{"title":"Alzheimer disease blood biomarkers: considerations for population-level use","authors":"Michelle M. Mielke, Nicole R. Fowler","doi":"10.1038/s41582-024-00989-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the past 5 years, we have witnessed the first approved Alzheimer disease (AD) disease-modifying therapy and the development of blood-based biomarkers (BBMs) to aid the diagnosis of AD. For many reasons, including accessibility, invasiveness and cost, BBMs are more acceptable and feasible for patients than a lumbar puncture (for cerebrospinal fluid collection) or neuroimaging. However, many questions remain regarding how best to utilize BBMs at the population level. In this Review, we outline the factors that warrant consideration for the widespread implementation and interpretation of AD BBMs. To set the scene, we review the current use of biomarkers, including BBMs, in AD. We go on to describe the characteristics of typical patients with cognitive impairment in primary care, who often differ from the patient populations used in AD BBM research studies. We also consider factors that might affect the interpretation of BBM tests, such as comorbidities, sex and race or ethnicity. We conclude by discussing broader issues such as ethics, patient and provider preference, incidental findings and dealing with indeterminate results and imperfect accuracy in implementing BBMs at the population level. Blood-based biomarkers have the potential to transform the Alzheimer disease diagnostic pathway, but many questions remain regarding their implementation and utilization. This Review considers factors that might affect the interpretation of blood-based biomarker tests, including comorbidities, sex and race or ethnicity, and discusses broader issues surrounding their use at the population level.","PeriodicalId":19085,"journal":{"name":"Nature Reviews Neurology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":28.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Reviews Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41582-024-00989-1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In the past 5 years, we have witnessed the first approved Alzheimer disease (AD) disease-modifying therapy and the development of blood-based biomarkers (BBMs) to aid the diagnosis of AD. For many reasons, including accessibility, invasiveness and cost, BBMs are more acceptable and feasible for patients than a lumbar puncture (for cerebrospinal fluid collection) or neuroimaging. However, many questions remain regarding how best to utilize BBMs at the population level. In this Review, we outline the factors that warrant consideration for the widespread implementation and interpretation of AD BBMs. To set the scene, we review the current use of biomarkers, including BBMs, in AD. We go on to describe the characteristics of typical patients with cognitive impairment in primary care, who often differ from the patient populations used in AD BBM research studies. We also consider factors that might affect the interpretation of BBM tests, such as comorbidities, sex and race or ethnicity. We conclude by discussing broader issues such as ethics, patient and provider preference, incidental findings and dealing with indeterminate results and imperfect accuracy in implementing BBMs at the population level. Blood-based biomarkers have the potential to transform the Alzheimer disease diagnostic pathway, but many questions remain regarding their implementation and utilization. This Review considers factors that might affect the interpretation of blood-based biomarker tests, including comorbidities, sex and race or ethnicity, and discusses broader issues surrounding their use at the population level.
期刊介绍:
Nature Reviews Neurology aims to be the premier source of reviews and commentaries for the scientific and clinical communities we serve. We want to provide an unparalleled service to authors, referees, and readers, and we work hard to maximize the usefulness and impact of each article. The journal publishes Research Highlights, Comments, News & Views, Reviews, Consensus Statements, and Perspectives relevant to researchers and clinicians working in the field of neurology. Our broad scope ensures that the work we publish reaches the widest possible audience. Our articles are authoritative, accessible, and enhanced with clearly understandable figures, tables, and other display items. This page gives more detail about the aims and scope of the journal.