Skip to main content

Contextual Considerations and Recommendations for Estimating the Value of Alzheimer’s Disease Therapies

A Correction to this article was published on 25 January 2022

This article has been updated

Abstract

The pipeline for new treatments for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in the USA contains over 100 different agents, 80% of which can be categorized as disease-modifying therapies. The regulatory approval of the disease-modifying agent aducanumab has brought more attention to the complexity of the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of AD and the difficult decisions payers and policy makers will face over the next few years as innovation continues in this space. The value of AD treatment can vary widely according to the perspective of the analysis, sources of data, and methodological approach for the value assessment. This article focuses on AD-specific data gaps and measurement challenges and provides guidance for evidence generation to facilitate better value assessments for future AD treatments.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Change history

References

  1. Cummings J, Lee G, Ritter A, Sabbagh M, Zhong K. Alzheimer’s disease drug development pipeline: 2020. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2020;6:e12050.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lin PJ, Cohen JT, Neumann PJ. Preparing the health-care system to pay for new Alzheimer’s drugs. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2020;16:1568–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rainville C, Skufca L, Mehegan L. Family caregiving and out-of-pocket costs: 2016 report [Internet]. Washington, DC: AARP; 2016. https://doi.org/10.26419/res.00138.001.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Kasper JD, Freedman VA, Spillman BC, Wolff JL. The disproportionate impact of dementia on family and unpaid caregiving to older adults. Health Aff. 2015;34:1642–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Costa N, Derumeaux H, Rapp T, Garnault V, Ferlicoq L, Gillette S, et al. Methodological considerations in cost of illness studies on Alzheimer disease. Health Econ Rev. 2012;2:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mauskopf J, Mucha L. A review of the methods used to estimate the cost of Alzheimer’s disease in the United States. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Dement. 2011;26:298–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jönsson L, Lin PJ, Khachaturian AS. Special topic section on health economics and public policy of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2017;13:201–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. El-Hayek YH, Wiley RE, Khoury CP, Daya RP, Ballard C, Evans AR, et al. Tip of the Iceberg: assessing the global socioeconomic costs of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias and strategic implications for stakeholders. J Alzheimer’s Dis. 2019;70:321–39.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, Brock DW, Feeny D, Krahn M, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses. J Am Med Assoc. 2016;316:1093–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Trenaman L, Pearson SD, Hoch JS. How are incremental cost-effectiveness, contextual considerations, and other benefits viewed in health technology assessment recommendations in the United States? Value Health. 2020;23:576–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Neumann PJ, Silver MC, Cohen JT. Should a drug’s value depend on the disease or population it treats? Insights from ICER’s value assessments [Internet]. Health Aff Blog. 2018 [cited 2021 Apr 3]. Available from: https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20181105.38350/full/.

  12. Mcqueen RB, Slejko JF. Toward modified impact inventory tables to facilitate patient-centered value assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021;39:379–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. dosReis S, Butler B, Caicedo J, Kennedy A, Hong YD, Zhang C, et al. Stakeholder-engaged derivation of patient-informed value elements. Patient. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00433-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Slejko JF, Mattingly TJ II, Mullins CD, Perfetto EM, DosReis S. Future of patients in healthcare evaluation: the patient-informed reference case. Value Health. 2019;22:545–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Andersen K, Lolk A, Martinussen T, Kragh-Sørensen P. Very mild to severe dementia and mortality: a 14-year follow-up—the Odense study. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2010;29:61–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Larson EB, Shadlen MF, Wang L, McCormick WC, Bowen JD, Teri L, et al. Survival after initial diagnosis of Alzheimer disease. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:501–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lin PJ, D’Cruz B, Leech AA, Neumann PJ, Sanon Aigbogun M, Oberdhan D, et al. Family and caregiver spillover effects in cost-utility analyses of Alzheimer’s disease interventions. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37:597–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-019-00788-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Neumann PJ, Kuntz KM, Leon J, Araki SS, Richard C, Hsu M, Weinstein MC. Health utilities in Alzheimer’s disease: a cross-sectional study of patients and caregivers. Med Care. 1999;37:27–32.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Beard RL, Fetterman DJ, Wu B, Bryant L. The two voices of alzheimer’s: attitudes toward brain health by diagnosed individuals and support persons. Gerontologist. 2009;49:S40–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Majoni M, Oremus M. Does being a retired or employed caregiver affect the association between behaviours in Alzheimer’s disease and caregivers’ health-related quality-of-life? BMC Res Notes. 2017;10:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Deb A, Thornton JD, Sambamoorthi U, Innes K. Direct and indirect cost of managing Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias in the United States. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2017;17:189–202.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. van Dyck CH. Anti-amyloid-β monoclonal antibodies for Alzheimer’s disease: pitfalls and promise. Biol Psychiatry. 2018;83:311–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Biogen. Aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. In: Food Drug Adm. Peripher. Cent. Nerv. Syst. Drugs Advis. Comm. 2020.

