ReviewJournal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD2025
Alzheimer's disease blood-based biomarker testing: A stakeholder-informed assessment of coverage considerations.
Review in Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contextualizing Blood-Based Biomarkers for Dementia Globally.Journal of neurochemistry · 2026Review
- The Promise of Blood-Based Biomarkers in Early Detection and Care of Alzheimer's Disease.Nepal journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BackgroundRecently published clinical studies suggest that blood-based biomarker tests (BBMTs) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) provide value, but in the U.S., neither public nor private payers currently cover these tests.ObjectiveTo describe considerations for payer coverage of AD BBMTs that would need to be addressed to facilitate timely diagnosis and equitable patient access if clinical utility is demonstrated.MethodsWe performed a targeted literature review to characterize predictable coverage barriers for BBMTs and inform the development of an interview guide. We conducted semi-structured interviews with clinicians, researchers, test developers, and a patient advocate and former payer (N = 12) to assess the barriers and refine the proposed key considerations for obtaining payer coverage.ResultsStakeholders noted that payers will require evidence of clinical validity and utility of BBMTs as part of their coverage determinations contingent on the specific indication for testing, with insufficient evidence for screening applications currently. Stakeholders also agreed that there are evidence gaps for use of BBMTs in patients from ethnic and racial minority communities that must be addressed. Given the shortage of memory specialists, stakeholders noted that limiting testing coverage authorization to specialists could be harmful to patients, particularly the underserved. Interviewees also agreed that patients with mild cognitive impairment or early-stage AD could benefit from earlier diagnosis to avoid progressing to moderate disease and limiting eligibility for new disease-modifying therapies.ConclusionsIf BBMTs meet criteria for clinical utility, anticipating and planning for coverage and reimbursement before widespread implementation will be critical to ensuring broad, equitable access to BBMTs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.