Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cost Effectiveness of Cholinesterase Inhibitors in the Treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease

A Review with Methodological Considerations

  • Current Opinion
  • Published:
Drugs & Aging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cholinesterase inhibitors have been available for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease since 1993. They have significantly positive effects on cognitive functioning and other domains of functional capacity, such as activities of daily life in terms of efficacy, but the clinical value of these effects are under discussion. Cholinesterase inhibitors may also influence behavioural and psychological symptoms in Alzheimer’s disease. Cholinesterase inhibitors are also regarded as rather expensive and, therefore, the question of cost effectiveness is essential. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations of cholinesterase inhibitors have so far been conducted in retrospect on efficacy data from prospective randomised clinical trials combined with economic data from other sources. There are no published specific cost-effectiveness studies of cholinesterase inhibitors which prospectively collected empirical data on costs and outcomes. There is only one published randomised clinical trial with such empirical data with a cost consequence analysis design, indicating cost neutrality. Several types of models to describe the long-term effects have been published, indicating cost effectiveness. However, due to methodological considerations, the validity of these models is difficult to judge. A research agenda for the cost effectiveness of cholinesterase inhibitors is proposed, including long-term studies with empirical data on resource use, costs and outcomes, studies on quality of life, informal care and behavioural and psychological symptoms, combination and comparative studies on mild cognitive impairment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Table III
Table IV

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wimo A, Winblad B, Aguero Torres H, et al. The magnitude of dementia occurrence in the world. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2003; 17: 63–7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wimo A, Winblad B, Grafstrom M. The social consequences for families with Alzheimer’s disease patients: potential impact of new drug treatment. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 1999; 14: 338–47

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. OECD. Policy issues in dementia care in OECD countries. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  4. WHO. World health report, 1999. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  5. Nordberg A, Nilsson-Hakansson L, Adem A, et al. Multiple actions of THA on cholinergic neurotransmission in Alzheimer brains. Prog Clin Biol Res 1989; 317: 1169–78

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Knopman DS. Current pharmacotherapies for Alzheimer’s disease. Geriatrics 1998; 53Suppl. 1: S31–4

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Knopman D, Schneider L, Davis K, et al. Long-term tacrine (Cognex) treatment: effects on nursing home placement and mortality. Tacrine Study Group. Neurology 1996; 47: 166–77

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lubeck DP, Mazonson PD, Bowe T. Potential effect of tacrine on expenditures for Alzheimer’s disease. Med Interface 1994; 7: 130–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Henke CJ, Burchmore MJ. The economic impact of the tacrine in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Clin Ther 1997; 19: 330–45

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wimo A, Karlsson G, Nordberg A, et al. Treatment of Alzheimer’s disease with tacrine: a cost-analysis model. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11: 191–200

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Jonsson B, Jonsson L, Wimo A. Cost of dementia. In: May M, Sartorius N, editors. Dementia: WPA series evidence and experience in psychiatry. London: John Wiley & Son, 2000: 335–63

    Google Scholar 

  12. Whitehouse PJ, Winblad B, Shostak D, et al. First International Pharmacoeconomic Conference on Alzheimer’s Disease: report and summary. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1998; 12: 266–80

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Jonsson L, Jonsson B, Wimo A, et al. Second International Pharmacoeconomic Conference on Alzheimer’s Disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2000; 14: 137–40

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Siegel JE, Torrance GW, Russell LB, et al. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies: recommendations from the panel on cost effectiveness in health and medicine: panel on cost effectiveness in health and medicine. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 11: 159–68

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Torrance G. Designing and conducting cost-utility analysis. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott-Raven, 1996: 1105–21

    Google Scholar 

  16. Wimo A, Wetterholm AL, Mastey V, et al. Evaluation of the resource utilization and caregiver time in anti-dementia drug trials: a quantitative battery. In: Wimo A, Jonsson B, Karlsson G, et al., editors. The health economics of dementia. London: John Wiley & Sons, 1998: 465–99

