Every finding in the evidence table: 382 rows, filterable

Every row

Filter

Area All 382 Care, carers and services 140 Medicines 85 Genes (not modifiable) 35 All modifiable factors together 27 Diet and supplements 23 Exercise and activity 21 Sleep, mood and social life 19 Hearing and vision 8 Alcohol, tobacco and cannabis 6 Infection and vaccination 5 Heart and metabolic health 4 Injury, delirium and falls 4 Environment 3 Cognitive activity 2

Question Both Prevention 190 Treatment 192

Direction Any Benefit 144 Harm 105 No effect 38 Mixed 37 No direction reported 58

Design Any meta-analysis 57 randomised trial 44 phase 3 trial 15 systematic review 9 phase 2 trial 10 cohort study 136 phase 1 trial 2 cross-sectional study 31 case-control study 14 modelling study 20 regulatory decision 7 company announcement 1 coverage determination 1 None 35

Showing 6 of 382 rows. One row per study per exposure: a study that tested two different things appears twice, once for each.

Scroll the table sideways to see every column.

Research and outcomes, 6 rows. Every row links to its source.
Exposure	Question	Direction	Outcome measured	Design	People	Effect size, as the source reported it	Source
Cost-effectiveness of anti-amyloid antibody Care, carers and services	Treatment	Harm why Direction is for value for money at current Australian prices: donanemab improved modelled QALYs (4.38 vs 4.01) but the ICER of $342,424 per QALY exceeded commonly cited willingness-to-pay thresholds. An unfavourable value result, not a clinical harm.	Incremental cost per QALY of donanemab versus standard care in Australia	modelling study	not stated	Donanemab increased total healthcare costs ($300,689 vs. $178,121) and societal costs ($389,113 vs. $283,618) compared with standard care per capita, while improving health outcomes (4.38 vs. 4.01 QALYs) per capita. The ICER was $342,424 per QALY from the healthcare perspective and $294,701 per QALY from the societal perspective	The Medical journal of Australia 2026 ✓ Peer-reviewed PMID 42015793
Cost-effectiveness of anti-amyloid antibody Care, carers and services	Treatment	Harm why Direction is for value for money: three years of lecanemab gained 0.17 QALYs and the cost-effective price at 1 million SEK per QALY was 33,886 SEK a year, which the authors say makes it unlikely to be cost effective in Sweden at current US list prices. An unfavourable value result, not a clinical harm.	Life-years and QALYs gained and the cost-effective annual price of lecanemab in Sweden at 1 million SEK per QALY	modelling study	not stated	Treatment with lecanemab over 3 years resulted in 0.13 LYs gained, 0.17 QALYs gained, and a net cost increase of 87,146 SEK (€1 = 11.5 SEK, $US1 = 10.6 SEK) due to administration and monitoring, before considering the cost of drug. The cost-effective price of lecanemab at a willingness-to-pay level of 1 million SEK per QALY was 33,886 SEK per year of treatment	PharmacoEconomics 2025 ✓ Peer-reviewed PMID 40730714
Cost-effectiveness of anti-amyloid antibody Care, carers and services	Treatment	Harm why Direction is for value for money at the current price: no lecanemab strategy was cost-effective against standard care alone, whichever diagnostic test was used; CSF-guided targeted treatment would become cost-effective below $5,100 per year. An unfavourable value result, not a clinical harm.	Cost-effectiveness of lecanemab test-treat strategies versus standard care (cost per QALY)	modelling study	not stated	Neither targeted lecanemab treatment nor treatment unrestricted by APOE ε4 genotype was cost-effective vs SoC alone, regardless of the test used to diagnose patients with early-stage AD. However, CSF assay followed by targeted treatment would become cost-effective if lecanemab is priced below $5,100 per year	Neurology 2024 ✓ Peer-reviewed PMID 38484190
Cost-effectiveness of anti-amyloid antibody Care, carers and services	Treatment	Harm why Direction is for chronic bi-weekly intravenous infusion relative to oral treatment: administration and monitoring cost $45,208 plus $6,095 caregiver burden, eroding 44% of treatment value, against 2% for an oral drug. A cost result for a hypothetical treatment, not a clinical harm.	Direct medical cost, caregiver burden and preserved treatment value for five hypothetical disease-modifying treatments differing in route, frequency and duration	modelling study	not stated	Chronic bi-weekly infusion treatment had the highest direct medical cost ($45,208) and caregiver burden ($6,095), reducing the treatment value by 44%, while oral treatment with the lowest direct medical cost ($1,983) and caregiver burden ($457) reduced the treatment value by only 2%	Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease 2024 ✓ Peer-reviewed PMID 39350384
Cost-effectiveness of anti-amyloid antibody Care, carers and services	Treatment	Harm why Direction is for value for money at the list price: the benchmark price ($8,900-$21,500 per year) sits below the $26,500 list price, the committee voted 15-0 that the drug represents low long-term value at that price and 12-3 that the evidence did not adequately demonstrate a net health benefit. An unfavourable value assessment, not a clinical harm.	Health-benefit price benchmark for lecanemab and appraisal-committee votes on net benefit and value	modelling study	not stated	ICER has calculated a health-benefit price benchmark (HBPB) for lecanemab to be between $8,900 – $21,500 per year; Lecanemab has been approved by the FDA and has a list price of $26,500 per year; The panelists unanimously (15-0) found that lecanemab at its current pricing represents “low” long-term value for money; A majority of panelists (12-3) found that current evidence is not adequate to demonstrate a net health benefit of lecanemab when compared to supportive care alone	ICER (independent health technology assessment report) 2023 ⚠ Report — not peer-reviewed no DOI or PMID exists
Cost-effectiveness of anti-amyloid antibody Care, carers and services	Treatment	Harm why Direction is for value for money at the assumed $28,000 annual price: ICERs of $981,000/QALY (aducanumab) and $193,000/QALY (donanemab) exceed the $150,000/QALY threshold, so neither was cost-effective. An unfavourable value result, not a clinical harm.	Incremental cost per QALY versus standard care, and value-based price	modelling study	not stated	Health care sector and societal ICERs relative to standard care were $981 000/QALY and $964 000/QALY, respectively, for aducanumab and $193 000/QALY and $176 000/QALY, respectively, for donanemab	JAMA Neurology 2022 ✓ Peer-reviewed PMID 35344024

How this table was built, and where it is weak →

Every row of the evidence table

Every row