Medical Policy
Policy Num: 05.001.046
Policy Name: Monoclonal Antibodies for Treatment of Alzheimer Disease
Policy ID: [05.001.046] [Ac / B / M- / P-] [5.01.38]
Last Review: March 27, 2026
Next Review: January 15, 2027
Related Policies: None
| Population Reference No. | Populations | Interventions | Comparators | Outcomes |
| 1 | Individuals: · With early Alzheimer disease (mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer disease) | Interventions of interest are: · Lecanemab | Comparators of interest are: · Standard of care | Relevant outcomes include: · Disease-specific survival · Change in disease status · Functional outcomes · Health status measures · Quality of life · Treatment-related mortality · Treatment-related morbidity |
Alzheimer disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disorder leading to progressive, irreversible destruction of neurons and loss of cognitive function and memory. Over time, patients progress to severe dementia, loss of independence, and death. Extracellular deposits of amyloid beta, referred to as amyloid plaques, are considered a hallmark of the disease. Beta-amyloid monomers lead to formation of beta oligomers and fibrils, are deposited as plaques, and then interact with tau fibrils, leading to formation of neuro-fibrillatory tangles. These pathophysiological changes and clinical manifestations of AD are progressive and occur along a continuum, and accumulation of amyloid beta may begin 20 years or more before symptoms arise. Two monoclonal antibodies (aducanumab and lecanemab) have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration under accelerated approval based on the reduction in amyloid beta plaques. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial. Aducanumab (Aduhelm®), which received accelerated approval as a treatment for Alzheimer's disease from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2021, has been discontinued by its manufacturer (Biogen).
For individuals with early AD (MCI or mild dementia due to AD) who receive lecanemab, the evidence includes includes a single dose-finding RCT. Relevant outcomes are disease-specific survival, change in disease status, functional outcomes, health status measures, quality of life, and treatment-related mortality and morbidity. In study 201, participants were randomized to placebo or one of 5 lecanemab dosing regimens, including the FDA approved dosing regimen of 10 mg/kg biweekly. The primary endpoint was change from baseline on a weighted composite score consisting of selected items from the CDR-SB, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale – Cognitive 13-Item Scale (ADAS-Cog 13) at week 53. Lecanemab had a 64% likelihood of 25% or greater slowing of progression on the primary endpoint relative to placebo at week 53, which did not meet the prespecified success criterion of 80%. Approval by the FDA was based on the reduction in amyloid beta plaques. Change from baseline in brain amyloid plaque was assessed in a subset of patients at week 79. Treatment with lecanemab 10 mg/kg every two weeks reduced amyloid beta plaque levels in the brain, producing reductions in positron emission tomography standard uptake value ratio compared to placebo. The magnitude of the reduction was time- and dose-dependent. However, there are no satisfactory data clearly establishing that individual changes in amyloid correlate with or predict long term cognitive and functional changes. In the absence of clinical data convincingly demonstrating a clinical effect, it cannot be concluded that the observed reduction in amyloid will translate into a clinical benefit to patients. Cognitive decline in early AD generally occurs over years, and thus the follow-up duration may not be sufficient to conclude whether a drug is effective for this disease or whether the safety profile might change with longer follow-up. Safety data showed that about 12% of patients on lecanemab experienced ARIA. A confirmatory, prospective, and adequately powered trial is necessary to assess the net health benefit of lecanemab in patients with early AD. The evidence is insufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.
Not applicable.
The objective of this evidence review is to assess whether treatment with monoclonal antibodies improves the net health outcome in patients with early Alzheimer disease (mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer disease).
The use of lecanemab is considered investigational for all indications including treatment of Alzheimer disease.
The product label of lecanemab recommends that a baseline brain MRI within 1 year must be done prior to initiating treatment due to the risk of ARIA. Subsequently, MRI should be repeated prior to the fifth, seventh, and fourteenth infusions. Follow recommendations for dosing interruptions in patients with ARIA as specified in the US FDA approved prescribing label.
See the Codes table for details.
BlueCard/National Account Issues
State or federal mandates (eg, Federal Employee Program) may dictate that certain U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved devices, drugs, or biologics may not be considered investigational, and thus these devices may be assessed only by their medical necessity.
Benefits are determined by the group contract, member benefit booklet, and/or individual subscriber certificate in effect at the time services were rendered. Benefit products or negotiated coverages may have all or some of the services discussed in this medical policy excluded from their coverage.
Alzheimer disease (AD) is a fatal neurodegenerative disease that causes progressive loss in memory, language, and thinking, with the eventual loss of ability to perform social and functional activities in daily life. Survival after a diagnosis of dementia due to AD generally ranges between 4 and 8 years; however, life expectancy can be influenced by other factors, such as comorbid medical conditions. It is estimated that 6.2 million Americans aged 65 and older are currently living with AD dementia, and the number is projected to reach over 12 million by 2050.1,
The pathologic hallmarks of AD are extracellular deposits of amyloid beta, referred to as amyloid plaques, and intracellular aggregates of hyperphosphorylated tau in the form of neurofibrillary tangles. There are different forms of amyloid such as plaques, oligomers, and monomers, and the roles of these different forms and how specifically they are pathophysiologically associated with AD is not well understood. Generally referred to as the “amyloid hypothesis”, it is believed that aggregation of amyloid beta oligomers in the brain leads to amyloid plaques and it is thought to be the primary driver of the disease process. Amyloid aggregation is thought to precede accumulation of tau pathology and neurodegeneration. These changes in the brain result in widespread neurodegeneration and cell death, and ultimately cause the clinical signs and symptoms of dementia.2,3,
Salient known risk factors for AD are older age, genetics, and family history. Of these, increasing age has the largest known impact on risk of developing AD. While several genes have been found to increase the risk of AD, the ε4 allele of the apolipoprotein E (ApoE) gene is the strongest known genetic risk factor.4,5, Having a single copy of the gene is associated with a 2- to 3-fold increase in developing AD while 2 copies of the gene may increase risk of AD by as much as 15 times.6, Approximately two-thirds of pathology-confirmed AD cases are ε4 positive (homozygous or heterozygous), compared with about 15% to 20% of the general population.5, Autosomal dominant genetic mutations are estimated to account for less than 1% of AD cases.7,
The pathophysiological changes and clinical manifestations of AD are progressive and occur along a continuum, and accumulation of amyloid beta may begin 20 years or more before symptoms arise.8, The National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association (NIA-AA) have created a “numeric clinical staging scheme” (Table 1) that avoids traditional syndromal labels and is applicable for only those in the Alzheimer continuum. This staging scheme reflects the sequential evolution of AD from an initial stage characterized by the appearance of abnormal AD biomarkers in asymptomatic individuals. As biomarker abnormalities progress, the earliest subtle symptoms become detectable. Further progression of biomarker abnormalities is accompanied by progressive worsening of cognitive symptoms, culminating in dementia. This numeric cognitive staging scheme is not designed to be used in a clinical setting but to be used for interventional trials.
Clinical criteria for diagnosing AD are informed by the NIA-AA 2011 guidelines.10,11, Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) lies between the cognitive changes of normal aging and dementia. Mild cognitive impairment is a syndrome in which persons experience memory loss (amnestic MCI) or loss of thinking skills other than memory loss (non-amnestic MCI), to a greater extent than expected for age, but without impairment of day-to-day functioning.10, Individuals with MCI are at increased risk of developing dementia (whether from AD or another etiology), but many do not progress to dementia, and some get better. Dementia is a syndrome involving cognitive and behavioral impairment in an otherwise alert patient, due to a number of neurological diseases, alone or combined. It is not a specific cause or disease process itself. The impairment must involve a minimum of 2 domains (memory, reasoning, visuospatial abilities, language or personality behaviors), impact daily functioning, represent a decline from previous levels of functioning, not be explainable by delirium (a temporary state of mental confusion and fluctuating consciousness from various causes) or a major psychiatric disorder, and be objectively documented by a “bedside” mental status exam (e.g., the mini-mental status exam) or neuropsychological testing.11, These guidelines describe core clinical criteria for “all-cause” dementia and “probable AD” dementia. Briefly, “probable AD” dementia must first meet the criteria for “all-cause” dementia. Additionally, there must be: (a) insidious onset; (b) documented worsening of cognition; (c) exclusion of major concomitant cerebrovascular disease (as most individuals with AD have some level of this as well); and (d) exclusion of alternative diagnoses (e.g., dementia with Lewy bodies, behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia, progressive aphasia, or other neurological disease associated with dementia). A clinical diagnosis of “possible AD” dementia would meet the criteria for “probable AD” with the exception of having an “atypical course” (e.g., sudden rather than insidious onset) or an “etiologically mixed presentation.”
