P.006 Cost-effectiveness of Lecanemab for the treatment of early Alzheimer’s Disease: a Canadian societal perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The efficacy and safety of lecanemab have previously been evaluated in the Phase 3 randomized clinical trial, Clarity AD (NCT03887455). Methods: A Markov cohort model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of lecanemab versus standard of care (SoC) in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease (AD), with confirmed beta-amyloid (Aβ) pathology, from a Canadian societal perspective. Health states were determined by Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) scores. Transitions between health states during month 0-18 were estimated from Clarity AD. Beyond month 18, relative efficacy for lecanemab in the form of the hazard ratio for time-to-worsening of CDR-SB was applied to literature-based transition probabilities. The model included the effects of lost productivity and impact on carer health-related quality of life. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for lecanemab vs SoC was estimated to be CAD 62,751 per QALY gained. The probability that lecanemab was cost-effective at a threshold of CAD 100,000 was estimated to be 88.5%. Conclusions: Lecanemab represents a cost-effective option for the treatment for early AD from the Canadian societal perspective. The results of this analysis can be used to inform clinical and economic decision making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Simulation or modeling | high |
| grok | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Simulation or modeling | high |
| opus | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Simulation or modeling | medium |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".