Cost-effectiveness of twice-daily indacaterol/glycopyrrolate inhalation powder for the treatment of moderate to severe COPD in the US.

BACKGROUND: Indacaterol 27.5 µg/glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg (IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg) inhalation powder, a twice-daily, fixed-dose combination of a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and a long-acting antimuscarinic antagonist (LAMA), is indicated in the US for long-term maintenance treatment of airflow obstruction in patients with COPD. The safety and efficacy of IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg have been established, but cost-effectiveness is not yet known. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg with other long-acting COPD maintenance therapies. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed from the US payer perspective. Health states were defined as mild (post-bronchodilator FEV1 ≥80% of predicted), moderate (50% ≤FEV1 <80% of predicted), severe (30% ≤FEV1 <50% of predicted), and very severe (FEV1 <30% of predicted) COPD. Patients entering the model transitioned through health states based on placebo-adjusted change from baseline in trough FEV1 for each comparator at week 12. Comparators included other US Food and Drug Administration-approved LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations as well as commonly prescribed LAMA and LABA/inhaled corticosteroid agents. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the model assumptions and the overall robustness of the results. RESULTS: Using the model, IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg treatment for 12 weeks resulted in total costs of US $23,375 vs US $9,365 for placebo. Compared with placebo, IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 treatment resulted in the highest improvement in FEV1 across all comparators and the lowest cost per decline in 100 mL FEV1. IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg was also among the most cost-effective treatment option as measured by St George's Respiratory Questionnaire response rate, at US $3,518 per additional responder at 12 weeks compared with placebo. In addition, IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg had the lowest cost per severe exacerbation avoided vs placebo across all comparators (US $87,686). CONCLUSION: This model, developed from the US payer perspective with a 5-year time horizon, found IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg to be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with moderate to severe COPD.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a fixed-dose combination of indacaterol and glycopyrronium as maintenance treatment for COPD.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) dual bronchodilator indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) as a maintenance treatment for COPD patients from the perspective of health care payer in Taiwan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We adopted a patient-level simulation model, which included a cohort of COPD patients aged ≥40 years. The intervention used in the study was the treatment using IND/GLY, and comparators were tiotropium or salmeterol/fluticasone combination (SFC). Data related to the efficacy of drugs, incidence of exacerbation, and utility were obtained from clinical studies. Direct costs were estimated from claims data based on the severity of COPD. The cycle length was 6 months (to match forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] data), and the time horizons included 1, 3, 5, 10 years, and lifetime. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the model results. Costs were expressed in US dollars with a discount rate of 3.0%. RESULTS: Compared to tiotropium and SFC, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of patients treated with IND/GLY were US$5,987 and US$14,990, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the improvement in FEV1 provided by IND/GLY, the distribution of patients with regard to the severity of COPD, and acute exacerbation rate ratio were the key drivers behind cost-effectiveness. Adopting a willingness to pay of US$60,000 per QALY gained as the threshold, there was a 98.7% probability that IND/GLY was cost-effective compared to tiotropium. Similarly, there was a 99.9% probability that IND/GLY was cost-effective compared to SFC. CONCLUSION: As a maintenance treatment for COPD, we consider the dual bronchodilator IND/GLY as a cost-effective strategy when compared to either tiotropium or SFC.

Cost-effectiveness of indacaterol/glycopyrronium in comparison with salmeterol/fluticasone combination for patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a LANTERN population analysis from Singapore.

INTRODUCTION: In light of the growing evidence base for better clinical results with the use of the dual bronchodilator indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) over inhaled corticosteroid-containing salmeterol/fluticasone combination (SFC), this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of IND/GLY over SFC in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who are at low risk of exacerbations, in the Singapore healthcare setting. METHODS: A previously published patient-level simulation model was adapted for use in Singapore by applying local unit costs. The model was populated with clinical data from the LANTERN and ECLIPSE studies. Both costs and health outcomes were predicted for the lifetime horizon from a payer's perspective and were discounted at 3% per annum. Costs were expressed in 2015 USD exchange rates. Uncertainty was assessed through probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Compared to SFC, use of IND/GLY increased mean life expectancy by 0.316 years and mean quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by 0.246 years, and decreased mean total treatment costs (drug costs and management of associated events) by USD 1,474 over the entire lifetime horizon. IND/GLY was considered to be 100% cost-effective at a threshold of 1 × gross domestic product per capita. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed that IND/GLY was 100% cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of USD 0 (additional cost) when compared to SFC. CONCLUSION: IND/GLY was estimated to be highly cost-effective compared to SFC in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD who are not at high risk of exacerbations in the Singapore healthcare setting.