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wimo A, Winblad B. Resource utilisation in dementia: RUD Lite. Brain Aging 2003; 3: 48–59

    Google Scholar 

  18. Wimo A, Winblad B, Stöffler A, et al. Resource utilization and cost analysis of memantine in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer’s disease. Pharmacoeconomics 2003; 21: 327–40

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Wimo A, Winblad B, Engedal K, et al. An economic evaluation of donepezil in mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease: results of a 1-year, double-blind, randomized trial. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2003; 15: 44–54

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  21. Winblad B, Hill S, Beermann B, et al. Issues in the economic evaluation of treatment for dementia: position paper from the International Working Group on Harmonization of Dementia Drug Guidelines. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11: 39–45

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Freund DA, Dittus RS. Principles of pharmacoeconomic analysis of drug therapy. Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 1: 20–31

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Busschbach JJ, Brouwer WB, van der Donk A, et al. An outline for a cost-effectiveness analysis of a drug for patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13: 21–34

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Wimo A, von Strauss E, Nordberg G, et al. Time spent on informal and formal care giving for persons with dementia in Sweden. Health Policy 2002; 61: 255–68

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. McDaid D. Estimating the costs of informal care for people with Alzheimer’s disease: methodological and practical challenges. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2001; 16: 400–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Moore MJ, Zhu CW, Clipp EC. Informal costs of dementia care: estimates from the National Longitudinal Caregiver Study. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2001; 56: S219–28

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Langa KM, Chernew ME, Kabeto MU, et al. National estimates of the quantity and cost of informal caregiving for the elderly with dementia. J Gen Intern Med 2001; 16: 770–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Max W. The cost of Alzheimer’s disease: will drug treatment ease the burden? Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 9: 5–10

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Clipp EC, Moore MJ. Caregiver time use: an outcome measure in clinical trial research on Alzheimer’s disease. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995; 58: 228–36

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Davis KL, Marin DB, Kane R, et al. The Caregiver Activity Survey (CAS): development and validation of a new measure for caregivers of persons with Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 1997; 12: 978–88

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Werner P, Schnaider-Beeri M, Aharon J, et al. Family caregivers’ willingness to pay for drugs indicated for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease: an economic or psychological model? Dementia 2002; 1: 59–75

    Google Scholar 

  32. Sano M, Ernesto C, Thomas RG, et al. A controlled trial of selegiline, alpha-tocopherol, or both as treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. The Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 1216–22

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Whitehouse PJ, Kittner B, Roessner M, et al. Clinical trial designs for demonstrating disease-course-altering effects in dementia. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1998; 12: 281–94

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Selai C. Assessing quality of life in dementia. Med Care 2001; 39: 753–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Salek SS, Walker MD, Bayer AJ. A review of quality of life in Alzheimer’s disease (Pt 2): issues in assessing drug effects. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 14: 613–27

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Walker MD, Salek SS, Bayer AJ. A review of quality of life in Alzheimer’s disease (Pt 1): issues in assessing disease impact. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 14: 499–530

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Coucill W, Bryan S, Bentham P, et al. EQ-5D in patients with dementia: an investigation of inter-rater agreement. Med Care 2001; 39: 760–71

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Neumann PJ, Sandberg EA, Araki SS, et al. A comparison of HUI2 and HUI3 utility scores in Alzheimer’s disease. Med Decis Making 2000; 20: 413–22

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Kerner DN, Patterson TL, Grant I, et al. Validity of the quality of well-being scale for patients with Alzheimer’s disease. J Aging Health 1998; 10: 44–61

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Brod M, Stewart AL, Sands L, et al. Conceptualization and measurement of quality of life in dementia: the dementia quality of life instrument (DQoL). Gerontologist 1999; 39: 25–35

