Pharmaceutical Treatment for Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias: Utilization and Disparities.

BACKGROUND: Four prescription drugs (donepezil, galantamine, memantine, and rivastigmine) are approved by the US FDA to treat symptoms of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Even modest effectiveness could potentially reduce the population-level burden of AD and related dementias (ADRD), especially for women and racial/ethnic minorities who have higher incidence of ADRD. OBJECTIVE: Describe the prevalence of antidementia drug use and timing of initiation relative to ADRD diagnosis among a nationally representative group of older Americans, and if there are disparities in prevalence and timing by sex and race/ethnicity. METHODS: Descriptive analyses and logistic regressions of Medicare claims (2008-2016) for beneficiaries who had an ADRD or dementia-related symptom diagnosis, or use of an FDA approved drug for AD. We investigate prevalence of use and timing of treatment initiation relative to ADRD diagnosis across time and beneficiary characteristics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, comorbidities). RESULTS: Among persons diagnosed with ADRD or related symptoms, 33.3% used an approved drug over the study period. Odds of use was higher among Whites than non-Whites. Among ADRD drug users, 40% initiated use within 6 months of the initial ADRD or related symptoms diagnosis, and 16% initiated prior to a diagnosis. We observed disparities by race/ethnicity: 28% of Asians, 24% of Hispanics, 16% of Blacks, and 15% of Whites initiated prior to diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The use of antidementia drugs is relatively low and varies widely by race/ethnicity. Heterogeneity in timing of initiation and use may affect health and cost outcomes, but these effects merit further study.

Alzheimer's dementia: budget impact and cost-utility analysis of a combination treatment of a cholinesterase inhibitor and memantine in Switzerland.

QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY: The objective of this study was to estimate the potential budget impact and cost-effectiveness of the combination treatment of a cholinesterase inhibitor and memantine in Switzerland. METHODS: The prevalence of dementia according to European sources and future Swiss population data were used to estimate the number of patients with Alzheimer's dementia in Switzerland. Both direct and indirect costs calculated from Swiss sources were included. Utility estimates and transition probabilities were obtained from the published literature. A Markov model was used for the cost-utility analysis in order to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from a health care and a societal perspective. RESULTS: Assuming mono treatment (either a cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine), treatment costs would increase from CHF 22.7 million in 2012 to CHF 26.1 million in 2016, the additional yearly treatment costs for the combination treatment (cholinesterase inhibitor and memantine) would be between CHF 1.7 million and CHF 1.9 million. The Markov model compared health care costs of the mono treatment to costs of the combination treatment over five years. From a health care perspective, the combination treatment saved CHF 27,655 per patient over five years and CHF 248,895/quality adjusted life year compared to the mono treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the reimbursed combination treatment would incur additional treatment costs of about CHF 10 million over five years. From a health care perspective, the combination treatment would decrease costs over five years by CHF 50 million. Based on long term considerations, the combination treatment was the dominant strategy over the mono treatment.

Clinical practice with antidementia drugs in a geriatric clinic.

BACKGROUND: Cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist have been used increasingly for patients with dementia. However these products are relatively costly and have been linked to many adverse events. Only a few surveys of prescribing patterns of drugs for dementia have been conducted in developing countries, while the proportion of dementia patients is expected to become higher in these regions. We aim to evaluate the utilization patterns, adverse events, and cost of antidementia drugs in a geriatric clinic at Siriraj hospital. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Data was obtained from the medical records of dementia patients who were newly diagnosed between January 2007 and December 2009 in the Geriatric clinic, Siriraj hospital, Bangkok. The diagnosis was based on DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV) criteria. RESULTS: Ninety-six elderly patients were diagnosed with dementia during the studied period. Eighty patients (83.30%) with the average age of 80.6 (SD = 7) years received antidementia drugs. Donepezil was the most frequently prescribed drug (70%), followed by rivastigmine (22.5%). Concomitant use of interacting drugs was noted in 41.3% of patients. The average prescribed daily dose of rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine were lower than their effective defined daily dose. The highest average cost per year was galantamine (60,020.5 baht/year) and the lowest one was memantine (45,857.7 baht/year). Among cholinesterase inhibitors receivers, 43.5% had at least one adverse event. Thirty-seven percent of these were gastrointestinal side effects. Only 12.5% of memantine-receivers developed adverse events. One-year drug discontinuation rates were 26.1% and 12.5% in cholinesterase inhibitor and memantine groups, respectively. From multivariate logistic regression analysis, the only factor associated with adverse drug events was the presence of behavioral and psychological symptoms. CONCLUSION: The majority of dementia patients in our study were prescribed antidementia drugs. Half of them developed adverse events, but one-year drug discontinuation was relatively low. The average daily doses were lower than recommended doses. Future prospective studies should be performed to determine the cost-effectiveness and establish evidence-based practice guideline for management of dementia patients.

