Home › Research › Costs and economics
Lecanemab for Alzheimer's Disease: Effectiveness and Value — Final Evidence Report
Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). ICER (independent health technology assessment report), 2023-04-17
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
An independent US drug-pricing watchdog analyzed how lecanemab's actual price compares to its clinical benefit. It concluded the drug would need to cost roughly $8,900 to $21,500 per year to be considered good value for money by standard health-economic thresholds, well below its actual launch price of $26,500 per year. An expert committee also voted that, based on the trial evidence available at the time, lecanemab represented low long-term value at its current price.
Key findings
- Health-benefit price benchmark calculated at $8,900-$21,500 per year
- Actual FDA-approved list price ($26,500/year) exceeded this benchmark
- Independent appraisal committee voted 15-0 that lecanemab at its launch price is 'low' long-term value for money
- Committee also flagged uncertainty (12-3 vote) about whether evidence adequately demonstrated net health benefit over supportive care, given ARIA (brain swelling/bleeding) risks
Why it matters
An independent US drug-pricing watchdog concluded that lecanemab would need to cost roughly $8,900 to $21,500 per year to be considered good value for money, well below its actual launch price of $26,500 per year. An expert committee also voted that, based on the trial evidence available at the time, lecanemab represented low long-term value at its current price.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Costs & economics →
Study details
- Study designmodelling
- Effect sizeHealth-benefit price benchmark of $8,900-$21,500 per year, versus the FDA-approved list price of $26,500 per year; independent appraisal committee voted 15-0 that lecanemab at its current price represents 'low' long-term value for money, and 12-3 that evidence was inadequate to demonstrate net health benefit vs supportive care
- Evidence strengthModerate
Limitations
This is an independent health-policy cost-effectiveness modelling report, not a peer-reviewed original research study; its long-term value estimates depend on modeled extrapolation of the 18-month Clarity AD trial data well beyond the trial's observed duration.
How this study scored 16/100
Report — not peer-reviewed. It scored 24 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for sample size, studied in people, randomised / blinded and indexed in PubMed because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 16 of the 66 points we could judge it on, which is 24 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (ICER (independent health technology assessment report)) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 3 / 12 | A computer model rather than new measurements |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 3 / 10 | Report — not peer-reviewed. Named source is an organisational report, not a journal article. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| 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 |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 0 / 2 | No PubMed ID and no DOI — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 16 / 66 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 16 of the 66 points we could judge it on is 24 out of 100. |
| Total | 24 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. This record has no DOI, so the citation leaves it out. The record's author field reads “Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER)”, which cannot be turned into a citation name, so it is left out. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Lecanemab for Alzheimer's Disease: Effectiveness and Value — Final Evidence Report. (2023). ICER (independent health technology assessment report).
Vancouver
Lecanemab for Alzheimer's Disease: Effectiveness and Value — Final Evidence Report. ICER (independent health technology assessment report). 2023.
BibTeX
@article{study2023-40d8b15f,
title = {{Lecanemab for Alzheimer's Disease: Effectiveness and Value — Final Evidence Report}},
journal = {ICER (independent health technology assessment report)},
year = {2023}
}