This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

75/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. Clinical trials

Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety

Plain-language summary

A total of 1795 participants were enrolled (lecanemab:898; placebo:897). At month 18, adjusted mean change from baseline in EQ-5D-5L and QOL-AD by subject showed 49% and 56% less decline, respectively. QOL-AD rated by study partner as proxy resulted in 23% less decline. ZBI adjusted mean change from baseline at 18 months resulted in 38% less increase of care partner burden. Individual HRQoL test items and dimensions also showed lecanemab benefit. Lecanemab was associated with a relative preservation of HRQoL and less increase in caregiver burden, with consistent benefits seen across different quality of life scales and within scale subdomains. These benefits provide valuable patient reported outcomes which, together with previously reported benefits of lecanemab across multiple measures of cognition, function, disease progression, and biomarkers, demonstrate that lecanemab treatment may offer meaningful benefits to patients, care partners, and society.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Cohen, S., van Dyck, C. H., Gee, M., Doherty, T., Kanekiyo, M., Dhadda, S., et al. (2023). Lecanemab Clarity AD: Quality-of-Life Results from a Randomized, Double-Blind Phase 3 Trial in Early Alzheimer's Disease. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease. https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2023.123

Vancouver

Cohen S, van Dyck CH, Gee M, Doherty T, Kanekiyo M, Dhadda S, et al. Lecanemab Clarity AD: Quality-of-Life Results from a Randomized, Double-Blind Phase 3 Trial in Early Alzheimer's Disease. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease. 2023. doi:10.14283/jpad.2023.123. PMID: 37874099.

BibTeX

@article{cohen2023-37874099,
  author  = {Cohen, S and van Dyck, C H and Gee, M and Doherty, T and Kanekiyo, M and Dhadda, S and Li, D and Hersch, S and others},
  title   = {{Lecanemab Clarity AD: Quality-of-Life Results from a Randomized, Double-Blind Phase 3 Trial in Early Alzheimer's Disease}},
  journal = {The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease},
  year    = {2023},
  doi     = {10.14283/jpad.2023.123},
  pmid    = {37874099},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2023.123}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: this is a trial. Participants are assigned to a treatment or a comparison, so the key questions are who was enrolled, whether the comparison group got a placebo or nothing, how long people were followed, and whether the result is on a measure that matters to patients or on a biomarker. Open-label and small trials can overstate benefit.
Size: the record lists 1,795 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

A total of 1795 participants were enrolled (lecanemab:898; placebo:897).
At month 18, adjusted mean change from baseline in EQ-5D-5L and QOL-AD by subject showed 49% and 56% less decline, respectively.
QOL-AD rated by study partner as proxy resulted in 23% less decline.
ZBI adjusted mean change from baseline at 18 months resulted in 38% less increase of care partner burden.
Individual HRQoL test items and dimensions also showed lecanemab benefit.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Registered clinical trials →

Study details

Study designclinical trial
Participants1,795
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 75/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a large phase 3 trial. Scored zero for effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 42 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 75 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	11 / 12	A large phase 3 trial (from PubMed type “Clinical Trial, Phase III”)
Strength of evidence	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	3 / 5	2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	3 / 4	1,795 participants
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomized / blinded	2 / 2	Randomized and blinded or placebo-controlled (as stated in the record)
Times cited	— / 7	No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year	— / 5	No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year	— / 6	No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here	— / 6	Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited	— / 4	No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	— / 3	No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 37874099)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	42 / 56	Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 42 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 75 out of 100.
Total	75 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Clinical trials from nearby years

Also tagged “monoclonal”

332 studies in the library carry the topic tag “monoclonal”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 332 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Clinical trials

Where this led: Lecanemab on the treatments page — its current status, approval date, side-effect rate and list price, kept up to date.

See all studies in Clinical trials →