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.

Cost effectiveness of memantine in Alzheimer's disease in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: This analysis assesses the cost-effectiveness of memantine for the treatment of moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the UK. METHODS: This cost-utility analysis was based on a Markov model. The model simulated 5-year progress of patients with AD until they need full-time care (FTC), defined as a patient becoming either dependent or institutionalised. Transition probabilities were based on a predictive equation, derived from the London and South-East Region epidemiological study. Resource use, utilities and mortality were obtained from the same study. Memantine efficacy was based on a meta-analysis of six large trials. The model compared memantine to its alternative in the UK, i.e. no pharmacological treatment or background therapy with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. RESULTS: Memantine was found to delay the need to FTC by 6 weeks compared with current practice in the UK. It was associated with increased quality-adjusted life-years and cost savings to the healthcare system (probability of this outcome was 96%). The projections were made assuming that benefits from the 6-month treatment were sustained over time, which is regarded as the main limitation. The model underwent extensive sensitivity analyses, which confirmed the base-case findings. CONCLUSIONS: The model suggests that memantine delays the need for FTC and decreases cost. It can be regarded as a cost-effective choice in the management of moderate and severe AD.

Cost-effectiveness: cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in vascular dementia.

BACKGROUND: Several randomized controlled trials of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in mild to moderate vascular dementia have demonstrated the efficacy of these treatments. However, given these drugs incur considerable cost, the economic argument for their use is less clear. OBJECTIVE: To determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for mild to moderate vascular dementia. DESIGN: A decision analysis model using a 24-28 week time horizon was developed. Outcomes of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine and probabilities of adverse events were extracted from a systematic review. Costs of adverse events, medications, and physician visits were obtained from local estimates. Robustness was tested with probabilistic sensitivity analysis using a Monte Carlo simulation. INTERVENTIONS: Donepezil 5 mg daily, donepezil 10 mg daily, galantamine 16-24 mg daily, rivastigmine flexible dosing up to 6 mg twice daily, or memantine 10 mg twice daily versus standard care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost per unit decrease in the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive (ADAS-cog) subscale. RESULTS: Donepezil 10 mg daily was found to be the most cost-effective treatment with an ICER of $400.64 (95%CI, $281.10-$596.35) per unit decline in the ADAS-cog subscale. All other treatments were dominated by donepezil 10 mg, that is, more costly and less effective. CONCLUSION: From a societal perspective, treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors or memantine was more effective but also more costly than standard care for mild to moderate vascular dementia. The donepezil 10 mg strategy was the most cost-effective and also dominated the other alternatives.

[Socioeconomic relevance of the idiopathic restless legs syndrome (RLS) in Germany: cost-of-illness study]. / Sozioökonomische Bedeutung des idiopathischen Restless-Legs-Syndroms (RLS) für Deutschland: Krankheitskostenanalyse.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: 1.3% of German adults suffer from clinically relevant restless legs syndrome (RLS). A cost-of-illness study was conducted to evaluate the costs for diagnosis and therapy of the idiopathic RLS. METHODS: A clinical pathway based on expert guidelines was developed. The costs for the 1st year of treatment in idiopathic RLS were calculated with the Markov Model. Relevant published clinical study data were used for the model as well as questioning of physicians. RESULTS: Costs per patient with approved drug treatment are 989.80 Euro for sickness funds and 1,285.26 Euro from the societal perspective. Drug costs are the main cost components for sickness funds and the society with 69% and 61%, respectively. Less than half of the patients continue an L-dopa therapy longer than 1 year. About one quarter of all RLS patients need off-label therapy after the 1st year of treatment. CONCLUSION: The costs for a guideline-oriented therapy for all patients with clinically relevant RLS in Germany are about 1,135 billion Euro, representing 0.5% of all health-related costs in Germany. Further controlled clinical trials are required to provide evidence for the efficacy of different treatment options including drugs without an approval for RLS and long-term use. Health services research is required for cost-utility analysis, to evaluate the costs of inadequate treatment, and to obtain additional information to improve the resource allocation in RLS treatment.

