Cost-utility analysis of memantine extended release added to cholinesterase inhibitors compared to cholinesterase inhibitor monotherapy for the treatment of moderate-to-severe dementia of the Alzheimer's type in the US

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of memantine extended release (ER) as an add-on therapy to acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (AChEI) [combination therapy] for treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease (AD) from both a healthcare payer and a societal perspective over 3 years when compared to AChEI monotherapy in the US.

METHODS

A phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of memantine ER for treatment of AD patients taking an AChEI. The analysis assessed the long-term costs and health outcomes using an individual patient simulation in which AD progression is modeled in terms of cognition, behavior, and functioning changes. Input parameters are based on patient-level trial data, published literature, and publicly available data sources. Changes in anti-psychotic medication use are incorporated based on a published retrospective cohort study. Costs include drug acquisition and monitoring, total AD-related medical care, and informal care associated with caregiver time. Incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), life years, care time for caregiver, time in community and institution, time on anti-psychotics, time by disease severity, and time without severe symptoms are reported. Costs and health outcomes are discounted at 3% per annum.

RESULTS

Considering a societal perspective over 3 years, this analysis shows that memantine ER combined with an AChEI provides better clinical outcomes and lower costs than AChEI monotherapy. Discounted average savings were estimated at $18,355 and $20,947 per patient and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) increased by an average of 0.12 and 0.13 from a societal and healthcare payer perspective, respectively. Patients on combination therapy spent an average of 4 months longer living at home and spend less time in moderate-severe and severe stages of the disease.

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe AD is a cost-effective treatment compared to AChEI monotherapy in the US.

The impact of memantine in combination with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors on admission of patients with Alzheimer's disease to nursing homes: cost-effectiveness analysis in France

The costs associated with the care of Alzheimer's disease patients are very high, particularly those associated with nursing home placement. The combination of a cholinesterase inhibitor (ChEI) and memantine has been shown to significantly delay admission to nursing homes as compared to treatment with a ChEI alone. The objective of this cost-effectiveness analysis was to evaluate the economic impact of the concomitant use of memantine and ChEI compared to ChEI alone. Markov modelling was used in order to simulate transitions over time among three discrete health states (non-institutionalised, institutionalised and deceased). Transition probabilities were obtained from observational studies and French national statistics, utilities from a previous US survey and costs from French national statistics. The analysis was conducted from societal and healthcare system perspectives. Mean time to nursing home admission was 4.57 years for ChEIs alone and 5.54 years for combination therapy, corresponding to 0.98 additional years, corresponding to a gain in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.25. From a healthcare system perspective, overall costs were €98,609 for ChEIs alone and €90,268 for combination therapy, representing cost savings of €8,341. From a societal perspective, overall costs were €122,039 and €118,721, respectively, representing cost savings of €3,318. Deterministic and probabilistic (Monte Carlo simulations) sensitivity analyses indicated that combination therapy would be the dominant strategy in most scenarios. In conclusion, combination therapy with memantine and a ChEI is a cost-saving alternative compared to ChEI alone as it is associated with lower cost and increased QALYs from both a societal and a healthcare perspective.

Evolution of the evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for Alzheimer's disease: systematic review and economic model

INTRODUCTION

in 2007 the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) restricted the use of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine.

METHODS

we conducted a health technology assessment (HTA) of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine for the treatment of AD to re-consider and up-date the evidence base used to inform the 2007 NICE decision. The systematic review of effectiveness targeted randomised controlled trials. A comprehensive search, including MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library, was conducted from January 2004 to March 2010. All key review steps were done by two reviewers. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted. The cost-effectiveness was assessed using a cohort-based model with three health states: pre-institutionalised, institutionalised and dead. The perspective was NHS and Personal Social Services and the cost year 2009.

RESULTS

confidence about the size and statistical significance of the estimates of effect of galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine improved on function and global impact in particular. Cost-effectiveness also changed. For donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in 2004 was above £50,000; in 2010 the same drugs 'dominated' best supportive care (improved clinical outcome at reduced cost). This was primarily because of changes in the modelled costs of introducing the drugs. For memantine, the cost-effectiveness also improved from a range of £37-53,000 per QALY gained to a base-case of £32,000.