Indacaterol/glycopyrronium is cost-effective compared to salmeterol/fluticasone in COPD: FLAME-based modelling in a Swedish population.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) versus salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with moderate to very severe airflow limitation and ≥1 exacerbation in the preceding year. METHODS: A previously published and validated patient-level simulation model was adapted using clinical data from the FLAME trial and real-world cost data from the ARCTIC study. Costs (total monetary costs comprising drug, maintenance, exacerbation, and pneumonia costs) and health outcomes (life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)) were projected over various time horizons (1, 5, 10 years, and lifetime) from the Swedish payer's perspective and were discounted at 3% annually. Uncertainty in model input values was studied through one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Subgroup analyses were also performed. RESULTS: IND/GLY was associated with lower costs and better outcomes compared with SFC over all the analysed time horizons. Use of IND/GLY resulted in additional 0.192 LYs and 0.134 QALYs with cost savings of €1211 compared with SFC over lifetime. The net monetary benefit (NMB) was estimated to be €8560 based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of €55,000/QALY. The NMB was higher in the following subgroups: severe (GOLD 3), high risk and more symptoms (GOLD D), females, and current smokers. CONCLUSION: IND/GLY is a cost-effective treatment compared with SFC in COPD patients with mMRC dyspnea grade ≥ 2, moderate to very severe airflow limitation, and ≥1 exacerbation in the preceding year.

Cost-effectiveness of donepezil and memantine in moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease (the DOMINO-AD trial).

OBJECTIVE: Most investigations of pharmacotherapy for treating Alzheimer's disease focus on patients with mild-to-moderate symptoms, with little evidence to guide clinical decisions when symptoms become severe. We examined whether continuing donepezil, or commencing memantine, is cost-effective for community-dwelling, moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease patients. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was based on a 52-week, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, factorial clinical trial. A total of 295 community-dwelling patients with moderate/severe Alzheimer's disease, already treated with donepezil, were randomised to: (i) continue donepezil; (ii) discontinue donepezil; (iii) discontinue donepezil and start memantine; or (iv) continue donepezil and start memantine. RESULTS: Continuing donepezil for 52 weeks was more cost-effective than discontinuation, considering cognition, activities of daily living and health-related quality of life. Starting memantine was more cost-effective than donepezil discontinuation. Donepezil-memantine combined is not more cost-effective than donepezil alone. CONCLUSIONS: Robust evidence is now available to inform clinical decisions and commissioning strategies so as to improve patients' lives whilst making efficient use of available resources. Clinical guidelines for treating moderate/severe Alzheimer's disease, such as those issued by NICE in England and Wales, should be revisited. © 2016 The Authors. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

A fixed-dose combination of memantine extended-release and donepezil in the treatment of moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease.

Currently available therapies for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) consist of cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs), such as donepezil, and the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist memantine. In December 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration approved Namzaric™, a once-daily, fixed-dose combination (FDC) of memantine extended-release (ER) and donepezil for patients with moderate-to-severe AD. The FDC capsule is bioequivalent to the coadministered individual drugs, and its bioavailability is similar when taken fasting, with food, or sprinkled onto applesauce. The combination of memantine and ChEIs in moderate-to-severe AD provides additional benefits to ChEI monotherapy across multiple domains and may delay the time to nursing home admission. A dedicated study of memantine ER compared to placebo in patients on a stable dose of a ChEI found statistically significant benefits on cognition and global status but not functioning. Treatment with memantine ER and donepezil is generally well tolerated, although higher doses of ChEIs are associated with more serious adverse events such as vomiting, syncope, and weight loss. Potential advantages of the FDC include a simpler treatment regimen, reduction in pill burden, and the ability to sprinkle the capsule onto soft foods. Patients who may benefit from the FDC include those with significant dysphagia, a history of poor compliance, or limited caregiver interaction. However, available evidence that these advantages would increase treatment adherence and persistence is conflicting, meaning that the added cost of switching patients from generic options to an FDC may not always be justified.

Cost Effectiveness of the Long-Acting ß2-Adrenergic Agonist (LABA)/Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist Dual Bronchodilator Indacaterol/Glycopyrronium Versus the LABA/Inhaled Corticosteroid Combination Salmeterol/Fluticasone in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Analyses Conducted for Canada, France, Italy, and Portugal.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of the dual bronchodilator indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) compared with salmeterol/fluticasone combination (SFC) in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who had a history of one or no exacerbations in the previous year, in Canada, France, Italy, and Portugal. METHODS: A patient-level simulation was developed to compare the costs and outcomes of IND/GLY versus SFC based on data from the LANTERN trial (NCT01709903). Monte-Carlo simulation methods were employed to follow individual patients over various time horizons. Population and efficacy inputs were derived from the LANTERN trial. Considering the payers' perspective, only direct costs were included. Costs and health outcomes were discounted annually at 3.0 % for all countries. Unit costs were taken from publically available sources with all costs converted to euros (€). The cost base year was 2015. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to test the robustness of the model results. RESULTS: IND/GLY was found to be the dominant (more effective and less costly) treatment option compared with SFC in all four countries. The use of IND/GLY was associated with mean total cost savings per patient over a lifetime of €6202, €1974, €1611, and €220 in Canada, France, Italy, and Portugal, respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed that exacerbation rates had the largest impact on incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The probability of IND/GLY being cost effective was estimated to be >95 % for thresholds above €5000/QALY. CONCLUSION: In patients with moderate to severe COPD, IND/GLY is likely to be a cost-effective treatment alternative compared with SFC.

Prescribing pattern and resource utilization of monoamine oxidase-B inhibitors in Parkinson treatment: comparison between rasagiline and selegiline.

Difference between selegiline and rasagiline for effectiveness in Parkinson's disease (PD) is uncertain, nevertheless their costs highly differ: rasagiline is more expensive than selegiline. This study was aimed to compare prescribing pattern and resource utilization in PD patients treated with rasagiline or selegiline. Historic cohort study, based on databases of three Italian Local Health Authorities was performed. Patients with PD and receiving rasagiline or selegiline between 01-07-2009 and 31-12-2011 were selected and followed-up for 12 months. As outcomes, and relevant costs, were evaluated: (a) anti-parkinson prescriptions; (b) hospitalization for PD and for fracture; (c) antiinflammatory and antirheumatic prescriptions; (d) antipsychotic prescriptions; (e) hospitalization for cardiovascular diseases; (f) cardiovascular prescriptions; (g) ambulatory visits or diagnostic tests. Average annual cost per patient was considered for both PD-related expenditure (a + b + c) and overall cost (a + b + c + d + e + f + g). Differences between rasagiline and selegiline were analysed by generalized linear model. Overall 1607 patients were selected: 63.7 % under selegiline and 36.2 % under rasagiline. Hospitalizations for PD occurred more in rasagiline group than in selegiline one (13.6 vs. 8.0 %, p < 0.001), whereas hospitalizations for fractures less in rasagiline group than in selegiline one (1.4 vs. 3.8 %, p = 0.005). Dopamine agonists (66.0 vs. 31.0 %, p < 0.001) and levodopa (73.9 vs. 49.0 %, p < 0.001) were prescribed more frequently in rasagiline group than in selegiline one. The choice to prescribe rasagiline produced a statistically significant increase in both overall cost (+2404 €, p < 0.001) and PD-related cost (+2363 €, p < 0.001). In conclusion, prescribing patterns and health resource utilization highly differ between rasagiline and selegiline. There is no homogeneous prescription behaviour among clinicians in preferring one or the other MOAB-I, on the basis of demographic, clinical and therapeutic characteristics of patients with PD.

