MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7116840654 · doi:10.1002/alz70860_101251

Use of Lecanemab for Alzheimer's Disease within the Veteran's Health Foundation: Early Findings

2025· article· en· W7116840654 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alison O'Donnell, Xinhua Zhao, Alyssa Parr, Sherrie L. Aspinall, Timothy S. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiseaseStroke (engine)PopulationMEDLINEPublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Lecanemab, an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody for Alzheimer's disease, was approved for use in the Veteran's Health Administration (VHA) in 2023. Little is known about the real-world use and outcomes of lecanemab. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included Veterans who initiated lecanemab in the VHA between October 2023 and September 2024. Data on demographics, healthcare utilization, medication exposures, and neuroimaging were extracted from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse. Chart review was used to collect information on dementia diagnosis, Montreal Cognitive Assessments (MoCA), and Apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype. We examined medication adherence, brain MRIs, 6-month MoCAs, amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), and healthcare utilization from initiation to study end (12/31/24). RESULTS: Overall, 32 Veterans (mean [SD] age 75 [6] years, 100% male, 97% white, 84% urban-dwelling) initiated lecanemab; 53% had mild cognitive impairment and 47% mild dementia. The baseline mean MoCA score was 21 (SD 3). Half were heterozygous for APOE ε4 and half non-carriers. The median days of follow-up was 172 (range 62-349), and the median number of lecanemab infusions received was 11 (2-24). Brain MRI follow-up occurred regularly, with all eligible patients receiving an MRI between the 4th and 5th infusion, 92% (22/24) between the 6th and 7th infusions, and 92% (11/12) between the 13th and 14th infusions. However, of the 28 patients with 6 months follow-up, only 9 (32%) had a MoCA completed and the mean change in MoCA was -0.2 (SD 4.2). During follow-up, 25% of patients had imaging abnormalities: 2 (6.2%) experienced acute stroke and 6 (18.8%) experienced ARIA (3 ARIA-edema, 3 ARIA-hemorrhage, and 1 both). Three patients (9.4%) stopped lecanemab for ≥30 days by the end of the study period. Reasons for discontinuation included ARIA, side effects, and patient preference. During follow-up, 0 patients died, 3 (9.4%) were hospitalized within VHA, and 11 (34.4%) had VHA emergency department or urgent care visits. CONCLUSIONS: In the first year lecanemab was available in VHA, the few patients initiated on treatment were mostly white, male, and urban residents. The finding that 25% of patients experienced ARIA or stroke underscores the importance of monitoring the lecanemab safety and effectiveness long-term.

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

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→