Dataset Information

Private payer coverage policies for ApoE-e4 genetic testing.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

ApoE-e4 has a well-established connection to late-onset Alzheimer disease (AD) and is available clinically. Yet, there have been no analyses of payer coverage policies for ApoE. Our objective was to analyze private payer coverage policies for ApoE genetic testing, examine the rationales, and describe supporting evidence referenced by policies.

Methods

We searched for policies from the eight largest private payers (by member numbers) covering ApoE testing for late-onset AD. We implemented content analysis methods to evaluate policies for coverage decisions and rationales.

Results

Seven payers had policies with positions on ApoE testing. Five explicitly state they do not cover ApoE and two apply generic preauthorization criteria. Rationales supporting coverage decisions include: reference to guidelines or national standards, inadequate data supporting testing, characterizing testing as investigational, or that testing would not alter patients' clinical management.

Conclusion

Seven of the eight largest private payers' coverage policies reflect standards that discourage ApoE testing due to a lack of clinical utility. As the field advances, ApoE testing may have an important clinical role, particularly considering that disease-modifying therapies are under evaluation by the US Food and Drug Administration. These types of field advancements may not be consistent with private payers' policies and may cause payers to reevaluate existing coverage policies.

SUBMITTER: Arias JJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8035237 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia and the leading risk factor, after age, is possession of the apolipoprotein E epsilon 4 allele (APOE4). Approximately 50% of AD patients carry one or two copies of APOE4 but the mechanisms by which it confers risk are still unknown. APOE4 carriers are reported to demonstrate changes in brain structure, cognition, and neuropathology, but findings have been inconsistent across studies. In the present study, we used multi-modal data to characterise the effects of APOE4 on the brain, to investigate whether AD pathology manifests differently in APOE4 carriers, and to determine if AD pathomechanisms are different between carriers and non-carriers. Brain structural differences in APOE4 carriers were characterised by applying machine learning to over 2000 brain MRI measurements from 33,384 non-demented UK biobank study participants. APOE4 carriers showed brain changes consistent with vascular dysfunction, such as reduced white matter integrity in posterior brain regions. The relationship between APOE4 and AD pathology was explored among the 1260 individuals from the Religious Orders Study and Memory and Aging Project (ROSMAP). APOE4 status had a greater effect on amyloid than tau load, particularly amyloid in the posterior cortical regions. APOE status was also highly correlated with cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA). Bulk tissue brain transcriptomic data from ROSMAP and a similar dataset from the Mount Sinai Brain Bank showed that differentially expressed genes between the dementia and non-dementia groups were enriched for vascular-related processes (e.g., "angiogenesis") in APOE4 carriers only. Immune-related transcripts were more strongly correlated with AD pathology in APOE4 carriers with some transcripts such as TREM2 and positively correlated with pathology severity in APOE4 carriers, but negatively in non-carriers. Overall, cumulative evidence from the largest neuroimaging, pathology, and transcriptomic studies available suggests that vascular dysfunction is key to the development of AD in APOE4 carriers. However, further studies are required to tease out non-APOE4-specific mechanisms.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Consistent healthcare decision making requires systematic consideration of decision criteria and evidence available to inform them. This can be tackled by combining multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA). The objective of this study was to field-test a decision support framework (EVIDEM), explore its utility to a drug advisory committee and test its reliability over time. METHODS: Tramadol for chronic non-cancer pain was selected by the health plan as a case study relevant to their context. Based on extensive literature review, a by-criterion HTA report was developed to provide synthesized evidence for each criterion of the framework (14 criteria for the MCDA Core Model and 6 qualitative criteria for the Contextual Tool). During workshop sessions, committee members tested the framework in three steps by assigning: 1) weights to each criterion of the MCDA Core Model representing individual perspective; 2) scores for tramadol for each criterion of the MCDA Core Model using synthesized data; and 3) qualitative impacts of criteria of the Contextual Tool on the appraisal. Utility and reliability of the approach were explored through discussion, survey and test-retest. Agreement between test and retest data was analyzed by calculating intra-rater correlation coefficients (ICCs) for weights, scores and MCDA value estimates. RESULTS: The framework was found useful by the drug advisory committee in supporting systematic consideration of a broad range of criteria to promote a consistent approach to appraising healthcare interventions. Directly integrated in the framework as a "by-criterion" HTA report, synthesized evidence for each criterion facilitated its consideration, although this was sometimes limited by lack of relevant data. Test-retest analysis showed fair to good consistency of weights, scores and MCDA value estimates at the individual level (ICC ranging from 0.676 to 0.698), thus lending some support for the reliability of the approach. Overall, committee members endorsed the inclusion of most framework criteria and revealed important areas of discussion, clarification and adaptation of the framework to the needs of the committee. CONCLUSIONS: By promoting systematic consideration of all decision criteria and the underlying evidence, the framework allows a consistent approach to appraising healthcare interventions. Further testing and validation are needed to advance MCDA approaches in healthcare decisionmaking.