Every row of the evidence table

A price-threshold model: it estimates the test price at which diagnostic cost per true-positive case equals standard care ($290-$1,950 depending on use), and compares no actual price against it, so there is no direction to record.

A cost estimate ($818 billion, 80% of it borne by families through unpaid care, earnings losses, out-of-pocket costs and quality-of-life losses) with no exposure compared, so no direction is recorded.

A cost projection: total burden is estimated at $344 billion in 2020 rising to over $3 trillion in 2060, with African American and Latino families projected to bear a disproportionate share. It compares spending shares between groups but tests no exposure, so no direction is recorded.

A cost estimate with no exposure compared, so there is no direction to record. Higher unpaid-care costs went with lower medical spending on nursing facility care.

A cost projection with no exposure compared, so there is no direction to record. Dementia's share of replacement cost is projected to rise from 44% to 53%.

A cost estimate with no exposure compared, so there is no direction to record.

A cost estimate and projection with no exposure compared, so there is no direction to record.

A cost estimation across 204 countries with no exposure compared, so there is no direction to record.

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.

A threshold analysis estimating what each country should be willing to pay (from $4-$18 a year in low-income countries to $254-$9,434 for lecanemab and $387-$13,964 for donanemab in high-income countries). It sets no price against an actual list price, so there is no direction to record.

A cost-effectiveness model reporting ICERs of JPY 8.5 million and 7.9 million per QALY without stating a threshold or a verdict; the authors argue that narrow value assessments understate social value. No direction is recorded.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Direction is for value for money: the intervention was modelled as dominant, saving JPY 452,826 per person and adding 0.08 QALYs over 35 years, with sensitivity analyses described as confirming robustness. A model extrapolating an 18-month trial.

Direction is for the benefit redesign: projected out-of-pocket drug spending fell 55% ($56 to $25) for low-income-subsidy beneficiaries and 25% ($772 to $576) for others, with larger reductions for people with 6-8 comorbidities.