Evaluation of the impact of memantine treatment initiation on psychotropics use: a study from the French national health care database.

BACKGROUND: Clinical studies reported that treatments for Alzheimer's disease may have an impact on behavioral and psychiatric disorders. We tested the hypothesis that memantine treatment initiation modifies psychotropic medication in real-life practice patients. METHODS: A 2-year follow-up cohort study was performed. A sample of patients treated in the general population, extracted from the database of the French national healthcare system (CNAM-TS), was examined. The sample included 4,600 memantine-treated patients (mean age 79.8 years, 69% women) randomly selected from the database of the CNAM-TS covering 69% of the French population aged 65 years and over. The follow-up rate was 95.0%. This database includes exhaustive data on drug consumption. We used interrupted time series analysis of the proportion of psychotropics users (all psychotropic drugs and specific categories) before and after onset of memantine. RESULTS: There was a 39-50% regular increase in patients treated with psychotropic drugs before memantine initiation This increasing trend stopped after memantine initiation, the proportion of psychotropic users remaining stable around 53% up to the end. The trends before and after memantine onset were significantly different (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a temporal relationship between the onset of memantine and the stabilization of psychotropic drugs use in this large sample of elderly patients.

[The status of imaging methods for the treatment of patients with Parkinson's syndrome]. / Stellenwert bildgebender Verfahren für die Therapie der Patienten mit Parkinsonsyndrom.

The accuracy of the diagnosis of Parkinson's disease early in the course of the disease remains a clinical challenge. Imaging of dopamine transporters with DatSCAN and SPEC tomography contributes to identifying patients without nigral degeneration and thus helps preventing unnecessary and potentially harmful treatments. The cost of these imaging procedures needs to be set against the cost of unnecessary medication.

[Medical treatment of Parkinson's disease]. / Medikamentöse Therapie des Morbus Parkinson.

Our understanding of Parkinson's disease (PD) has evolved. Parkinson's disease is no longer regarded a pure motor disorder, but a complex disease with motor as well as non-motor symptoms, the latter having a major impact on the quality of life of the patient as well as the caregiver. After a few years of suffering from PD, complications of therapy add invariably to the burden of the disease. Many of these complications are not volunteered by the patient or the caregiver, either due to their embarrassing nature or due to lack of insight of their causal relationship with PD or the treatment of PD. However, proper treatment of PD has to address the non-motor symptoms and the complications of therapy as well.

Substance use and psychosocial outcomes following participation in residential laboratory studies of marijuana, methamphetamine and zolpidem.

RATIONALE: Non-therapeutic research with drugs of abuse in humans is important for a more comprehensive understanding of substance abuse and for the development of more effective treatments. However, the administration of substances from drug classes with abuse potential to human volunteers raises ethical questions regarding potential risk to study volunteers. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the psychosocial functioning and reported drug-taking behavior of volunteers before and after participating in a residential laboratory study, during which either marijuana, methamphetamine or zolpidem was administered. METHODS: Twenty-two volunteers were administered Addiction Severity Index (ASI) interviews at intake and approximately six months following their study participation. RESULTS: No significant differences between intake and follow-up assessments were found on any ASI composite or drug/alcohol-taking variable. CONCLUSION: These preliminary data suggest that participation in residential laboratory studies involving the administration of drugs from classes with abuse potential does not alter subsequent psychosocial functioning or reported drug use.

Cost-effectiveness of memantine in community-based Alzheimer's disease patients: An adaptation in Spain.