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Logsdon RG, Gibbons LE, McCurry SM, et al. Assessing quality of life in older adults with cognitive impairment. Psychosom Med 2002; 64: 510–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Selai C, Vaughan A, Harvey RJ, et al. Using the QOL-AD in the UK. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2001; 16: 537–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Elstner K, Selai CE, Trimble MR, et al. Quality of Life (QOL) of patients with Gilles de la Tourette’s syndrome. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2001; 103: 52–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Selai CE, Elstner K, Trimble MR. Quality of life pre and post epilepsy surgery. Epilepsy Res 2000; 38: 67–74

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Berg L. Clinical dementia rating (CDR). Psychopharmacol Bull 1988; 24: 637–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Reisberg B, Ferris SH, de Leon MJ, et al. Global deterioration scale (GDS). Psychopharmacol Bull 1988; 24: 661–3

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12: 189–98

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Palmer K, Fratiglioni L, Winblad B. What is mild cognitive impairment: variations in definitions and evolution of nondemented persons with cognitive impairment. Acta Neurol Scand Suppl 2003; 179: 14–20

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Fratiglioni L, Viitanen M, Backman L, et al. Occurrence of dementia in advanced age: the study design of the Kungsholmen Project. Neuroepidemiology 1992; 11Suppl. 1: 29–36

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Aguero-Torres H, Fratiglioni L, Winblad B. Natural history of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias: review of the literature in the light of the findings from the Kungsholmen Project. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 1998; 13: 755–66

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Ott BR, Lapane KL. Tacrine therapy is associated with reduced mortality in nursing home residents with dementia. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002; 50: 35–40

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Geldmacher DS, Provenzano G, McRae T, et al. Donepezil is associated with delayed nursing home placement in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. J Am Geriatr Soc 2003; 51: 937–44

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Lopez OL, Becker JT, Wisniewski S, et al. Cholinesterase inhibitor treatment alters the natural history of Alzheimer’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002; 72: 310–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Small GW, Donohue JA, Brooks RL. An economic evaluation of donepezil in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Clin Ther 1998; 20: 838–50

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Hill JW, Futterman R, Mastey V, et al. The effect of donepezil therapy on health costs in a Medicare managed care plan. Manag Care Interface 2002; 15: 63–70

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Fillit H, Gutterman EM, Lewis B. Donepezil use in managed Medicare: effect on health care costs and utilization. Clin Ther 1999; 21: 2173–85

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Winblad B, Engedal K, Soininen H, et al. A 1-year, randomized, placebo-controlled study of donepezil in patients with mild to moderate AD. Neurology 2001; 57: 489–95

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Sonnenberg FA, Leventhal EA. Modeling disease progression with Markov models. In: Wimo A, Jonsson B, Karlsson G, et al., editors. Health economics of dementia. London: John Wiley and Sons, 1998: 171–96

    Google Scholar 

  59. Fenn P, Gray A. Estimating long-term cost savings from treatment of Alzheimer’s disease: a modelling approach. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 16: 165–74

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Caro JJ, Getsios D, Migliaccio-Walle K, et al. Assessment of health economics in Alzheimer’s disease (AHEAD) based on need for full-time care. Neurology 2001; 57: 964–71

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Stern Y, Tang MX, Albert MS, et al. Predicting time to nursing home care and death in individuals with Alzheimer disease. JAMA 1997; 277: 806–12

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Hauber AB, Gnanasakthy A, Snyder EH, et al. Potential savings in the cost of caring for Alzheimer’s disease: treatment with rivastigmine. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17: 351–60

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Ernst RL, Hay JW, Fenn C, et al. Cognitive function and the costs of Alzheimer disease: an exploratory study. Arch Neurol 1997; 54: 687–93

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Hauber AB, Gnanasakthy A, Mauskopf JA. Savings in the cost of caring for patients with Alzheimer’s disease in Canada: an analysis of treatment with rivastigmine. Clin Ther 2000; 22: 439–51

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Garfield FB, Getsios D, Caro JJ, et al. Assessment of Health Economics in Alzheimer’s Disease (AHEAD): treatment with galantamine in Sweden. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20: 629–37

