Home › Research › Biomarkers
Is Korea Prepared for an Alzheimer's Disease-Modifying Therapy? Assessing the Korean Healthcare System Infrastructure and the Effect of Blood-Based Biomarker Tests
Jun H, Cho SK, Yoong J, Mattke S.. Annals of geriatric medicine and research, 2021-02-04
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Background With the rapid demographic change in Korea, Alzheimer's disease has become a primary concern. Recent developments in disease-modifying therapies provide hope that therapy may become available soon. The high disease prevalence and complex evaluation process will create challenges for the healthcare system already burdened by the current pandemic. This study examined the preparedness of the South Korean healthcare system to identify and treat patients when such a therapy becomes available. Methods We used a Markov model to simulate a stylized patient's journey. Based on national data and expert input, we presented projections of the diagnosis and treatment wait times and respective queues of patients under treatment and no-treatment scenarios and further simulated the possible option of adopting a blood-based biomarker test. Results Under the current system, we estimated a peak waiting time of 14 months when a treatment became available, largely because of the limited number of dementia specialists. Adopting a blood-based biomarker test dramatically reduced the initial wait times by more than half. A disease-modifying therapy was estimated to avert 575,000 incident cases in the first 10 years after the treatment entered the market, and a blood-based test further avoided 86,000 additional cases. Conclusion South Korea's healthcare infrastructure requires more preparation for the introduction of a disease-modifying therapy, with the primary capacity limitation being the low number of dementia specialists. The utilization of a blood-based test for Alzheimer's disease biomarkers may be an effective solution.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Jun, H., Cho, S. K., Yoong, J., & Mattke, S. (2021). Is Korea Prepared for an Alzheimer's Disease-Modifying Therapy? Assessing the Korean Healthcare System Infrastructure and the Effect of Blood-Based Biomarker Tests. Annals of geriatric medicine and research. https://doi.org/10.4235/agmr.20.0082
Vancouver
Jun H, Cho SK, Yoong J, Mattke S. Is Korea Prepared for an Alzheimer's Disease-Modifying Therapy? Assessing the Korean Healthcare System Infrastructure and the Effect of Blood-Based Biomarker Tests. Annals of geriatric medicine and research. 2021. doi:10.4235/agmr.20.0082. PMID: 33550774.
BibTeX
@article{jun2021-33550774,
author = {Jun, H. and Cho, S. K. and Yoong, J. and Mattke, S.},
title = {{Is Korea Prepared for an Alzheimer's Disease-Modifying Therapy? Assessing the Korean Healthcare System Infrastructure and the Effect of Blood-Based Biomarker Tests}},
journal = {Annals of geriatric medicine and research},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.4235/agmr.20.0082},
pmid = {33550774},
url = {https://doi.org/10.4235/agmr.20.0082}
}
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 Under the current system, we estimated a peak waiting time of 14 months when a treatment became available, largely because of the limited number of dementia specialists.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
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 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Annals of geriatric medicine and research) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 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 33550774) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 25 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.