Home › Research › Treatments
Lecanemab: Looking Before We Leap
Burke JF, Kerber KA, Langa KM, Albin RL, Kotagal V.. Neurology, 2023-07-21
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Lecanemab, a novel amyloid-sequestering agent, recently received accelerated Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of mild dementia due to Alzheimer disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Approval was based on a large phase 3 trial, Clarity, which demonstrated reductions in amyloid plaque burden and cognitive decline with lecanemab. Three major concerns should give us pause before adopting this medication: Its beneficial effects are small, its harms are substantial, and its potential costs are unprecedented. Although lecanemab has a clear and statistically significant effect on cognition, its effect size is small and may not be clinically significant. The magnitude of lecanemab's cognitive effect is smaller than independent estimates of the minimally important clinical difference, implying that the effect may be imperceptible to a majority of patients and caregivers. Lecanemab's cognitive effects were numerically smaller than the effect of cholinesterase inhibitors and may be much smaller. The main argument in lecanemab's favor is that it may lead to greater cognitive benefit over time. Although plausible, there is a lack of evidence to support this conclusion. Lecanemab's harms are substantial. In Clarity, it caused symptomatic brain edema in 11% and symptomatic intracranial bleeding in 0.5% of participants. These estimates likely significantly underestimate these risks in general practice for 3 reasons: (1) Lecanemab likely interacts with other medications that increase bleeding, an effect minimized in Clarity. (2) The Clarity population is much younger than the real-world population with mild AD dementia and MCI (age 71 years vs 85 years) and bleeding risk increases with age. (3) Bleeding rates in trials are typically much lower than in clinical practice. Lecanemab's costs are unprecedented. Its proposed price of $26,500 is based on cost-effectiveness analyses with tenuous assumptions. However, even if cost-effective, it is likely to result in higher expenditures than any other medication. If its entire target population were treated, the aggregate medication expenditures would be $120 billion US dollars per year-more than is currently spent on all medications in Medicare Part D. Before adopting lecanemab, we need to know that lecanemab is not less effective, vastly more harmful, and 100× more costly than donepezil.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Burke, J. F., Kerber, K. A., Langa, K. M., Albin, R. L., & Kotagal, V. (2023). Lecanemab: Looking Before We Leap. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000207505
Vancouver
Burke JF, Kerber KA, Langa KM, Albin RL, Kotagal V. Lecanemab: Looking Before We Leap. Neurology. 2023. doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000207505. PMID: 37479527.
BibTeX
@article{burke2023-37479527,
author = {Burke, J. F. and Kerber, K. A. and Langa, K. M. and Albin, R. L. and Kotagal, V.},
title = {{Lecanemab: Looking Before We Leap}},
journal = {Neurology},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.1212/wnl.0000000000207505},
pmid = {37479527},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000207505}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Approval was based on a large phase 3 trial, Clarity, which demonstrated reductions in amyloid plaque burden and cognitive decline with lecanemab.
- Although lecanemab has a clear and statistically significant effect on cognition, its effect size is small and may not be clinically significant.
- These estimates likely significantly underestimate these risks in general practice for 3 reasons: (1) Lecanemab likely interacts with other medications that increase bleeding, an effect minimized in Clarity.
- However, even if cost-effective, it is likely to result in higher expenditures than any other medication.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designclinical trial
- Effect size0.5%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 47/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomised / blinded 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 47 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | Design recorded as “clinical trial”, which our rubric does not rank (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 | 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 | — / 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 |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 37479527) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 27 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 47 out of 100. |
| Total | 47 / 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.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Treatments
Also tagged “looking”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “looking”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.