Societal Costs and Efficiency of Subcutaneous versus Intravenous Lecanemab in Early Alzheimer's Disease: A U.S. Cost...

Intravenous (IV) therapies often impose significant burdens and costs on payers, providers, patients, and caregivers. A fixed-dose subcutaneous (SC) formulation may enhance convenience, improve outcomes, and reduce societal costs compared with weight-based IV dosing. This study estimated the relative societal value and cost implications of IV versus SC lecanemab administration for early Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the USA.

A targeted literature review identified outcomes related to IV and SC modes of administration across therapeutic areas to inform and parameterize a cost-comparison model. The model incorporated direct treatment costs; economic value of administration time for providers, patients, and caregivers; and quality-of-life (QOL) impacts for patients and caregivers. Costs were estimated from a societal perspective over 4 years, including a per-patient head-to-head analysis and a population-level assessment accounting for population size, current treatment rates, and SC uptake. Scenario analyses evaluated the impact of key inputs and assumptions on study findings.

SC lecanemab was estimated to yield per-patient savings of $72,891-$80,925 over 4 years compared with IV administration, corresponding to annual savings of $18,223-$20,231 at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $150,000 and $200,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. Savings stemmed from a $40,638 reduction in treatment costs, $8151 decrease in administration time costs, and $24,102-$32,136 reduction in QOL-related costs. At the population level, assuming current treatment rates and 49.4% SC uptake, total savings of $3.16-$3.71 billion were projected over 4 years. Sensitivity analyses indicated per-patient savings varied based on site of care, IV drug wastage, and caregiver disutilities, while population-level savings were sensitive to treatment rates and SC uptake.

Subcutaneous lecanemab administration potentially offers substantial societal savings by lowering treatment costs, minimizing time demands, and relieving QOL burdens for patients and caregivers. These findings underscore the potential value of SC formulations in improving treatment delivery and alleviating AD economic impact; however, real-world data in AD are needed to further contextualize this comparison.