percentage of correct diagnosis, costs (in 2022 Euros), quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) associated with each diagnosis strategy.

resultsCompared to SOC, integrating BBM in PHC increased patient referrals by 8% and true positive AD diagnoses by 10.4%. The lifetime costs for individuals diagnosed with AD were € 249,685 and €250,287, and QALYs were 9.5 and 9.52 in SOC and PHC pathways, respectively. The cost increments were €603, and QALYs gained were 0.01, resulting in an ICER of €48,296. Using BBM in MC reduced the exposure to invasive CSF procedures and costs but also reduced true positive AD diagnoses and QALYs.

conclusionsUsing BBM at PHC to make referral decisions might increase initial diagnostic costs but can prevent high costs associated with disease progression, providing a cost-effective DMT is available, whereas using BBM in MC could reduce the initial evaluation cost but incur high costs associated with disease progression.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseBiomarkersCost-Benefit AnalysisAgedClinical Decision-MakingDecision Support TechniquesDecision TreesHumansMarkov ChainsQuality-Adjusted Life YearsBiomarkersAlzheimer’s diseaseblood biomarkerCost-utilitydisease-modifying treatment

Identifiers

PMID39044504
PMCPMC11266371

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.