Several clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of the NMDA antagonist memantine in moderately severe to severe Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients. A 28-week pharmacoeconomic study conducted in the US also showed a reduction of total healthcare costs and informal care compared to placebo. Long-term implications of memantine treatment were modelled in the UK and Finland and revealed reductions in dependency, institutionalization and costs. However, these conclusions were not directly applicable to the Spanish setting where patients are mainly treated within the community. The objective of this study was to estimate the long-term implications in terms of costs and health benefits of memantine therapy compared to standard care using a Spanish adaptation of previous models over a 2-year time horizon. As in previous adaptations, Markov health states were defined as a combination of severity (mild-moderate, moderately severe, severe) and dependency plus death as the absorbing state. Spain-specific data (costs, mortality and epidemiological data) were obtained from local and recently published cohorts of AD patients. Data on the effectiveness of memantine were derived from a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial of 252 moderately severe to severe AD patients. Effectiveness was measured as the time spent in a non-dependent health state. The evaluation was conducted over 2 years, while the efficacy of memantine was applied for 1 year only in order to ensure a conservative approach. The robustness of the model was tested by conducting stochastic analyses and various sensitivity analyses on the key assumptions. Patients receiving standard care were estimated to spend 6 months in a non-dependent state and to incur average total costs of Euro 24,700 over 2 years. The memantine strategy was associated with an additional 2.5 months in a non-dependent state and a Euro 700 cost reduction. Monte-Carlo simulations and sensitivity analyses supported these findings. Memantine appears to be cost-effective compared with standard care in moderately severe to severe AD patients in a Spanish setting. The prolonged independence provided by memantine treatment translated into cost reductions which offset drug costs and resulted in overall cost-savings.

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine for Alzheimer's disease.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an update review of the best quality evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine for mild to moderately severe Alzheimer's disease (AD) and of memantine for moderately severe to severe AD. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases, experts in the field and manufacturer submissions to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of the literature and an economic evaluation were undertaken. The quality of included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using criteria developed by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. An outline assessment of economic evaluations was undertaken using a standard checklist. The clinical and cost-effectiveness data were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of the results of included studies. Where appropriate, meta-analysis of data was undertaken. RESULTS: For mild to moderately severe AD, the results of the study suggested that all three treatments were beneficial when assessed using cognitive outcome measures. Global outcome measures were positive for donepezil and rivastigmine, but mixed for galantamine. Results for measures of function were mixed for donepezil and rivastigmine, but positive for galantamine. Behaviour and mood measures were mixed for donepezil and galantamine, but showed no benefit for rivastigmine. For memantine, two published RCTs were included; in one of these trials the participants were already being treated with donepezil. The results suggest that memantine is beneficial when assessed using functional and global measurements. The effect of memantine on cognitive and behaviour and mood outcomes is, however, less clear. Literature on the cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine was dominated by industry-sponsored studies, and studies varied in methods and results. Of the three UK studies, two report donepezil as not cost-effective, whereas a third study reports an additional cost (1996 pounds sterling) of between 1200 pounds sterling and 7000 pounds sterling per year in a non-severe AD health state (concerns over these estimates are raised, suggesting that they may underestimate the true cost-effectiveness of donepezil). Cost-effectiveness analysis undertaken in this review suggests that donepezil treatment has a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in excess of 80,000 pounds sterling, with donepezil treatment reducing the mean time spent in full-time care (delays progression of AD) by 1.42-1.59 months (over a 5-year period). From four published cost-effectiveness studies, two UK studies report additional costs associated with rivastigmine treatment. Cost-effectiveness analysis undertaken in the current review suggests that rivastigmine treatment has a cost per QALY in excess of 57,000 pounds sterling, with rivastigmine treatment reducing the mean time spent in full-time care (delays progression) by 1.43-1.63 months (over a 5-year period). From five published cost-effectiveness studies, one UK study reports a cost per QALY of 8693 pounds sterling for 16-mg galantamine treatment and 10,051 pounds sterling for 24-mg galantamine treatment (concerns raised suggest that this may underestimate the true cost-effectiveness of galantamine). Cost-effectiveness analysis undertaken in the present review suggests that galantamine treatment has a cost per QALY in excess of 68,000 pounds sterling, with galantamine reducing the time spent in full-time care (delays progression) by 1.42-1.73 months (over a 5-year period). From two published cost-effectiveness studies, one reports analysis for the UK, finding that memantine treatment results in cost savings and benefits in terms of delaying disease progression (concerns raised suggest that this may underestimate the true cost-effectiveness of memantine). In the current review, the cost-effectiveness of memantine has not been modelled separately, but where alternative parameter inputs on the cost structure and utility values have been used in a reanalysis using the industry model, the cost-effectiveness is reported at between 37,000 pounds sterling and 52,000 pounds sterling per QALY, with this alternative analysis still based on what is regarded as an optimistic or favourable effectiveness profile for memantine. CONCLUSIONS: Although results from the clinical effectiveness review suggest that these treatments may be beneficial, a number of issues need to be considered when assessing the results of the present review, such as the characteristics of the participants included in the individual trials, the outcome measures used, the length of study duration, the effects of attrition and the relationship between statistical significance and clinical significance. Many included trials were sponsored by industry. For donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine, the cost savings associated with reducing the mean time spent in full-time care do not offset the cost of treatment sufficiently to bring estimated cost-effectiveness to levels generally considered acceptable by NHS policy makers. It is difficult to draw conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of memantine; it is suggested that further amendments to the potentially optimistic industry model (measure of effect) would offer higher cost per QALY estimates. Future research should include: information on the quality of the outcome measures used; development of quality of life instruments for patients and carers; studies assessing the effects of these interventions of durations longer than 12 months; comparisons of benefits between interventions; and research on the prediction of disease progression.

