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.

41/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety

Plain-language summary

Lecanemab, an anti-amyloid antibody with effects on biomarker and clinical endpoints in early Alzheimer's Disease (AD), was granted accelerated approval by the FDA in 2023 and regulatory review in Europe is ongoing. We estimate the population potentially eligible for treatment with lecanemab in the 27 EU countries to 5.4 million individuals. Treatment costs would exceed 133 billion EUR per year if the drug is priced similarly as in the United States, amounting to over half of the total pharmaceutical expenditures in the EU. This pricing would be unsustainable; the ability to pay for high-priced therapies varies substantially across countries. Pricing similarly to what has been announced for the United States may place the drug out of reach for patients in some European countries. Disparities in access to novel amyloid-targeting agents may further deepen the inequalities across Europe in health outcomes. As representatives of the European Alzheimer's Disease Consortium Executive Committee, we call for pricing policies that allow eligible patients across Europe to access important innovations, but also continued investments in research and development. Infrastructure to follow up the usage of new therapies in routine care and new payment models may be needed to address affordability and inequalities in patient access.

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

APA 7th

Jönsson, L., Wimo, A., Handels, R., Johansson, G., Boada, M., Engelborghs, S., et al. (2023). The affordability of lecanemab, an amyloid-targeting therapy for Alzheimer's disease: an EADC-EC viewpoint. The Lancet regional health. Europe. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2023.100657

Vancouver

Jönsson L, Wimo A, Handels R, Johansson G, Boada M, Engelborghs S, et al. The affordability of lecanemab, an amyloid-targeting therapy for Alzheimer's disease: an EADC-EC viewpoint. The Lancet regional health. Europe. 2023. doi:10.1016/j.lanepe.2023.100657. PMID: 37251789.

BibTeX

@article{jonsson2023-37251789,
  author  = {Jönsson, Linus and Wimo, Anders and Handels, Ron and Johansson, Gunilla and Boada, Mercè and Engelborghs, Sebastiaan and Frölich, Lutz and Jessen, Frank and others},
  title   = {{The affordability of lecanemab, an amyloid-targeting therapy for Alzheimer's disease: an EADC-EC viewpoint}},
  journal = {The Lancet regional health. Europe},
  year    = {2023},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.lanepe.2023.100657},
  pmid    = {37251789},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2023.100657}
}

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 narrative review. It summarises a field without a fixed search method, so it shows how authors read the evidence rather than measuring it. Use it to find the primary studies, not as a result in itself.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
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

This pricing would be unsustainable; the ability to pay for high-priced therapies varies substantially across countries.
Pricing similarly to what has been announced for the United States may place the drug out of reach for patients in some European countries.
Disparities in access to novel amyloid-targeting agents may further deepen the inequalities across Europe in health outcomes.
As representatives of the European Alzheimer's Disease Consortium Executive Committee, we call for pricing policies that allow eligible patients across Europe to access important innovations, but also continued investments in research and development.
Infrastructure to follow up the usage of new therapies in routine care and new payment models may be needed to address affordability and inequalities in patient access.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 41/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / 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, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The Lancet regional health. Europe)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (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	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization 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
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 37251789)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	23 / 56	Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100.
Total	41 / 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 Treatments 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 Treatments

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 Treatments →