ArticleNeurology and therapy2025
Societal Costs and Efficiency of Subcutaneous versus Intravenous Lecanemab in Early Alzheimer's Disease: A U.S. Cost Comparison Model.
Article in Neurology and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Monoclonal antibodies and small molecules: on the cutting edge of Alzheimer's disease therapy.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIntravenous (IV) therapies often impose significant burdens and costs on payers, providers, patients, and caregivers. A fixed-dose subcutaneous (SC) formulation may enhance convenience, improve outcomes, and reduce societal costs compared with weight-based IV dosing. This study estimated the relative societal value and cost implications of IV versus SC lecanemab administration for early Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the USA.
methodsA targeted literature review identified outcomes related to IV and SC modes of administration across therapeutic areas to inform and parameterize a cost-comparison model. The model incorporated direct treatment costs; economic value of administration time for providers, patients, and caregivers; and quality-of-life (QOL) impacts for patients and caregivers. Costs were estimated from a societal perspective over 4 years, including a per-patient head-to-head analysis and a population-level assessment accounting for population size, current treatment rates, and SC uptake. Scenario analyses evaluated the impact of key inputs and assumptions on study findings.
resultsSC lecanemab was estimated to yield per-patient savings of $72,891-$80,925 over 4 years compared with IV administration, corresponding to annual savings of $18,223-$20,231 at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $150,000 and $200,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. Savings stemmed from a $40,638 reduction in treatment costs, $8151 decrease in administration time costs, and $24,102-$32,136 reduction in QOL-related costs. At the population level, assuming current treatment rates and 49.4% SC uptake, total savings of $3.16-$3.71 billion were projected over 4 years. Sensitivity analyses indicated per-patient savings varied based on site of care, IV drug wastage, and caregiver disutilities, while population-level savings were sensitive to treatment rates and SC uptake.
conclusionSubcutaneous lecanemab administration potentially offers substantial societal savings by lowering treatment costs, minimizing time demands, and relieving QOL burdens for patients and caregivers. These findings underscore the potential value of SC formulations in improving treatment delivery and alleviating AD economic impact; however, real-world data in AD are needed to further contextualize this comparison.
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.