CONCLUSION

there has been a change in the evidence base between 2004 and 2010 consistent with the change in NICE guidance. Further evolution in cost-effectiveness estimates is possible particularly if there are changes in drug prices.

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.

Direct costs of Alzheimer's disease in Germany

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this analysis was to determine the direct costs for patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) based on data supplied by a large German statutory health insurance (BARMER). Focus of the present evaluation is the exposure of total direct costs, survival rates and the types of care distribution of patients with AD.

METHODS

The analysis was based on anonymised data of patients with Alzheimer's disease who were insured by a large German statutory health insurance (Barmer Ersatzkasse-BEK) in 2005 over 12 months (n = 35.684). The study population was classified into three treatment groups: patients who received memantine and no other antidementia drugs, psychotropic drugs or sedatives/hypnotics (memantine group); patients who neither received memantine nor other antidementia drugs but psychotropic drugs and/or sedatives/hypnotics (PHS group); and patients who received no antidementia drugs and no psychotropic drugs or sedatives/hypnotics (no AT group). A Markov model was designed to assess the costs of each treatment group depending on the type of care over a 5-year period.

RESULTS

The results obtained for the PHS group were the following: after 5 years, 25.1% were in inpatient health care, 1.1% in partial inpatient care, 5.4% in outpatient care, and 64.5% of patients died. Only 3.9% did not require care. On average, direct costs to the amount of 7.948 € incurred per patient and year and 13.099 € per surviving patient. In the group without pharmacotherapy, 20.6% were in inpatient care, 0.3% in partial inpatient care, 12.8% in outpatient care, and 52.5% of the patients died. For 13.8% of the patients, care was not necessary. The annual costs amounted to 6.760 € per patient and 9.926 € per surviving patient. The results obtained for the memantine group were more beneficial: annual costs per patient amounted to 6.100 € and to 8.376 € per surviving patient.

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate that non-antidementive therapy for Alzheimer's disease causes higher costs especially for care. The memantine group proved to be superior compared to PHS group and no AT group, despite higher costs in the specific drug category.

The costs of Alzheimer's disease and the value of effective therapies

Every 69 seconds, a person in the United States develops Alzheimer's disease (AD). By 2050, this rate is expected to double. Total direct costs of AD and dementia (AD/D) are estimated at $183 billion, and are expected to increase to $1.1 trillion by 2050. In 2010, unpaid care was valued at an estimated $202 billion. Caregivers of patients with AD are usually family members, and provide up to 70 hours of care per week. By delaying institutionalization of an AD patient, a savings of $2029 per month in direct healthcare costs could be realized; therefore, caregiver support is a significant factor in controlling costs. It is important for those with AD/D to have prescription plans that optimize access to AD/D therapies. Among older adults who previously did not have prescription coverage, 80% are now enrolled in Medicare Part D. Three preferred AD/D agents (donepezil, extended release galantamine hydrochloride, and memantine hydrochloride) have been identified by an expert panel. It is important, given the clinical course of AD, especially with progression to moderate-to-severe disease, that physicians continue to have access to preferred medications as demonstrated through evidence-based clinical evaluations. Many Medicare Part D beneficiaries are subject to a gap in prescription coverage known as the "donut hole," including 64% of patients with AD. Because of the increased out-of-pocket expenditures associated with this coverage gap, some patients stop taking their medication completely or reduce medication use. It is critical to avoid lapses in maintenance therapy, as functional and cognitive abilities cannot be regained. Numerous clinical trials have demonstrated the pharmacoeconomic benefits of appropriate and preferred AD therapies; greater therapeutic availability may lead to better adherence and therefore improved outcomes.

Treatment of Alzheimer disease

Alzheimer disease is the most common form of dementia, affecting nearly one-half [corrected] of Americans older than 85 years. It is characterized by progressive memory loss and cognitive decline. Amyloid plaque accumulation, neurofibrillary tau tangles, and depletion of acetylcholine are among the pathologic manifestations of Alzheimer disease. Although there are no proven modalities for preventing Alzheimer disease, hypertension treatment, omega-3 fatty acid supplementation, physical activity, and cognitive engagement demonstrate modest potential. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors are first-line medications for the treatment of Alzheimer disease, and are associated with mild improvements in cognitive function, behavior, and activities of daily living; however, the clinical relevance of these effects is unclear. The most common adverse effects of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dizziness, confusion, and cardiac arrhythmias. Short-term use of the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist memantine can modestly improve measures of cognition, behavior, and activities of daily living in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer disease. Memantine can also be used in combination with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. Memantine is generally well tolerated, but whether its benefits produce clinically meaningful improvement is controversial. Although N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists and acetylcholinesterase inhibitors can slow the progression of Alzheimer disease, no pharmacologic agents can reverse the progression. Atypical antipsychotics can improve some behavioral symptoms, but have been associated with increased mortality rates in older patients with dementia. There is conflicting evidence about the benefit of selegiline, testosterone, and ginkgo for the treatment of Alzheimer disease. There is no evidence supporting the beneficial effects of vitamin E, estrogen, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy.

