DOI 10.1080/17582024.2026.2667432
Baseline epidemiological differences between donanemab and lecanemab users in real-world settings: a retrospective cohort study.
Аннотация
AIMS: Donanemab and Lecanemab are anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies recently approved for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. Although their efficacy and safety have been investigated in randomized trials, real-world epidemiological data on treated populations remain limited. This study aimed to compare baseline clinical and laboratory characteristics of patients treated with donanemab versus lecanemab in routine practice.
PATIENTS AND
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective analysis using the TriNetX US Collaborative Network, including patients with Alzheimer's disease treated with donanemab or lecanemab between January 2024 and September 2025. Demographics, laboratory values, comorbidities, and concomitant medications were compared using standardized mean differences (SMD) and p-values. Variables with SMD ≥0.1 or p < 0.05 were considered meaningfully different.
RESULTS
A total of 1,799 patients were included (donanemab n = 360; lecanemab n = 1,439). Demographic characteristics were well balanced (mean age 73.1 vs 72.5 years; SMD 0.028). Lecanemab users were more likely to be prescribed antidepressants (52% vs 41%; p < 0.0001; SMD = 0.23) and donepezil (61% vs 52%; p = 0.0145; SMD = 0.14). Donanemab users had higher prothrombin time (12.2 ± 2.17 vs 11.8 ± 1.66 s; p = 0.0158; SMD = 0.20) and INR (1.06 ± 0.19 vs 1.03 ± 0.13; p = 0.0369; SMD = 0.17), and a higher prevalence of vascular dementia (81% vs 76%; p = 0.0272; SMD = 0.12).
CONCLUSION
While demographic variables were similar. These findings likely reflect real-world clinical selection patterns and should be accounted for in comparative effectiveness and safety analyses of anti-amyloid therapies.
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.