Taste-masked and affordable donepezil hydrochloride orally disintegrating tablet as promising solution for non-compliance in Alzheimer's disease patients.

CONTEXT: Manufacturing process and superdisintegrants used in orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) formulation are often time discussed. However, the effect of suitable filler for ODT formulation is not explored thoroughly. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a novel taste masked and affordable donepezil hydrochloride ODT with fast disintegration time and stable to improve medication compliance of Alzheimer's disease patient. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The ODT was manufactured using simple wet-granulation method. Crospovidone XL-10 was used as superdisintegrant and optimization was done by comparing the effect of three grades of lactose monohydrate compound as filler: Starlac®, Flowlac® and Tablettose®. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Formulations containing higher amount of colloidal silicon dioxide showed increase in hardness, weight, disintegration time and wetting time after stability study. Formulation E which containing 50% of Starlac® was found with shortest in vitro disintegration time (21.7 ± 1.67 s), in vivo disintegration time (24.0 ± 1.05 s) and in vitro disintegration time in artificial salvia (22.5 ± 1.67 s). Physical stability studies at 40 °C/75% RH for 6 months, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy analysis and X-ray diffraction results showed that the formulation was stable. The drug-released profile showed that 80% of donepezil hydrochloride was released within 1 min. A single-dose, fasting, four-period, seven-treatment, double-blinded study involving 16 healthy human volunteers was performed to evaluate the palatability of ODT. Formulation VII containing 10 mg of ammonium glycyrrhizinate was able to mask the bitter taste of the drug. CONCLUSION: The product has the potential to be commercialized and it might serve as solution for non-compliance among the Alzheimer's disease patients.

Rasagiline: a review of its use in the treatment of idiopathic Parkinson's disease.

Rasagiline (Azilect(®)) is an oral, second-generation, selective, irreversible monoamine oxidase-B (MAO-B) inhibitor approved in the US for the treatment of Parkinson's disease. In randomized, controlled trials, oral rasagiline 1 mg once daily was superior to placebo in the symptomatic treatment of early Parkinson's disease, both as monotherapy or as an adjunct to dopamine agonists. Comparisons of early-start and delayed-start treatment suggested a disease-modifying effect for rasagiline, but the results were equivocal. Rasagiline 0.5 or 1 mg/day was also superior to placebo as adjunctive therapy to levodopa in Parkinson's disease patients with motor fluctuations. Rasagiline was generally well tolerated in clinical trials, displaying a placebo-like tolerability profile in several studies. Cost-utility studies predicted that rasagiline, either as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy, would be a cost-effective treatment option. Therefore, oral rasagiline is a valuable therapeutic option for use in all stages of Parkinson's disease.

Cost-effectiveness of the LABA/LAMA dual bronchodilator indacaterol/glycopyrronium in a Swedish healthcare setting.

BACKGROUND: Indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) is a once-daily inhaled fixed-dose combination of indacaterol (IND), a long-acting ß2-adrenergic agonist (LABA), and glycopyrronium (GLY), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) for use as maintenance treatment to relieve symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in adults. OBJECTIVE: To determine the economic benefits of IND/GLY compared with the free combination of indacaterol and glycopyrronium (IND + GLY), and with the fixed-dose combination of salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC), in a moderate-to-severe COPD population with low-exacerbation risk. The model-based analysis extrapolated results up to lifetime time horizon and calculated costs per quality-adjusted life year. METHODS: Assuming equal efficacy, a cost-minimisation analysis compared IND/GLY vs IND + GLY using model inputs from the double-blind, randomised SHINE trial. The double-blind, randomised ILLUMINATE and TORCH trials were used to analyse cost-effectiveness versus SFC. To consider ICS-related pneumonia events, published odds ratio comparing an ICS-exposed group to a control group of COPD patients was used. Direct and indirect drug costs as well as drug acquisition costs (in Swedish Krona [SEK]) were derived from published Swedish sources. Cost and effects were discounted with 3%. Uncertainty was assessed by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). RESULTS: IND/GLY was cost-saving vs IND + GLY with incremental savings of SEK (EUR) 768 (85), and 3309 (368) per patient over one and five years. IND/GLY was found to be less costly and more effective compared to SFC with cost savings of SEK (EUR) 2744 (303), 8854 (976), 13,938 (1536), 27,495 (3031) and 43,033 (4744) over one, three, five, ten years and lifetime. The PSA indicated that all iterations produced dominant results for IND/GLY. CONCLUSION: IND/GLY is cost-minimising vs IND + GLY and dominates SFC in the maintenance treatment of COPD patients in Sweden. Encouraging dual bronchodilator therapy over an ICS-containing combination results in lower total costs and better outcomes compared to combination therapy including fluticasone in moderate-to-severe COPD patients with low exacerbation risk.

A UK-based cost-utility analysis of indacaterol, a once-daily maintenance bronchodilator for patients with COPD, using real world evidence on resource use.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a chronic, progressive disease that is not curable. However, there are effective treatments available. In the UK, long-acting bronchodilators are first-line treatments for COPD patients requiring maintenance therapy, and there are several options available. The aim of this study is to establish, from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective, the cost-effectiveness profile of indacaterol, the first once-daily long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA), compared with tiotropium and salmeterol, in patients with moderate to severe COPD. In assessing the cost-effectiveness of COPD therapies, this study has the advantage of using real world evidence on the resource use associated with COPD management across the spectrum of the disease. METHODS: A Markov model was developed with four health states following the GOLD classification for severity of airflow limitation. The model time horizon was 3 years, and the cycle length was 3 months. From each state, patients could experience a severe or non-severe exacerbation, move to a different COPD state, remain in the current state or die. Transition probabilities were based on data from the indacaterol clinical trials. The majority of the resource use data was taken from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database (OPCRD), which contains data from over 20,000 COPD patients in England and Scotland. Cost data were taken from UK-based sources and published literature and presented for the cost year 2011. Health-related quality of life was the main outcome of interest and utility data for the COPD states were based on data from the indacaterol clinical trials and disutility due to exacerbations were taken from the literature. Both one way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Indacaterol dominated in the comparison with salmeterol producing an incremental QALY gain of 0.008 and cost savings of £110 per patient over a 3-year time horizon. In the comparison with tiotropium over the same time horizon, indacaterol remained the dominant strategy, producing an incremental QALY gain of 0.008 and cost savings of £248 per patient. The one-way sensitivity analysis indicates that the proportion of patients in each of the COPD stages and the mortality rate associated with Very Severe COPD are the variables with the largest impact on the results. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that over 72 % and 89 % of the iterations when compared with salmeterol and tiotropium, respectively, produced dominant results for indacaterol. CONCLUSION: The analyses demonstrate that indacaterol dominates both tiotropium and salmeterol in the base case and is likely to remain cost-effective under a range of assumptions.

Evolution of a cost-utility model of donepezil for Alzheimer's disease.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe the evolution of a cost-utility model used to inform the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's (NICE) most recent decisions on the cost-utility of drug treatments for Alzheimer's disease (AD), and to explore the impact of structural assumptions on the cost-utility results. METHODS: Changes informed by noted limitations of the decision model used in NICE's previous decisions (in 2006) were made cumulatively to the original decision model for donepezil compared with best supportive care (for patients with mild to moderate AD). Deterministic and probabilistic analyses were undertaken for each cumulative change of the model. The expected value of perfect information (EVPI) of parameter estimates and structural assumptions was also calculated. RESULTS: Cumulative changes to the decision model highlighted how the results of the original model (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £81,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained) related to those of the new model (where donepezil was estimated to be cost-saving), mainly due to uncertainty in the incremental cost of donepezil treatment over best supportive care (ranging from -£600 to £3,000 per patient). The partial EVPI analysis reflected this finding where further information on treatment discontinuations and cost parameter estimates were shown to be valuable in terms of reducing decision uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing the evolution of the cost-utility model helped to identify and explore structural differences between cohort-based models and is likely to be useful for decision models in other disease areas. This approach makes the structural uncertainty explicit, forcing decision makers to address structural uncertainty in addition to parameter uncertainty.

