ReviewAlzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)
Worth their weight in gray matter? A narrative review of cost-effectiveness analyses of monoclonal antibodies for Alzheimer's disease.
Review in Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMonoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) represent major therapeutic advances, but their economic value is uncertain. This review narratively examines cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of aducanumab, lecanemab, and donanemab for early-onset AD.
methodsWe searched Medline (via PubMed) and EMBASE in April 2026 and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) reports for CEAs of these mAbs. Inclusion required sufficient data to calculate ICERs. Two reviewers independently screened studies, and risk of bias was assessed using Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews. Data were synthesized narratively due to methodological heterogeneity.
resultsOf 755 records screened, 16 CEAs met inclusion criteria (six aducanumab, eight lecanemab, one aducanumab/donanemab, one lecanemab/donanemab). Almost all aducanumab studies reported ICERs that exceeded commonly cited US willingness‑to‑pay thresholds (e.g., $100,000-$150,000 per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]), with ratios ranging from $127,461 to $1,581,276/QALY (2026 USD). Lecanemab results were mixed, with manufacturer‑funded models reporting ICERs below commonly cited thresholds, while other models generally exceeded them. The single donanemab analysis versus standard of care reported an ICER of $214,760/QALY (2026 USD), above commonly cited thresholds, and a Brazilian analysis comparing donanemab with lecanemab reported an ICER of $1,477,604/QALY (2026 USD). No independent study found any mAb cost savings. DISCUSSION: ICER variability across studies, despite reliance on the same clinical trials, reflects sensitivity to assumptions and potential sponsorship bias. Evidence is limited by small numbers of CEAs, reliance on modeled rather than real-world data, and absence of formal risk-of-bias scoring for individual CEAs. The cost-effectiveness of AD mAbs in the US context remains uncertain.
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.