Are diagnostic technologies for alzheimer’s disease and dementia cost-effective? A systematic review of economic evaluations

Document Type

Article

Department

Population Health (East Africa); Brain and Mind Institute

Abstract

Background: Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and dementia pose a significant clinical and economic burden globally. Early diagnosis and intervention can potentially delay disease progression. Current diagnostic guidelines recommend considering imaging and biomarker analysis in conjunction with clinical evaluation. Given limited healthcare resources, evidence on the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic technologies is critical to guide allocation of resources.

Objective: To systematically review the economic evaluation studies of neuroimaging, biomarkers, and other diagnostic or screening strategies for diagnosing and/or tracking the progression of AD or dementia.

Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and EconLit, and to identify relevant studies, with no restrictions on country, language, or publication period. Quality of the studies was evaluated using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria-Extended (CHEC-Extended) checklist.

Results: Out of 6,804 records, 21 studies met the eligibility criteria. These included evaluations of neuroimaging technologies such as Positron Emission Tomography, Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography, Computed Tomography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (n = 10), cerebrospinal fluid and blood biomarkers (n = 7), and alternative diagnostic strategies including screening programs, machine learning-based models, and multidisciplinary care approaches (n = 4). Among the studies evaluating imaging technologies, most (n = 6) did not find them to be cost-effective. In contrast, CSF and blood biomarker studies found these technologies to be cost-effective, with some variability in results. Methodological quality score ranged between 15% and 95%, indicating a mix of low- to high-quality studies. Due to heterogeneity in study designs and reported outcomes, direct comparisons were not feasible.

Conclusions: While many studies were of high quality, heterogeneity in study objectives, design, and outcomes restricted evidence synthesis. Future research should ensure methodological consistency, transparent cost reporting, and integration of new treatment frameworks to improve the policy relevance and reliability of economic evidence for AD diagnostics.

AKU Student

no

Publication (Name of Journal)

Alzheimer's Research & Therapy

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-025-01933-1

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS