Cohort study reveals 4.6% treatment eligibility for anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies in a dementia-care network, highlighting key attrition factors for healthcare planning.
Background: European approval of lecanemab and donanemab has shifted anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies from trial evidence to health-system implementation. In Italy, reimbursement decisions are pending, and real-world estimates of treatment-ready eligibility under Italian appropriate use recommendations (AUR) incorporating European Medicines Agency (EMA) restrictions are needed. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at the Cognitive Neurology Clinic of the University Hospital of Modena, embedded in the provincial dementia-care network. All patients with at least one visit between Jan 1, 2024, and Dec 31, 2025, were included. Eligibility for lecanemab and donanemab was assessed through a sequential algorithm based on Italian AUR, applying EMA product-label restrictions. Eligibility was estimated across three denominators: the service cohort, the clinical cohort with MCI or mild AD dementia, and the clinical-biological AD cohort. Findings: Among 1080 patients, 596 had MCI or mild AD dementia, and 230 had clinical-biological AD. After all eligibility steps, 50 patients were treatment-ready. Eligibility was 4·6% of the service cohort (50/1080; 95% CI 3·5–6·1%), 8·4% of the clinical cohort (50/596; 6·3–10·9%), and 21·7% of the clinical-biological AD cohort (50/230; 16·6–27·6%). After biomarker testing, the largest attrition points were clinical stage, care-context readiness, MRI findings, and APOE-related criteria. Interpretation: Even in a biomarker-enabled Italian cognitive neurology network, treatment-ready eligibility is 4·6% of all seen patients. These findings may contribute to the creation of equitable referral pathways by providing empirical denominators for reimbursement assessment and service planning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zamboni et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: