ArticleBMJ open2025
Cost-effectiveness analysis of aducanumab versus placebo for patients with mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer's disease.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Aildenafil citrate with superior PDE5 selectivity ameliorates cognitive and behavioral impairments in APP/PS1 Alzheimer's disease mice: a preclinical phenotypic study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Article
- Worth their weight in gray matter? A narrative review of cost-effectiveness analyses of monoclonal antibodies for Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the cost-effectiveness of aducanumab at its updated price for treating patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and mild Alzheimer's disease (AD).
designCost-effectiveness analysis. SETTINGS: A five-state Markov model was constructed using 10 000 virtual patients to assess the cost-effectiveness of aducanumab from the perspective of the US healthcare system. The model employed a one-year cycle time and a lifetime time horizon. Transition probabilities and mortality rates were derived from a literature review. To address uncertainty and generalise the base case results, both one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.
participants10 000 virtual patients with MCI and mild AD.
interventionsThe study group consisted of patients using aducanumab, while the control group consisted of those using a placebo. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes included costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). In line with the healthcare system perspective, only direct medical costs were included. Drug costs were obtained from official records, while other medical costs were derived from literature reviews. Utilities used to calculate QALYs were also obtained from the literature. Incremental analysis was conducted to assess cost-effectiveness in the base case analysis by comparing the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) against the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. A discount rate of 3% was applied to both costs and effectiveness.
resultsFrom the perspective of the US healthcare system, compared with the control group, the study group had an incremental cost of US$143 821.1 and an incremental QALY of 0.10. The ICER of patients using aducanumab compared with those using placebo was US$1 012 219.0 per QALY gained, which was much greater than the WTP threshold of US$50 000 to US$150 000, indicating that using aducanumab was not cost-effective. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the five most sensitive parameters were relative risk of progressing from MCI to mild AD, the utility of MCI, initial age, discount rate and the price of aducanumab. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, when the WTP was the WTP threshold of US$150 000, the probability of aducanumab being cost-effective was 0%. In addition, when the probability of aducanumab being cost-effective was 50%, the WTP was US$1 180 000, and when the probability of aducanumab being cost-effective was 95%, the WTP was US$1 906 000.
conclusionsEven with the updated price being half of the original, aducanumab is still not cost-effective, underscoring the need for affordable, evidence-based AD treatments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.