Genetic testing in combination with preventive donepezil treatment for patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment: an exploratory economic evaluation of personalized medicine.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of genetic screening for the apolipoprotein (APOE) ε4 allele in combination with preventive donepezil treatment in comparison with the standard of care for amnestic mild cognitive impairment (AMCI) patients in Canada. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model with a societal perspective and a time horizon of 30 years. For each strategy, we calculated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), using utilities from the literature. Costs were also based on the literature and, when appropriate, Ontario sources. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Expected value of perfect information (EVPI) analysis was conducted to explore the value of future research. RESULTS: The base case results in our exploratory study suggest that the combination of genetic testing and preventive donepezil treatment resulted in a gain of 0.027 QALYs and an incremental cost of $1,015 (in 2009 Canadian dollars [Can$]), compared with the standard of care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the base case was Can$38,016 per QALY. The ICER was sensitive to the effectiveness of donepezil in slowing the rate of progression to Alzheimer's disease (AD), utility in AMCI patients, and AD and donepezil treatment costs. EVPI analysis showed that additional information on these parameters would be of value. CONCLUSION: Using presently available clinical evidence, this exploratory study illustrates that genetic testing combined with preventive donepezil treatment for AMCI patients may be economically attractive. Since our results were based on a secondary post hoc analysis, our study alone is insufficient to warrant recommending APOE genotyping in AMCI patients. Future research on the effectiveness of preventive donepezil as a targeted therapy is recommended.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (review of Technology Appraisal No. 111): a systematic review and economic model.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most commonly occurring form of dementia. It is predominantly a disease of later life, affecting 5% of those over 65 in the UK. OBJECTIVES: Review and update guidance to the NHS in England and Wales on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine [acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs)] and memantine within their licensed indications for the treatment of AD, which was issued in November 2006 (amended September 2007 and August 2009). DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews and/or metaanalyses, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and ongoing research in November 2009 and updated in March 2010; this updated search revealed no new includable studies. The databases searched included The Cochrane Library (2009 Issue 4, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, PsycINFO, EconLit, ISI Web of Science Databases--Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, and BIOSIS; the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) databases--NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. REVIEW METHODS: The clinical effectiveness systematic review was undertaken following the principles published by the NHS CRD. We included RCTs whose population was people with AD. The intervention and comparators depended on disease severity, measured by the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE). INTERVENTIONS: mild AD (MMSE 21-26)--donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine; moderate AD (MMSE 10-20)--donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine; severe AD (MMSE < 10)--memantine. Comparators: mild AD (MMSE 21-26)--placebo or best supportive care (BSC); moderate AD (MMSE 10-20)--donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, memantine, placebo or BSC; severe AD (MMSE < 10)--placebo or BSC. The outcomes were clinical, global, functional, behavioural, quality of life, adverse events, costs and cost-effectiveness. Where appropriate, data were pooled using pair-wise meta-analysis, multiple outcome measures, metaregression and mixedtreatment comparisons. The decision model was based broadly on the structure of the three-state Markov model described in the previous technology assessment report, based upon time to institutionalisation, parameterised with updated estimates of effectiveness, costs and utilities. RESULTS: Notwithstanding the uncertainty of our results, we found in the base case that the AChEIs are probably cost saving at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of £'30,000 per qualityadjusted life-year (QALY) for people with mild-to-moderate AD. For this class of drugs, there is a > 99% probability that the AChEIs are more cost-effective than BSC. These analyses assume that the AChEIs have no effect on survival. For the AChEIs, in people with mild to moderate AD, the probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that donepezil is the most cost-effective, with a 28% probability of being the most cost-effective option at a WTP of £'30,000 per QALY (27% at a WTP of £'20,000 per QALY). In the deterministic results, donepezil dominates the other drugs and BSC, which, along with rivastigmine patches, are associated with greater costs and fewer QALYs. Thus, although galantamine has a slightly cheaper total cost than donepezil (£'69,592 vs £'69,624), the slightly greater QALY gains from donepezil (1.616 vs 1.617) are enough for donepezil to dominate galantamine.The probability that memantine is cost-effective in a moderate to severe cohort compared with BSC at a WTP of £'30,000 per QALY is 38% (and 28% at a WTP of £'20,000 per QALY). The deterministic ICER for memantine is £'32,100 per/QALY and the probabilistic ICER is £'36,700 per/QALY. LIMITATIONS: Trials were of 6 months maximum follow-up, lacked reporting of key outcomes, provided no subgroup analyses and used insensitive measures. Searches were limited to English language, The model does not include behavioural symptoms and there is uncertainty about the model structure and parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The additional clinical effectiveness evidence identified continues to suggest clinical benefit from the AChEIs in alleviating AD symptoms, although there is debate about the magnitude of the effect. Although there is also new evidence on the effectiveness of memantine, it remains less supportive of this drug's use than the evidence for AChEIs. The conclusions concerning cost-effectiveness are quite different from the previous assessment. This is because both the changes in effectiveness and costs between drug use and non-drug use underlying the ICERs are very small. This leads to highly uncertain results, which are very sensitive to change. RESEARCH PRIORITIES: RCTs to include mortality, time to institutionalisation and quality of life, powered for subgroup analysis. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Economic evaluation of treatment options in patients with Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses.