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Stewart A, Phillips R, Dempsey G. Pharmacotherapy for people with Alzheimer’s disease: a Markov-cycle evaluation of five years’ therapy using donepezil. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 1998; 13: 445–53

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. O’Brien BJ, Goeree R, Hux M, et al. Economic evaluation of donepezil for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease in Canada. J Am Geriatr Soc 1999; 47: 570–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Jonsson L, Lindgren P, Wimo A, et al. The cost-effectiveness of donepezil therapy in Swedish patients with Alzheimer’s disease: a Markov model. Clin Ther 1999; 21: 1230–40

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Neumann PJ, Hermann RC, Kuntz KM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of donepezil in the treatment of mild or moderate Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 1999; 52: 1138–45

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Ikeda S, Yamada Y, Ikegami N. Economic evaluation of donepezil treatment for Alzheimer’s disease in Japan. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2002; 13: 33–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Getsios D, Caro JJ, Caro G, et al. Assessment of Health Economics in Alzheimer’s Disease (AHEAD): galantamine treatment in Canada. Neurology 2001; 57: 972–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Caro JJ, Salas M, Ward A, et al. Economic analysis of galantamine, a cholinesterase inhibitor, in the treatment of patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease in The Netherlands. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2002; 14: 84–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Migliaccio-Walle K, Getsios D, Caro JJ, et al. Economic evaluation of galantamine in the treatment of mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease in the United States. Clin Ther 2003; 25: 1806–25

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Ward A, Caro JJ, Getsios D, et al. Assessment of Health Economics in Alzheimer’s Disease (AHEAD): treatment with galantamine in the UK. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2003; 18: 740–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Thompson SG, Barber JA. How should cost data in pragmatic randomised trials be analysed? BMJ 2000; 320: 1197–200

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Buxton MJ, Drummond MF, Van Hout BA, et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ 1997; 6: 217–27

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Jonsson L. Pharmacoeconomics of cholinesterase inhibitors in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Pharmacoeconomics 2003; 21: 1025–37

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Hux MJ, O’Brien BJ, Iskedjian M, et al. Relation between severity of Alzheimer’s disease and costs of caring. CMAJ 1998; 159: 457–65

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Jonsson L, Lindgren P, Wimo A, et al. Costs of mini mental state examination-related cognitive impairment. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 16: 409–16

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Schneider LS, Olin JT, Lyness SA, et al. Eligibility of Alzheimer’s disease clinic patients for clinical trials. J Am Geriatr Soc 1997; 45: 923–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Schafer JL, Grahan JW. Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychol Methods 2002; 7: 147–77

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Knopman D. Tacrine for Alzheimer’s disease: costs and benefits. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7: 275–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Ernst RL, Hay JW. Economic research on Alzheimer disease: a review of the literature. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11: 135–45

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Whitehouse P. Cholinesterase inhibitors in Alzheimer’s disease: are they worth the cost? CNS Drugs 1999; 11: 167–73

    Google Scholar 

  85. Stein K. Donepezil in the treatment of mild to moderate senile dementia of the Alzheimer type (SDAT). Southampton: Wes-sex Institute for Health Research and Development (NHS Executive South and West, Development and Evaluation Committee), 1997

    Google Scholar 

  86. Glennie J. The efficacy of tacrine and the measurement of outcomes in Alzheimer’s disease. Ottawa (ON): The Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA), 1997

    Google Scholar 

  87. Molnar FJ, Dalziel WB. The pharmacoeconomics of dementia therapies: bringing the clinical, research and economic perspectives together. Drugs Aging 1997; 10: 219–33

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Foster RH, Plosker GL. Donepezil: pharmacoeconomic implications of therapy. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 16: 99–114

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Shukla VK, Otten N, Coyle D. Drug treatments for Alzheimer’s disease (III): a review of published pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA), 2000: 37

    Google Scholar 

  90. Wolfson C, Oremus M, Shukla V, et al. Donepezil and rivastigmine in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease: a best-evidence synthesis of the published data on their efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Clin Ther 2002; 24: 862–86

