4.7 Article

Blood-based biomarkers in Alzheimer disease: Current state of the science and a novel collaborative paradigm for advancing from discovery to clinic

Journal

ALZHEIMERS & DEMENTIA
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages 45-58

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jalz.2016.09.014

Keywords

Alzheimer's disease; Biomarker; Blood; Diagnosis; Cerebrospinal fluid; Imaging; Diagnosis; Context of use

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01AG051848, R56AG054073]
  2. Danish Research Foundation
  3. AXA Research Fund
  4. Fondation Universite Pierre et Marie Curie
  5. Fondation pour la Recherche sur Alzheimer, Paris, France
  6. program Investissements d'avenir [ANR-10-IAIHU-06]
  7. National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging [R01AG051848]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The last decade has seen a substantial increase in research focused on the identification of blood-based biomarkers that have utility in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Blood-based biomarkers have significant advantages of being time- and cost-efficient as well as reduced invasiveness and increased patient acceptance. Despite these advantages and increased research efforts, the field has been hampered by lack of reproducibility and an unclear path for moving basic discovery toward clinical utilization. Here we reviewed the recent literature on blood-based biomarkers in AD to provide a current state of the art. In addition, a collaborative model is proposed that leverages academic and industry strengths to facilitate the field in moving past discovery only work and toward clinical use. Key resources are provided. This new public-private partnership model is intended to circumvent the traditional handoff model and provide a clear and useful paradigm for the advancement of biomarker science in AD and other neurodegenerative diseases. (C) 2016 the Alzheimer's Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available