Many tests are available in the market to detect the underlying core pathology such as certain biomarkers in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) (eg, decreased amyloid beta and increased CSF tau protein levels) and on imaging (e.g., amyloid on positron emission tomography [PET] scans). Approved amyloid PET tracers in the US include [18F]-florbetapir, [18F]-flutemetamol, and [18F]-florbetaben. In addition, there are several CSF tests for amyloid beta confirmation that are currently in development in the US. Cerebrospinal fluid tests and amyloid PET tracers are routinely used in the enrollment of participants in contemporary AD studies.12,
Treatment goals for patients with AD are often directed to maintain quality of life, treat cognitive symptoms, and manage behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia. Treatment remains largely supportive, including creation and implementation of individualized dementia care plans, caregiver education and support, care navigation, care coordination, and referral to community-based organizations for services (eg, adult day care, caregiver training).13, Non-pharmacologic treatments include physical activity14,15, as well as behavioral strategies to ameliorate neuropsychiatric symptoms (eg, agitation, delusions, disinhibition), and problem behaviors (eg, resistance to care, hoarding, obsessive-compulsive behaviors).16, Currently, FDA-approved drugs for AD include cholinesterase inhibitors, donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine, and the N‐methyl‐D‐aspartate antagonist, memantine. Cholinesterase inhibitors are indicated in mild, moderate, and severe AD, while memantine is approved for moderate-to-severe AD. These drugs, either alone or in combination, focus on managing cognitive and functional symptoms of the disease and have not been shown to alter disease trajectory. The evidence for efficacy is limited and these agents are associated with significant side effects.16,17,
| Stage | Stage 1 | Stage 2 | Stage 3 | Stage 4 | Stage 5 | Stage 6 |
| Severity | Pre-clinical | Pre-clinical | MCI due to Alzheimer disease | Mild Dementia | Moderate Dementia | Severe Dementia |
| Clinical Features |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adapted from Table 6, Jack et al (2018)18,
CSF: cerebrospinal fluid; FDG: fluorodeoxyglucose; MCI: mild cognitive impairment; MRI: magnetic resonance imaging; PET: positron emission tomography.
aApplicable only to individuals in the Alzheimer continuum that fall into 1 of the 4 biomarker groups: 1) A+T+N+ 2) A+T-N- 3) A+T+N- 4) A+T-N+ where A: Aggregated amyloid beta or associated pathologic state (CSF amyloid beta42, or amyloid beta42/amyloid beta40 ratio or Amyloid PET), T: Aggregated tau (neurofibrillary tangles) or associated pathologic state (CSF phosphorylated tau or Tau PET) and N: Neurodegeneration or neuronal injury (anatomic MRI, FDG PET or CSF total tau)
For stages 1 to 6: Cognitive test performance may be compared to normative data of the investigator's choice, with or without adjustment (choice of the investigators) for age, sex, education, etc.
For stages 2 to 6: Although cognition is the core feature, neurobehavioral changes—for example, changes in mood, anxiety, or motivation—may coexist.
For stages 3 to 6: Cognitive impairment may be characterized by presentations that are not primarily amnestic.
Aducanumab (Aduhelm®), which received accelerated approval as a treatment for Alzheimer's disease from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2021, has been discontinued by its manufacturer (Biogen).
In April 2022, FDA amended the approved label to emphasize that physicians confirm that amyloid beta pathology is present before starting treatment.
In January 2023, lecanemab (Leqembi; Eisai) was approved by the FDA for treatment of AD. This indication was approved under accelerated approval based on the reduction in amyloid beta plaques observed in patients treated with lecanemab. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification of clinical benefit in confirmatory trial(s).
The FDA, under the accelerated approval regulations (21 CFR 601.41), requires that Eisai conduct a RCT to evaluate the efficacy of lecanemab compared to an appropriate control for the treatment of AD. The trial should be of sufficient duration to observe changes on an acceptable endpoint in the patient population enrolled in the trial. The expected date of trial completion is September 2022 and final report submission to the FDA by March 2023.
This evidence review was created in June 2021 with searches of the PubMed database. The most recent literature update was performed through February 1. 2023.
Evidence reviews assess the clinical evidence to determine whether the use of a technology improves the net health outcome. Broadly defined, health outcomes are length of life, quality of life, and ability to function including benefits and harms. Every clinical condition has specific outcomes that are important to patients and to managing the course of that condition. Validated outcome measures are necessary to ascertain whether a condition improves or worsens; and whether the magnitude of that change is clinically significant. The net health outcome is a balance of benefits and harms.
To assess whether the evidence is sufficient to draw conclusions about the net health outcome of a technology, 2 domains are examined: the relevance and the quality and credibility. To be relevant, studies must represent 1 or more intended clinical use of the technology in the intended population and compare an effective and appropriate alternative at a comparable intensity. For some conditions, the alternative will be supportive care or surveillance. The quality and credibility of the evidence depend on study design and conduct, minimizing bias and confounding that can generate incorrect findings. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is preferred to assess efficacy; however, in some circumstances, nonrandomized studies may be adequate. Randomized controlled trials are rarely large enough or long enough to capture less common adverse events and long-term effects. Other types of studies can be used for these purposes and to assess generalizability to broader clinical populations and settings of clinical practice.
