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

Abstract

Background

Recent 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.

Objectives

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

Design

We 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.

Results

Compared 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.

Conclusions

Using 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.