How do we treat people with dementia in Croatia

The current clinical view on pharmacological treatment and the Croatian reality regarding approved antidementia drugs is presented. Dementia is a syndrome of high incidence and Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia. New data show that dementia prevalence will nearly double every 20 years, and we believe that current estimated number of persons with dementia (PWD) for Croatia is more than 80,000. The standard treatment with antidementia drugs is unavailable in Croatia, for the majority of PWD, because antidementia drugs are not on the reimbursement list, although Croatian algorithm for psychopharmacological treatment and Alzheimer Disease Societies Croatia recommend early and adequate treatment. Alzheimer's dementia is becoming a world's health priority in 21st century, so we strongly believe that antidementia drugs should be reimbursed in Croatia.

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.

[Use of specific drugs for Alzheimer's disease]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the consumption evolution and financial impact of specific treatments for Alzheimer's disease (AD) in Aragon (Spain), analyzing consumption patterns and trends, and to estimate the proportion of AD patients treated with these drugs.

METHODS

Descriptive study of outpatient utilization of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine (1996-2004), obtained from the drug packages dispensed by community pharmacists through prescriptions charged to the National Health Service. According to the defined daily doses (DDD) and expenditure data available, data were expressed in DDD per 1,000 inhabitants per day (DHD), DDD per 1,000 inhabitants older than 64 (DHD65), first-last year increase (%), drug consumption pattern, annual cost per inhabitant and daily treatment cost (DTC). To estimate the proportion of treated patients we compared the DHD65 data with the estimated AD prevalence.

RESULTS

Overall consumption of these drugs has increased from 0.026 DHD (1996) to 3.235 DHD (2004). Donepezil remains as the most prescribed, though it is proportionally decreasing as a result of the quick introduction of newer alternatives. Overall cost of the DHD dispensed in 2004 reached nearly 6 million euros. DTC decreased about 30% over the study period, but the total cost increased ninety-fold (sixty-fold when non-variable euros from 2004 were considered). According to our estimates, 34% of people with AD were receiving specific treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant increase in the consumption and economical burden of these drugs, whose cost-effectiveness has been questioned in some studies. More studies including specific patient data are needed in order to identify individual characteristics and evaluate treatment appropriateness.

Cost-effectiveness of memantine in moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease patients receiving donepezil

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy and safety of memantine in patients with moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease (AD) receiving stable doses of donepezil were recently demonstrated in a phase III trial. The cost-effectiveness of such therapy is unknown.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A microsimulation model was developed to depict AD progression over time and associated clinical and economic outcomes. AD progression was measured in terms of decline in cognitive function, as assessed by the Severe Impairment Battery (SIB). At model entry, patients were assumed to have moderate-to-severe AD, to be on stable doses of donepezil, and to begin combination therapy with memantine, or continue to receive donepezil alone; duration of therapy was assumed to be 1 year. Drug efficacy was based on data from a phase III trial. Key assumptions of the model included: (1) efficacy of study drugs would extend to 1 year; (2) measures of cognitive function could be mapped to one another, as well as to global measures of disease severity; and (3) following therapy discontinuation, cognitive function would revert immediately to natural history levels. Cost-effectiveness was assessed in terms of cost (2005 US$) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over a lifetime (3% discount rate).

RESULTS

SIB scores were estimated to improve by 3.3 over 1 year from therapy with memantine plus donepezil (vs. donepezil alone). While pharmacotherapy costs were estimated to increase by $1250 during the year of memantine treatment, costs of formal and informal services were estimated to decrease by $1240 over this period and by $1493 (discounted present value) over a lifetime. Findings were sensitive to the assumed SIB score at therapy initiation; cost-effectiveness was better for patients with higher initial SIB scores (i.e., less severe disease).