The purpose of monoclonal antibody such as lecanemab is to provide a treatment option that is an alternative to or an improvement on existing therapies for individuals with early Alzheimer disease (AD; mild cognitive impairment [MCI] or mild dementia due to AD).
The following PICO was used to select literature to inform this review.
The relevant population of interest is individuals with early AD.
The therapy being considered is monoclonal antibody which include lecanemab. The accumulation of amyloid beta plaques in the brain is a defining pathophysiological feature of AD. Lecanemab-irmb is a immunoglobulin gamma 1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody directed against aggregated soluble and insoluble forms of amyloid beta.
The following practice is currently being used to treat early AD. Currently approved AD treatments include the cholinesterase inhibitors, donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine, and the N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist, memantine. None of these agents addresses the underlying pathology of the disease. Their effects are reversible and lessen over time due to the continued progression of the disease process.
The general outcomes of interest are disease-specific survival, change in disease status, functional outcomes, health status measures, quality of life, and treatment-related mortality and morbidity. Follow-up at 2 to 5 years is of interest to monitor outcomes. See Table 2 for the description and relevance of specific outcome measures considered in this review.
As per the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2018 draft guidance for developing drugs for treatment of early AD, treatment for mild to moderate AD dementia (corresponding to stages 4 and 5) would be considered substantially effective if there is improvement on a core symptom (eg, a measure of cognition) and a global clinical measure (eg, a clinician’s judgement of change) or a functional measure (eg, activities of daily living).9, For studies including prodromal patients with MCI (corresponding to Stage 3 in the FDA 2018 draft guidance), the FDA requires only a statistically significant change on a prespecified composite measure that includes cognition and daily function combined, as a demonstration of substantial effectiveness. In the 2013 draft guidance, the agency specifically recommended the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) as a composite measure that had shown validity and reliability for this purpose. No quantified minimum differences were specified, but the rationale was that such a composite measure serves as an indicator of change in both the core or cognitive outcome.19, Meeting minimal clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds, however, are not requisites for the FDA to conclude a trial shows substantial effectiveness or to authorize marketing approval.20,
| Outcome Measure | Description | Scale | Clinically meaningful difference/Comment |
| Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) |
|
| |
| Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) |
|
|
|
| Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale – Cognitive 13-Item Scale (ADAS-Cog 13) |
|
| |
| Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study – Activities of Daily Living – Mild Cognitive Impairment (ADCS-ADL-MCI) |
|
| |
| Neuropsychiatric Inventory-10 (NPI-10) |
|
|
|
| Alzheimer’s Disease Composite Score (ADCOMS) |
|
|
AD: Alzheimer disease; MCI: mild cognitive impairment; MCID: minimally clinical important difference.
Study Selection Criteria
Methodologically credible studies were selected using the following principles:
To assess efficacy outcomes, comparative controlled prospective trials were sought, with a preference for RCTs;
In the absence of such trials, comparative observational studies were sought, with a preference for prospective studies;
To assess long-term outcomes and adverse events, single-arm studies that capture longer periods of follow-up and/or larger populations were sought;
Studies with duplicative or overlapping populations were excluded.
Population Reference No. 1
The clinical development program of lecanemab includes 3 studies that are summarized in Table 9.
| Trial | NCT | Phase | Description | N | Design | Status |
| Study 201 (Study 1 in the prescribing label) | NCT01767311 | 2 | Dose regimen-finding trial in early AD (ie, MCI due to AD and mild AD dementia). | 856 | DB RCT | Core: 18 months (completed and published ) OLE: Up to 5 years48,49, |
| Clarity AD (Study 301) | NCT03887455 | 3 | Phase 3 confirmatory study in early AD (ie, MCI due to AD and mild AD dementia). | 1795 | DB RCT | Core: 18 months (completed and published)50, OLE: up to 2 years (ongoing) |
| AHEAD 3-45 Study | NCT04468659 | 3 | Phase 3 study to assess if lecanemab can slow accumulation of amyloid, tau, and prevent cognitive decline in cognitively unimpaired individuals (ie, preclinical AD): intermediate amyloid (20 to 40 centiloids) and elevated amyloid (>40 centiloids) | 1400 | DB RCT | Ongoing |
AD: Alzheimer disease; DB: double-blind; MCI: mild cognitive impairment;NCT: national clinical trial;; OLE: open label extension; RCT: randomized controlled trial.
