ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Lifetime cost-effectiveness of lecanemab for early Alzheimer's disease.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. 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.
- Dual-task versus single-task walking within an Otago Exercise Program for older adults with dementia: A 24-week cluster randomized controlled trial.Journal of exercise science and fitness · 2026Article
- 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
Introduction: Lecanemab is the second anti-amyloid- Methods: An indirect comparison of cost-effectiveness was performed due to the absence of head-to-head randomized controlled trials. A five-state Markov model was constructed from the perspective of the US healthcare system with a lifetime horizon and a 1-year cycle length. Model outcomes included life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs, all discounted at an annual rate of 3%. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and compared with established willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. One-way sensitivity analyses identified key drivers of model uncertainty, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) with 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations tested the robustness of the findings. Results: The incremental cost of the lecanemab group compared to the aducanumab group was $30,018.97, with an increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 0.25, resulting in an ICER of $121,678.49 per QALY gained. The result of the one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the utility of the state of mild dementia due to AD had the most important effects on the ICER of the lecanemab group compared to the aducanumab group. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that lecanemab was more cost-effective than aducanumab across various WTP thresholds. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that lecanemab provides greater value than aducanumab; however, at current list prices, neither drug is cost-effective compared with the standard of care. Price reductions are necessary to improve affordability, particularly for lecanemab, which is more widely covered by Medicare. Policy implications remain significant, as under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), biologics such as lecanemab are exempt from Medicare price negotiations for 13 years post-approval, limiting short-term opportunities for cost adjustment.
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.