CONCLUSION

In patients with moderate-to-severe AD already receiving donepezil, treatment with memantine results in improved clinical outcomes and reduced total costs of care.

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 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.

Efficacy and Safety of Memantine in Moderate-to-Severe Alzheimer Disease: The Evidence to Date

Memantine, a moderate-affinity, uncompetitive N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, is currently the only agent approved for moderately severe to severe Alzheimer disease (AD) in Europe and for moderate-to-severe Alzheimer disease in the United States. In clinical trials, memantine has consistently demonstrated a reduced rate of deterioration on global, cognitive, functional, and behavioral measures, across a range of outcome measures compared with usual care. Notably, improvements versus placebo were seen in individual activities of daily living and behavior, particularly agitation. Efficacy was demonstrated in patients with newly diagnosed Alzheimer disease, patients previously or currently receiving acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, and both institutionalized and community-dwelling Alzheimer disease patients. Memantine has a tolerability profile similar to placebo. This review presents the results of key clinical trials, and includes clinically relevant analyses, such as numbers-needed-to-treat and effect sizes. Increased dependency and institutionalization are significant cost drivers in Alzheimer disease. Memantine is able to reduce dependency, caregiver time required, and mean monthly caregiver and societal costs. Recent studies of the relationship between Alzheimer disease progression, caregiver burden, and healthcare costs emphasize the need for treatments such as memantine that can slow the rate of decline in Alzheimer disease.

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: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease

Memantine (Ebixa, Namenda, Axura) is an uncompetitive NMDA receptor antagonist used in the management of patients with moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease. It is currently the only drug approved for use in these more advanced stages of the disease. Significant reductions in functional and cognitive decline have been demonstrated with memantine relative to placebo in randomised, double-blind trials in this patient population. Clinical trial and postmarketing surveillance data indicate that the drug is generally well tolerated. Two fully published modelled cost-effectiveness analyses of memantine in moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease have been conducted in the UK and Finland, in which patient progression was simulated through health states related to dependency, residential setting and cognitive function. Although the specific costs included in the analyses varied, as did the study perspective and geographical location, results of the base-case analyses consistently showed that memantine was dominant over no pharmacological treatment. In the UK and Finnish analyses, memantine increased the duration of independence by 1.3 and 4.1 months, respectively, and the time to institutionalisation by 0.8 and 1 month. Mean total per-patient costs were reduced by 1963 pounds over 2 years (2003 costs) in the UK analysis and by 1687 eurossover 5 years (2001 costs) in the Finnish analysis. Memantine was also associated with a small gain in quality-adjusted life expectancy in the UK model. In sensitivity analyses, memantine remained dominant for almost all plausible changes to key variables. Memantine reduced total societal costs by $1090 per patient per month (1999 costs) compared with no pharmacological treatment over 28 weeks in a resource utilisation and cost analysis conducted alongside a pivotal US trial in patients with moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease. Results were primarily driven by reductions in total caregiver costs, which included the opportunity cost of time spent in caregiving tasks, and in direct nonmedical costs, which included the cost of care in a nursing home or similar institution.In conclusion, in patients with moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease, memantine is associated with significant reductions in functional and cognitive decline compared with no pharmacological treatment. Available pharmacoeconomic data from Europe and the US, despite some inherent limitations, support the use of memantine as a cost-effective treatment in this patient population, although definitive conclusions are not feasible because of limited data.

Health utilities in Alzheimer's disease and implications for cost-effectiveness analysis

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) provisional decision against memantine and other medications for Alzheimer's disease (AD) has generated much discussion. In its decision, NICE expressed concern about the data source used for the utility scores in the industry submission of the memantine model. NICE therefore turned to an alternative data source. However, in doing so, it made the key assumption that moderate-to-severe AD patients living in the community were independent. Furthermore, the NICE data source also had its limitations. There are numerous limitations in inferring from available data how utilities vary between dependent and non-dependent patients with AD. Most importantly, we lack direct evidence from primary data. Nonetheless, it seems reasonable to assume that patients with severe AD, and likely those with moderate AD as well, have full-time care needs, regardless of their setting. The NICE assumption that they do not results in a difference in utilities between dependent and non-dependent AD individuals of only 0.06. This seems to be at the low end of what one would consider a reasonable estimate.