Randomized Controlled Trials
Lecanemab was approved by the FDA on January 6, 2023 under the accelerated approval pathway based on reduction in amyloid plaque. It is proposed that reduction in amyloid plaque is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. Subsequent to the accelerated approval, the manufacturer submitted a supplemental Biologics License Application (sBLA) to the U.S. FDA supporting the conversion of the accelerated approval of lecanemab to a traditional approval. This submission included the results of the Clarity study, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial. Results of the Clarity trial have been published.50, The sBLA has been granted priority review and FDA is expected to make a decision by July 6, 2023. The FDA is also currently planning to hold an advisory committee to discuss this application but has not yet publicly announced the date of the meeting. At this time, the results of the phase III Clarity trial have not been included in this review as the additional data is being reviewed by the FDA. This review will be updated if lecanemab receives a traditional approval by the FDA.
Current evidence for lecanemab includes a single dose-finding double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (study 201). Trial characteristics and results are summarized in Tables 10 to 12. The trial included an 18-month placebo-controlled treatment period, and a safety follow-up period of 3 months after the final dose. For the placebo-controlled period, patients were randomized to placebo or one of 5 lecanemab dosing regimens, including the FDA approved dosing regimen of 10 mg/kg biweekly. The primary endpoint was change from baseline on a weighted composite score called Alzheimer’s Disease Composite Score (ADCOMS) consisting of selected items from the CDR-SB, MMSE, and Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale – Cognitive 13-Item Scale (ADAS-Cog 13) at week 53. Lecanemab had a 64% likelihood of 25% or greater slowing of progression on the primary endpoint relative to placebo at week 53, which did not meet the prespecified success criterion of 80%. Change from baseline in brain amyloid plaque as measured by 18F-florbetapir PET and quantified by a composite SUVR was assessed in a subset of patients at week 79 and serves as the endpoint to support accelerated approval. Treatment with lecanemab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks reduced amyloid beta plaque levels in the brain, producing reductions in PET SUVR compared to placebo at both weeks 53 and 79 (p<.001). The magnitude of the reduction was time- and dose-dependent. During an off-treatment period (range from 9 to 59 months; mean of 24 months), SUVR and centiloid values began to increase with a mean rate of increase of 2.6 centiloids/year. However, treatment difference relative to placebo at the end of the double-blind, placebo-controlled period was maintained.46,51, While lecanemab showed statistically significant dose dependent changes from baseline in amyloid beta plaques, there are no satisfactory data clearly establishing that individual changes in amyloid correlate with or predict long term cognitive and functional changes as measured by ADCOMS, CDR-SB or ADAS-Cog13.
Data with limited follow-up are available to analyze safety. In study 1, ARIA was observed in about 12% (20/161) of individuals treated with lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly compared to 5% (13/245) in the placebo arm. Respective incidences of ARIA-E were 10% (16/161) versus 1% (2/245) and ARIA-H was 6% (10/161) versus 5% (12/245). Symptomatic ARIA occurred in 3% (5/161) of individuals treated with lecanemab. Clinical symptoms associated with ARIA resolved in 80% of patients during the period of observation. The incidence of ARIA was higher in ApoE ε4 homozygotes than in heterozygotes and noncarriers among individuals treated with lecanemab. Of the 5 individuals treated with lecanemab who had symptomatic ARIA, 4 were ApoE ε4 homozygotes, 2 of whom experienced severe symptoms. While the recommendations on management of ARIA do not differ between ApoE ε4 carriers and noncarriers, as per the label, consider testing for ApoE ε4 status to inform the risk of developing ARIA when deciding to initiate treatment with lecanemab.46,
| Study; Trial | Country | Design | Sites | Duration | Participants | Interventions | |
| Active | Comparator | ||||||
| Study 201 (Study 1 in the prescribing label)46,51, | Multinational (US, Canada, EU, UK, Asia) | RCT | 169 | 78-months (79-week double-blind, placebo-controlled period, followed by an open-label extension period for up to 260 weeks) |
| Participants randomizedc to lecanemab
| Placebo (n=238); pooled for concurrent arms |
ApoE ε4: apolipoprotein E ε4; ADCOMS: Alzheimer’s Disease Composite Score; CDR: Clinical Dementia Rating; CSF: cerebrospinal fluid; MCI: mild cognitive impairment; MMSE: Mini-Mental State Examination; NIA-AA: National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association; PET: positron emission tomography; RCT: randomized controlled trial; WMS-IV LMII: Wechsler-Memory Scale-IV Logical Memory II
a Recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease10,11,
b Change from baseline in brain amyloid plaque as measured by 18F-florbetapir PET and quantified by a composite standard uptake value ratio (SUVR) was assessed in a subset of patients at week 53 and week 79 and serves as the endpoint to support accelerated approval.