INTRODUCTION: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is common among the elderly; it is responsible for 60-80% of all dementia cases. AD is characterized by cognitive decline, behavioural and psychological symptoms, and reductions in functioning and independence. Because of its progressive neurodegenerative nature and unknown aetiology, the burden of AD becomes increasingly significant in an aging population. Estimates indicate that 35.6 million people worldwide suffered from AD in 2010. By 2030 and 2050, this figure is predicted to increase to 65.7 million and 115.4 million, respectively. Costs will also rise along with the increase in the number of people diagnosed with AD. In 2010, the worldwide costs associated with dementia were estimated to be $US604 billion. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of current publications dealing with the pharmacoeconomic factors associated with AD medications and to describe the decision-analytic models used to evaluate long-term outcomes. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify articles published between 1 January 2007 and 15 July 2010. The search was also based on a previous systematic review, which included literature up to 2007. Articles were included if they were complete and original economic evaluations of AD and if they were comparative in nature. A quality assessment of the included publications was conducted and relevant information was extracted into tables. RESULTS: Seven out of 2067 identified articles were included in this systematic review. Four articles evaluated treatment with donepezil, one with galantamine and two with memantine. The studies were conducted in America, Europe and Asia. Five different groups of medications were compared. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the group of patients treated with donepezil versus no drug treatment ranged from a dominant value to 281, 416.13 euros per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Patients treated with donepezil versus placebo showed ICERs with a range from a dominant value (not specified) up to 20, 866.77 euros per QALY. Treatment with memantine in addition to donepezil versus treatment with donepezil alone showed an ICER range from a dominant value to 6818.33 euros per QALY. In comparison with the memantine treatment as an add-on therapy, the ICER of memantine monotherapy versus standard care (without cholinesterase inhibitors [CEIs]) ranged from a dominant value to 63, 087.20 euros per QALY. Finally, the economic evaluation of galantamine in comparison with usual care without any AD drugs showed ICERs ranging from 1894.70 euros to 6953 euros per QALY. CONCLUSION: The seven identified publications included in this review indicate that treatment with CEIs or memantine seems to be reasonable in terms of clinical effects and costs for patients with AD. Depending on different hypotheses, assumptions and variables (e.g. time horizon, discount rates, initial number of patients in different states, etc.) in the sensitivity analyses, treatment with these drugs seems to be primarily a cost-effective strategy or even a cost-saving strategy. Nevertheless, the results generally are associated with a degree of uncertainty. The comparability of the results from the different economic evaluations is limited because of the different assumptions made.