Cost Effectiveness of Memantine in Alzheimer???s Disease

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials with memantine, an uncompetitive moderate-affinity NMDA antagonist, have shown improved clinical outcomes, increased independence and a trend towards delayed institutionalisation in patients with moderately severe-to-severe Alzheimer's disease. In a randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled, 28-week study conducted in the US, reductions in resource utilisation and total healthcare costs were noted with memantine relative to placebo. While these findings suggest that, compared with placebo, memantine provides cost savings, further analyses may help to quantify potential economic gains over a longer treatment period.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost effectiveness of memantine therapy compared with no pharmacological treatment in patients with moderately severe-to-severe Alzheimer's disease over a 2-year period.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to simulate patient progression through a series of health states related to severity, dependency (determined by patient scores on the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living [ADCS-ADL] inventory and residential status ('institutionalisation') with a time horizon of 2 years (each 6-month Markov cycle was repeated four times). Transition probabilities from one health state to another 6 months later were mainly derived from a 28-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Inputs related to epidemiological and cost data were derived from a UK longitudinal epidemiological study, while data on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were derived from a Danish longitudinal study. To ensure conservative estimates from the model, the base case analysis assumed drug effectiveness was limited to 12 months. Monte Carlo simulations were performed for each state parameter following definition of a priori distributions for the main variables of the model. Sensitivity analyses included worst case scenario in which memantine was effective for 6 months and one-way sensitivity analyses on key parameters. Finally, a subgroup analysis was performed to determine which patients were most likely to benefit from memantine. Informal care was not included in this model as the costs were considered from National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective.

RESULTS

The base case analysis found that, compared with no treatment, memantine was associated with lower costs and greater clinical effectiveness in terms of years of independence, years in the community and QALYs. Sensitivity analyses supported these findings. For each category of Alzheimer's disease patient examined, treatment with memantine was a cost-effective strategy. The greatest economic gain of memantine treatment was in independent patients with a Mini-Mental State Examination score of > or =10.

CONCLUSION

This model suggests that memantine treatment is cost effective and provides cost savings compared with no pharmacological treatment. These benefits appear to result from prolonged patient independence and delayed institutionalisation for moderately severe and severe Alzheimer's disease patients on memantine compared with no pharmacological treatment.

[Memantine for the treatment of dementia]

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.

Resource utilisation and cost analysis of memantine in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease

BACKGROUND

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a devastating illness that causes enormous emotional stress to affected families and is associated with substantial medical and nonmedical costs.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of 28 weeks of memantine treatment for patients with AD on resource utilisation and costs.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Multicentre, prospective, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial performed in the US. The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to examine the resource utilisation variables and logistic regression models were used for multivariate resource utilisation analyses. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models (log and non-log) were computed to examine costs from a societal perspective. All costs were calculated in 1999 US dollars.

STUDY POPULATION

Outpatients with moderate to severe AD. Overall, 252 patients received randomised treatment, and 166 patients (placebo n = 76, memantine n = 90) formed the treated-per-protocol (TPP) subset for the health economic analyses, on which the main cost analysis was based.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Resource Utilisation in Dementia (RUD) scale, measuring patient and caregiver resource utilisation, and various sources for cost calculations.

RESULTS

Controlling for baseline differences between the groups, significantly less caregiver time was needed for patients receiving memantine than for those receiving placebo (difference 51.5 hours per month; 95% CI -95.27, -7.17; p = 0.02). Analysis of residential status also favoured memantine: time to institutionalisation (p = 0.052) and institutionalisation at week 28 (p = 0.04 with the chi-square test). Total costs from a societal perspective were lower in the memantine group (difference dollars US 1089.74/month [non-overlapping 95% CI for treatment difference -1954.90, -224.58]; p = 0.01). The main differences between the groups were total caregiver costs (dollars US-823.77/month; p = 0.03) and direct nonmedical costs (dollars US-430.84/month; p = 0.07) favouring memantine treatment. Patient direct medical costs were higher in the memantine group (p < 0.01), mainly due to the cost of memantine.

CONCLUSION

Resource utilisation and total health costs were lower in the memantine group than the placebo group. The results suggest that memantine treatment of patients with moderate to severe AD is cost saving from a societal perspective.