c Randomization stratified by clinical subgroups (MCI due to Alzheimer’s disease and mild Alzheimer’s disease dementia), ApoE ε4 carrier status (carrier or non-carrier), and ongoing treatment with concurrent medications for treatment of Alzheimer’s disease
| Clinical Outcomes at Week 7951,46, | Lecanemab 10 mg biweekly | Placebo |
| ADCOMS | ||
| N at baseline | 152 | 238 |
| Baseline score | 0.373 | 0.370 |
| n at week 79 | 79 | 160 |
| LS mean change from baseline at week 79 (±SE) | 0.136 (±0.022) | 0.193 (±0.017) |
| Difference from placebo (90% CI) | -0.057 (-0.102 to -0.013) | NA |
| p-value | .03 | NA |
| CDR-SB | ||
| N at baseline | 152 | 238 |
| Baseline score | 2.97 | 2.89 |
| n at week 79 | 84 | 161 |
| LS mean change from baseline at week 79 (±SE) | 1.10 (±0.21) | 1.50 (±0.16) |
| Difference from placebo (90% CI) | -0.40 (-0.82 to 0.03) | NA |
| p-value | .13 | NA |
| ADAS-Cog13 | ||
| N at baseline | 152 | 237 |
| Baseline score | 22.06 | 22.56 |
| n at week 79 | 79 | 158 |
| LS mean change from baseline at week 79 (±SE) | 2.59 (±0.81) | 4.90 (±0.62) |
| Difference from placebo (90% CI) | -2.31 (-3.91 to -0.72) | NA |
| p-value | .02 | NA |
ADAS-Cog13: Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive 13-Item Scale; ADCS-ADL-MCI: Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living-Mild Cognitive Impairment; CDR-SB: Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Box; CI: confidence interval; LS: least square; MMSE: Mini-Mental State Examination; NA: not applicable; SE: standard error.
Results presented above are based on ITT analysis which was defined as all randomized subjects who received at least one dose of study treatment and excluding data collected after March 20, 2019.
| Biomarkers Endpointsa51,46, | Lecanemab 10 mg biweekly | Placebo |
| Amyloid PET Composite SUVR | ||
| N | 44 | 98 |
| Mean baseline | 1.373 | 1.402 |
| Adjusted mean change from baseline at week 79 | -0.306 | 0.004 |
| Difference from placebo | -0.310 | NA |
| p-value | <.001 | NA |
| Amyloid Beta PET Centiloid | ||
| N | 44 | 98 |
| Mean baseline | 78.0 | 84.8 |
| Adjusted mean change from baseline at week 79 | -72.5 | 1.0 |
| Difference from placebo | -73.5 | NA |
| p-value | <.001 | NA |
| Plasma Aβ42/402 | ||
| N | 43 | 88 |
| Baseline | 0.0842 | 0.0855 |
| Adjusted mean change from baseline at week 79 | 0.0075 | 0.0021 |
| Difference from placebo | 0.0054 | NA |
| p-value | .0036 | NA |
| Plasma p-tau181 (pg/mL)b | ||
| N | 84 | 179 |
| Mean baseline | 4.6474 | 4.435 |
| Adjusted mean change from baseline at week 79 | -1.1127 | 0.0832 |
| Difference from placebo | -1.1960 | NA |
| p-value | <.0001 | NA |
NA: not applicable; PET: positron emission tomography; p-Tau; phosphorylated tau; SUVR: standard uptake value ratio
Results as reported in the prescribing label. N is the number of patients with baseline value.
a P-values were not statistically controlled for multiple comparisons.
b As per the label, plasma Aβ42/40 and plasma p-tau181 results should be interpreted with caution due to uncertainties in bioanalysis
The purpose of Tables 13 and 14 is to display notable limitations in the evidence. This information is synthesized as a summary of the body of evidence following each table and provides the conclusions on the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the position statement. Key limitations in study relevance include use of physiologic measures such as amyloid beta and tau proteins and insufficient duration of follow-up to assess clinical benefits and harms. Key design and conduct limitations of phase 3 studies include the potential for partial unblinding due to adverse events, high loss to follow up or missing data, and generalizability to broader clinical populations and real world settings.
| Study | Populationa | Interventionb | Comparatorc | Outcomesd | Duration of Follow-upe |
| Study 201 (Study 1 in the prescribing label)46,51, | 4. Study population not representative of intended use (under-representation of African American and Hispanic patients) | 2. Physiologic measures, not validated surrogates; 5. Clinical significant difference not prespecified; 6. Clinical significant difference not supported. | 1. Not sufficient duration for benefit; 2. Not sufficient duration for harms. |
The study limitations stated in this table are those notable in the current review; this is not a comprehensive gaps assessment.