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. NICE. Guidance on the use of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2001: 5–6

    Google Scholar 

  92. Grutzendler J, Morris JC. Cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer’s disease. Drugs 2001; 61: 41–52

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Lamb HM, Goa KL. Rivastigmine: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in Alzheimer’s disease. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19: 303–18

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Clegg A, Bryant J, Nicholson T, et al. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine for Alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18: 497–507

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Lyseng-Williamson KA, Plosker GL. Galantamine: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in Alzheimer’s disease. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20: 919–42

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Lyseng-Williamson KA, Plosker GL. Spotlight on galantamine in Alzheimer’s disease. Dis Manag Health Outcomes 2003; 11: 125–8

    Google Scholar 

  97. Gray A. Health economics. In: Qizilbash N, Schneider L, Chui H, et al., editors. Evidence-based dementia practice. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2002: 844–54

    Google Scholar 

  98. Olin J, Schneider L. Galantamine for Alzheimer’s disease (Cochrane Review). Available in The Cochrane Library [database on disk and CD ROM]. Updated quarterly. The Cochrane Collaboration; issue 2. Oxford: Update Software, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  99. Leung GM, Yeung RY, Chi I, et al. The economics of Alzheimer disease. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2003; 15: 34–43

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Birks JS, Harvey R. Donepezil for dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease (Cochrane review). Available in The Cochrane Library [database on disk and CD ROM]. Updated quarterly. The Cochrane Collaboration; issue 3. Oxford: Update Software, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  101. Wimo A, Jonsson B, Karlsson G, et al. The health economics of dementia. London: John Wiley & Sons, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  102. Briggs A. Economic evaluation and clinical trials: size matters. BMJ 2000; 321: 1362–3

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Olsen JA, Smith RD. Theory versus practice: a review of “willingness-to-pay” in health and health care. Health Econ 2001; 10: 39–52

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Stewart A, Brod M. Measuring health related quality of life in older and demented people. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott-Raven, 1996: 819–30

    Google Scholar 

  105. Tariot PN, Farlow MR, Grossberg GT. Memantine treatment in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer disease already receiving donepezil: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004; 291: 317–24

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Finkel S. The significance of the behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia. Clinician 1998; 16: 33–42

    Google Scholar 

  107. Murman DL, Chen Q, Powell MC, et al. The incremental direct costs associated with behavioral symptoms in AD. Neurology 2002; 59: 1721–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Beeri MS, Werner P, Davidson M, et al. The cost of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) in community dwelling Alzheimer’s disease patients. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2002; 17: 403–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Hemels ME, Lanctot KL, Iskedjian M, et al. Clinical and economic factors in the treatment of behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia. Drugs Aging 2001; 18: 527–50

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  110. Brodaty H, Clarke J, Ganguli M, et al. Screening for cognitive impairment in general practice: toward a consensus. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1998; 12: 1–13

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Wimo A, Winblad B. Pharmacoeconomics of mild cognitive impairment. Acta Neurol Scand Suppl 2003; 179: 94–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Knottnerus JA. Dementia. The Hague: Health Council of The Netherlands, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  113. Melzer D. New drug treatment for Alzheimer’s disease: lessons for healthcare policy. BMJ 1998; 316: 762–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  114. Shah A, Jenkins R. “Value for money” in treating Alzheimer’s disease with the new cholinesterase inhibitors. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract 2003; 7: 45–7

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Dr Wimo has no shares or employment in any pharmaceutical company. He has, or has been, acting as a consultant to Parke-Davis, HMR/Aventis, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen-Cilag, and Merz, Lundbeck.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Geriatric Epidemiology, Neurotec, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

    Anders Wimo

Authors
  1. Anders Wimo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anders Wimo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wimo, A. Cost Effectiveness of Cholinesterase Inhibitors in the Treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease. Drugs Aging 21, 279–295 (2004). https://doi.org/10.2165/00002512-200421050-00001

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00002512-200421050-00001

Keywords

Search

Navigation