Home › Research › Biomarkers
Cost-effectiveness analysis of blood-based biomarker testing in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease pathology
Li Y, Lagier RJ, Racke MK, Fesko YA.. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease, 2026-01-14
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Objectives We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of blood-based biomarker (BBM) testing vs amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) in patients with signs and symptoms of cognitive decline in a neurologist/specialist care setting. Methods We constructed a decision-tree model to compare diagnostic outcomes and costs of two testing strategies: BBM testing with confirmatory PET scan vs PET scan alone. Their cost-effectiveness was evaluated from a payer perspective with test performance taken from a clinical study and costs including testing/imaging and physician fees. Results When access to PET scans is unlimited, BBM triage testing would identify 98.2 % of PET+ patients with a lower average cost per diagnosis compared with PET scan alone ($8868 vs 10,345 per PET+ diagnosis). In terms of incremental cost-effectiveness, BBM triage testing would save $93,984 for each loss of PET+ diagnosis (9.1 times the average cost per PET+ diagnosis by PET scan). Under limited capacity of PET scans, more test-positive patients could be identified using BBM testing than PET scan alone. When access to PET scans is limited to 50 % of the patients, BBM testing would identify 90.6 % more test-positive patients (at 93 % sensitivity) at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $3484 per gain of positive diagnosis, lower than the average cost of a PET+ diagnosis by PET scan ($10,938). Conclusion BBM testing, compared with PET scan alone, is more efficient in the utilization of available amyloid PET scans and is cost-effective for assessment of Alzheimer's disease pathology in patients with signs and symptoms of cognitive decline.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Li, Y., Lagier, R. J., Racke, M. K., & Fesko, Y. A. (2026). Cost-effectiveness analysis of blood-based biomarker testing in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease pathology. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjpad.2025.100474
Vancouver
Li Y, Lagier RJ, Racke MK, Fesko YA. Cost-effectiveness analysis of blood-based biomarker testing in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease pathology. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease. 2026. doi:10.1016/j.tjpad.2025.100474. PMID: 41539204.
BibTeX
@article{li2026-41539204,
author = {Li, Y. and Lagier, R. J. and Racke, M. K. and Fesko, Y. A.},
title = {{Cost-effectiveness analysis of blood-based biomarker testing in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease pathology}},
journal = {The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.1016/j.tjpad.2025.100474},
pmid = {41539204},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjpad.2025.100474}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results When access to PET scans is unlimited, BBM triage testing would identify 98.2 % of PET+ patients with a lower average cost per diagnosis compared with PET scan alone ($8868 vs 10,345 per PET+ diagnosis).
- Conclusion BBM testing, compared with PET scan alone, is more efficient in the utilization of available amyloid PET scans and is cost-effective for assessment of Alzheimer's disease pathology in patients with signs and symptoms of cognitive decline.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 47/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 47 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41539204) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 27 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 47 out of 100. |
| Total | 47 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also tagged “blood-based-biomarkers”
6 studies in the library carry the topic tag “blood-based-biomarkers”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 6 tagged studies.