Potential cost-effectiveness of a family-based program in mild Alzheimer’s disease patients
- 284 Downloads
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a chronic and progressive neurodegenerative disease characterized by a progressive deterioration in cognitive functions. AD will have a major impact on public health in the coming decades. The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential cost-effectiveness of a cognitive-behavioral family intervention (CBFI) program in patients with mild Alzheimer’s disease in Finland. A second-order Monte Carlo technique was used to simulate the effectiveness of the intervention in AD patients and their informal caregivers over the course of 5 years. A Bayesian approach was applied to answer the question: how likely is it that the CBFI program is cost-effective? Based on existing information, the incremental net health benefit of the CBFI program is positive with over 0.9 probability, which indicates that the CBFI program has the highest probability of being optimal by providing greater net benefits than current practice. Furthermore, changes in the health-related quality of life of the caregivers were insensitive to AD patients’ disease stage and settings of care. From the methodological point of view, the acceptability curve with a Bayesian approach provides a flexible way to characterize uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness parameters.
KeywordsAlzheimer’s disease Family intervention Cost-effectiveness
The authors thank the participants of Nordic Conference of Health Economists in Helsinki, Finland, August 2002 for their comments and encouragement and J. Joensuu, M.Sc, and Mrs. L. Silvasti for research assistance. Financial support from the Yrjö Jahnsson Foundation is gratefully acknowledged. Furthermore, the authors are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
- 9.Braak H, Braak E (1991) Neuropathological stageing of Alzheimer-related changes. Acta Neuropathol (Berl) 82:239–259Google Scholar
- 10.Jost BC, Grossberg GT (1995) The natural history of Alzheimer’s disease: a brain bank study. J Am Geriatr Soc 43:1248–1255Google Scholar
- 13.Eloniemi-Sulkava U, Notkola I-L, Hentinen M, Kivelä S-L, Sivenius J, Sulkava R (2001) Effects of supporting community-living demented patients and their caregivers: a randomized trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 49:1282–1287Google Scholar
- 18.Morris JC (1993) The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): current version and scoring rules. Neurology 43:2412–2414Google Scholar
- 20.Neumann PJ, Hermann RC, Weinstein MC (1998) Measuring QALYs in dementia. In: Wimo A, Jonsson B, Karlsson, Winblad B. (eds) Health economics in dementia. Wiley: Sussex, p 359–370Google Scholar
- 21.Dunkin JJ, Anderson-Hanley C (1998) Dementia caregiver burden: a review of the literature and guidelines for assessment and intervention. Neurology 51:S53–S63Google Scholar
- 23.Heikkinen K, Hujanen T, Rusama H (2001) Terveydenhuollon yksikkökustannukset Suomessa vuonna 2000. Aiheita 23. National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and HealthGoogle Scholar
- 29.Glick HA, Briggs AH, Polsky D (2001) Quantifying stochastic uncertainty and presenting results of cost-effectiveness analyses. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 1:25–36Google Scholar
- 30.Stinnett AA, Mullahy J (1998) Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 18 [Suppl]:S68–S80Google Scholar
- 34.Birks J, Grimley Evans J, Iakovidou V, Tsolaki M (2001) Rivastigmine for Alzheimer’s disease (Cochrane review). Cochrane Library 4Google Scholar
- 36.Olin J, Schneider L (2002) Galantamine for Alzheimer’s disease (Cochrane review). Cochrane Library, 1Google Scholar