Evaluating the cost effectiveness of donepezil in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease in Germany using discrete event simulation.

BACKGROUND: Previous cost-effectiveness studies of cholinesterase inhibitors have modeled Alzheimer's disease (AD) progression and treatment effects through single or global severity measures, or progression to "Full Time Care". This analysis evaluates the cost-effectiveness of donepezil versus memantine or no treatment in Germany by considering correlated changes in cognition, behavior and function. METHODS: Rates of change were modeled using trial and registry-based patient level data. A discrete event simulation projected outcomes for three identical patient groups: donepezil 10 mg, memantine 20 mg and no therapy. Patient mix, mortality and costs were developed using Germany-specific sources. RESULTS: Treatment of patients with mild to moderately severe AD with donepezil compared to no treatment was associated with 0.13 QALYs gained per patient, and 0.01 QALYs gained per caregiver and resulted in average savings of €7,007 and €9,893 per patient from the healthcare system and societal perspectives, respectively. In patients with moderate to moderately-severe AD, donepezil compared to memantine resulted in QALY gains averaging 0.01 per patient, and savings averaging €1,960 and €2,825 from the healthcare system and societal perspective, respectively.In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, donepezil dominated no treatment in most replications and memantine in over 70% of the replications. Donepezil leads to savings in 95% of replications versus memantine. CONCLUSIONS: Donepezil is highly cost-effective in patients with AD in Germany, leading to improvements in health outcomes and substantial savings compared to no treatment. This holds across a variety of sensitivity analyses.

Disease progression and costs of care in Alzheimer's disease patients treated with donepezil: a longitudinal naturalistic cohort.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Improved data and methods are needed for modeling disease progression in Alzheimer's disease (AD) for economic evaluation of treatments. The aim is to estimate prediction models for long-term AD progression and subsequently economic outcomes. METHODS: Three-year follow-up data on 435 patients treated with the cholinesterase inhibitor donepezil in clinical practise were analyzed. Regression models were estimated for long-term prediction of decline in cognitive function (ADAS-cog) and activities in daily living (ADL) ability, risk of institutionalization and costs of care. RESULTS: The cognitive deterioration was estimated at between 1.6 and 4 ADAS-cog points per every 6 months, increasing with disease severity. Cognitive function was an important predictor of ADL-ability, which itself was the most important predictor of the risk of institutionalization and costs of care. Combining all models in a cross-validation process generated accurate predictions of costs of care at each 6 months follow-up. CONCLUSION: The proposed methods for representing AD progression and economic outcomes can be used in micro-simulation models for the economic evaluation of new treatments.

An economic evaluation of early assessment for Alzheimer's disease in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosing and treating patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) at an early stage should improve the quality of life of the patient and caregiver. In the United Kingdom, cost-effectiveness of early assessment of individuals presenting with subjective memory complaints and treating those with AD with donepezil was evaluated. METHODS: A discrete event simulation of AD progression and the effect of treatment interventions was developed. Patient-level data from donepezil trials and a 7-year follow-up registry were used to model correlated longitudinal rates of change in cognition, behavior, and function. Other epidemiological and health services data, including estimates of undiagnosed dementia and delays in diagnosis, were based on published sources. Simulated individuals were followed up for 10 years. RESULTS: In the base-case estimates, 17 patients need to be assessed to diagnose one patient with AD, resulting in an average assessment cost of £4100 ($6000; $1 US = £0.68 UK) per patient diagnosed (2007 cost year). In comparison with a scenario without early assessment or pharmacologic treatment, early assessment reduces health care costs by £3600 ($5300) per patient and societal costs by £7750 ($11,400). Savings are also substantial compared with treatment without early assessment, averaging £2100 ($3100) in health care costs, and £5700 ($8400) in societal costs. Results are most sensitive to estimates of patient care costs and the probability of patients reporting subjective memory complaints. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, early assessment leads to savings or is highly cost-effective in the majority of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Although early assessment has significant up-front costs, identifying AD patients at an early stage results in cost savings and health benefits compared with no treatment or treatment in the absence of early assessment.