a Population key: 1. Intended use population unclear; 2. Clinical context is unclear; 3. Study population is unclear; 4. Study population not representative of intended use.
b Intervention key: 1. Not clearly defined; 2. Version used unclear; 3. Delivery not similar intensity as comparator; 4.Not the intervention of interest.
c Comparator key: 1. Not clearly defined; 2. Not standard or optimal; 3. Delivery not similar intensity as intervention; 4. Not delivered effectively.
d Outcomes key: 1. Key health outcomes not addressed; 2. Physiologic measures, not validated surrogates; 3. No CONSORT reporting of harms; 4. Not establish and validated measurements; 5. Clinical significant difference not prespecified; 6. Clinical significant difference not supported.
e Follow-Up key: 1. Not sufficient duration for benefit; 2. Not sufficient duration for harms.
| Study | Allocationa | Blindingb | Selective Reportingc | Data Completenessd | Powere | Statisticalf |
| Study 201 (Study 1 in the prescribing label)46,51, | 1. High loss to follow-up or missing data | 3. Power not based on clinically important difference |
The study limitations stated in this table are those notable in the current review; this is not a comprehensive gaps assessment.
a Allocation key: 1. Participants not randomly allocated; 2. Allocation not concealed; 3. Allocation concealment unclear; 4. Inadequate control for selection bias.
b Blinding key: 1. Not blinded to treatment assignment; 2. Not blinded outcome assessment; 3. Outcome assessed by treating physician.
c Selective Reporting key: 1. Not registered; 2. Evidence of selective reporting; 3. Evidence of selective publication.
d Data Completeness key: 1. High loss to follow-up or missing data; 2. Inadequate handling of missing data; 3. High number of crossovers; 4. Inadequate handling of crossovers; 5. Inappropriate exclusions; 6. Not intent to treat analysis (per protocol for noninferiority trials).
e Power key: 1. Power calculations not reported; 2. Power not calculated for primary outcome; 3. Power not based on clinically important difference.
f Statistical key: 1. Analysis is not appropriate for outcome type: (a) continuous; (b) binary; (c) time to event; 2. Analysis is not appropriate for multiple observations per patient; 3. Confidence intervals and/or p values not reported; 4. Comparative treatment effects not calculated.
For individuals with early AD (MCI or mild dementia due to AD) who receive lecanemab, the evidence includes a single dose-finding RCT (study 201). In this placebo-controlled trial, participants were randomized to placebo or one of 5 lecanemab dosing regimens, including the FDA approved dosing regimen of 10 mg/kg biweekly. The primary endpoint was change from baseline on a weighted composite score consisting of selected items from the CDR-SB, MMSE, and ADAS-Cog 14 at week 53. Lecanemab had a 64% likelihood of 25% or greater slowing of progression on the primary endpoint relative to placebo at week 53, which did not meet the prespecified success criterion of 80%. Approval by the FDA was based on the reduction in amyloid beta plaques. Change from baseline in brain amyloid plaque was assessed in a subset of patients at week 79. Treatment with lecanemab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks reduced amyloid beta plaque levels in the brain, producing reductions in PET SUVR compared to placebo. The magnitude of the reduction was time- and dose-dependent. However, there are no satisfactory data clearly establishing that individual changes in amyloid correlate with or predict long term cognitive and functional changes. In the absence of clinical data convincingly demonstrating a clinical effect, it cannot be concluded that the observed reduction in amyloid will translate into a clinical benefit to patients. Cognitive decline in early AD generally occurs over years, and thus the follow-up duration may not be sufficient to conclude whether a drug is effective for this disease or whether the safety profile might change with longer follow-up. Safety data showed that about 12% of patients on lecanemab experienced ARIA. A confirmatory, prospective, and adequately powered trial is necessary to assess the net health benefit of lecanemab in patients with early AD.