Cost-effectiveness of memantine for moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease entails enormous costs for society and impairs quality of life for patients and caregivers. OBJECTIVE: This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of memantine in the treatment of patients with moderately severe to severe cognitive impairment from Alzheimer's disease in Sweden. METHODS: The study was based on published data from several sources, including a randomized controlled trial of memantine versus placebo and a longitudinal observational study of Alzheimer's disease patients in Sweden. Costs were estimated from the public payer's perspective, including direct costs but excluding costs of informal care, and resource utilization data were taken from the observational study. Cost-effectiveness was quantified as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained from treatment with the use of previously published utility weights. A Markov simulation model was constructed, incorporating the effect of treatment on cognitive function, physical dependence related to activities of daily living, and institutionalization. Costs and effects for treated and untreated patients were estimated for 5 years (10 cycles). In the base-case analysis, treatment costs were added for 2 years, but the effect on transition probabilities was applied only for the first year of treatment. RESULTS: Compared with no treatment, memantine treatment was predicted to be associated with lower costs of care, longer time to dependence and institutionalization, and gains in QALYs. Treatment was estimated to decrease formal care costs by 123,600 Swedish kronor (SEK) and, after taking into account the cost of memantine, to lead to net cost savings of 100,528 SEK per patient. Treated patients gained 0.148 QALY over the 5-year simulation. CONCLUSIONS: From a public payer's perspective, the observed effect of memantine on cognitive and physical function is predicted to translate into economic benefits that offset the added treatment cost. Treatment is also predicted to delay institutionalization, improve independence, and increase QALYs.

Memantine for treatment of moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease.

Health Canada has issued a Notice of Compliance with conditions (NOC/c) for memantine in the treatment of moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease (AD). The evidence of relative benefit and harm from memantine in this population derives from two randomized controlled trials (RCT) of 24 to 28 weeks duration, in a total of 656 patients; and a post hoc subgroup analysis of 79 patients with severe AD from a third trial of 12 weeks. Memantine alone or in combination with donepezil demonstrates improvements in primary outcome scores of activities of daily living and cognition, but not of global performance. Memantine's rate of diffusion may be rapid, as it is the only drug available for severe AD and it has a potential for use in unapproved indications.

[Memantine for the treatment of dementia]. / Memantine bij dementie.

Problems in the Netherlands with respect to the reimbursement of memantine have led the patient organization 'Alzheimer Nederland' to establish an emergency fund. Several trials have documented the limited, but consistent beneficial effects of memantine in severely demented patients. It is not clear which subgroup of patients might benefit the most. The drug seems to have dopamimetic and antidepressant effects which might explain its overall effect. The publicity surrounding memantine contributes to an atmosphere in which patients and care providers have to explain why they are not yet using 'anti-dementia drugs'. This should be avoided. Patients can expect to gain more benefit from ongoing, thorough and independent investigations than from hastily established emergency funds to finance the use of a drug with a limited and poorly defined efficacy.