For individuals with early AD (MCI or mild dementia due to AD) who receive lecanemab, the evidence includes includes a single dose-finding RCT. Relevant outcomes are disease-specific survival, change in disease status, functional outcomes, health status measures, quality of life, and treatment-related mortality and morbidity. In study 201, participants were randomized to placebo or one of 5 lecanemab dosing regimens, including the FDA approved dosing regimen of 10 mg/kg biweekly. The primary endpoint was change from baseline on a weighted composite score consisting of selected items from the CDR-SB, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale – Cognitive 13-Item Scale (ADAS-Cog 13) at week 53. Lecanemab had a 64% likelihood of 25% or greater slowing of progression on the primary endpoint relative to placebo at week 53, which did not meet the prespecified success criterion of 80%. Approval by the FDA was based on the reduction in amyloid beta plaques. Change from baseline in brain amyloid plaque was assessed in a subset of patients at week 79. Treatment with lecanemab 10 mg/kg every two weeks reduced amyloid beta plaque levels in the brain, producing reductions in positron emission tomography standard uptake value ratio compared to placebo. The magnitude of the reduction was time- and dose-dependent. However, there are no satisfactory data clearly establishing that individual changes in amyloid correlate with or predict long term cognitive and functional changes. In the absence of clinical data convincingly demonstrating a clinical effect, it cannot be concluded that the observed reduction in amyloid will translate into a clinical benefit to patients. Cognitive decline in early AD generally occurs over years, and thus the follow-up duration may not be sufficient to conclude whether a drug is effective for this disease or whether the safety profile might change with longer follow-up. Safety data showed that about 12% of patients on lecanemab experienced ARIA. A confirmatory, prospective, and adequately powered trial is necessary to assess the net health benefit of lecanemab in patients with early AD. The evidence is insufficient to determine that the technology results in an improvement in the net health outcome.
PopulationReference No. 1Policy Statement | [ ] Medically Necessary | [X] Investigational |
The purpose of the following information is to provide reference material. Inclusion does not imply endorsement or alignment with the evidence review conclusions.
Guidelines or position statements will be considered for inclusion in ‘Supplemental Information' if they were issued by, or jointly by, a US professional society, an international society with US representation, or National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Priority will be given to guidelines that are informed by a systematic review, include strength of evidence ratings, and include a description of management of conflict of interest.
The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review published a report assessing the effectiveness and value of lecanemab for Alzheimer disease on April 17, 2023. The report concluded, “the net health benefits of lecanemab in participants with early AD [Alzheimer Disease] may be small or even substantial, but there remains a possibility of net harm from ARIA [amyloid-related imaging abnormalities], we rate treatment with lecanemab in MCI [mild cognitive impairment] due to AD or mild AD as promising but inconclusive (P/I)." 53,
Not applicable
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) covers US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved monoclonal antibodies directed against amyloid for the treatment of AD when furnished in accordance with Coverage Criteria under coverage with evidence development (CED) for patients who have: a clinical diagnosis of MCI due to AD or mild AD dementia, both with confirmed presence of amyloid beta pathology consistent with AD.
Detailed CMS coverage criteria can be accessed here.
Some currently ongoing and unpublished trials that might influence this review are listed in Table 15.
| NCT No. | Trial Name | Planned Enrollment | Completion Date |
| Ongoing | |||
| NCT05310071a (ENVISION)a | A Study to Verify the Clinical Benefit of Aducanumab in Participants With Early Alzheimer's Disease | 1512 | Oct 2026 |
NCT: national clinical trial.
a Denotes industry-sponsored or cosponsored trial.
| Codes | Number | Description |
|---|---|---|
| CPT | No Code | |
| HCPCS | J0174 | Injection, lecanemab-irmb, 1 mg |
| ICD10-CM | G30.0 | Alzheimer's Disease with early onset |
| F02.80-F02.81 | Dementia in other diseases classified elsewhere code range | |
| F03-F03.91 | Unspecified dementia code range | |
| POS/TOS | Outpatient/Medicine |
| Date | Action | Description |
| 03/27/2026 | Replace Policy | Deleted code J0172 eff 12/31/2025, has no replacement. Added code J0174 for lecanemab. The use of lecanemab is considered investigational for all indications including treatment of Alzheimer disease. Evidence review related to Aducanumab has been removed. Aducanumab (Aduhelm®), which received accelerated approval as a treatment for Alzheimer's disease from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2021, has been discontinued by its manufacturer (Biogen). |
| 08/27/2024 | Replace policy | This policy has been placed in Sunset Status. Archived. |
| 11/15/2023 | Annual Review | Policy updated with literature review through February 1, 2023; relevant information on lecanemab was added. The use of lecanemab is considered investigational for all indications including treatment of Alzheimer disease. Title of the policy was changed from "Aducanumab for Alzheimer Disease" to "Monoclonal Antibodies for Treatment of Alzheimer Disease." |
| 06/19/2023 | Replace policy | Preliminary review - No changes on policy statement. |
| 11/07/2022 | Annual Review | Policy updated with literature review through September 26, 2022; references added. Policy statements unchanged. Added J0172 |
| 11/01/2021 | Annual Review | Policy updated with literature review through September 24, 2021; no references added. Policy statements unchanged. |
| 08/09/2021 | New Policy | New Policy: Origin BCBS |