  24. Basu A. Estimating costs and valuations of non-health benefits in cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Neumann PJ, Sanders GD, Russell LB, Siegel JE, Ganiats TG, editors. Cost-effectiveness heal. med. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 201–35.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rice DP, Fox PJ, Max W, Webber PA, Lindeman DA, Hauck WW, et al. The economic burden of Alzheimer’s disease care. Health Aff. 1993;12:164–76.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gandy S. 6 ways the FDA’s approval of Aduhelm does more harm than good [Internet]. Stat. 2021 [cited 2021 Jul 25]. Available from: https://www.statnews.com/2021/06/15/6-ways-fda-approval-aduhelm-does-more-harm-than-good/?utm_source=STAT+Newsletters&utm_campaign=968f7ea0c1-Daily_Recap&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8cab1d7961-968f7ea0c1-153352634.

  27. Nicholas LH, Langa KM, Bynum JPW, Hsu JW. Financial presentation of Alzheimer disease and related dementias. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181:220–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kokorelias KM, Gignac MAM, Naglie G, Rittenberg N, MacKenzie J, D’Souza S, et al. A grounded theory study to identify caregiving phases and support needs across the Alzheimer’s disease trajectory. Disabil Rehabil. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2020.1788655.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fitzpatrick T, Perrier L, Shakik S, Cairncross Z, Tricco AC, Lix L, et al. Assessment of long-term follow-up of randomized trial participants by linkage to routinely collected data: a scoping review and analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1:e186019.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Rajamaki B, Hartikainen S, Tolppanen AM. The effect of comorbidities on survival in persons with Alzheimer’s disease: a matched cohort study. BMC Geriatr. 2021;21:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull. 2010;96:5–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wolff JL, Mulcahy J, Roth DL, Cenzer IS, Kasper JD, Huang J, et al. Long-term nursing home entry: a prognostic model for older adults with a family or unpaid caregiver. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018;66:1887–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Makin S. The amyloid hypothesis on trial. Nature. 2018;559:S4-7.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ackley SF, Zimmerman SC, Brenowitz WD, Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Gold AL, Manly JJ, et al. Effect of reductions in amyloid levels on cognitive change in randomized trials: instrumental variable meta-analysis. BMJ. 2021;372:n156.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Bognar K, Romley JA, Bae JP, Murray J, Chou JW, Lakdawalla DN. The role of imperfect surrogate endpoint information in drug approval and reimbursement decisions. J Health Econ. 2017;51:1–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Garrison LP, Neumann PJ, Erickson P, Marshall D, Mullins CD. Using real-world data for coverage and payment decisions: the ISPOR real-world data Task Force report. Value Health. 2007;10:326–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sullivan P, Goldmann D. The promise of comparative effectiveness research. JAMA. 2011;305:400–1.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Roberts M, Russell LB, Paltiel AD, Chambers M, McEwan P, Krahn M. Conceptualizing a model: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-2. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32:678–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Green C, Handels R, Gustavsson A, Wimo A, Winblad B, Sköldunger A, et al. Assessing cost-effectiveness of early intervention in Alzheimer’s disease: an open-source modeling framework. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2019;15:1309–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. IPECAD: International Pharmaco-Economic Collaboration on Alzheimer’s Disease [Internet]. 2021. Available from: http://www.ipecad.org.

  41. Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, Tsevat J, McDonald KM, Wong JB. Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices Task Force-7. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32:733–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Patient-Centred Outcomes Research Institute. Principles for the consideration of the full range of outcomes data in PCORI-funded research [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.pcori.org/research-results/about-our-research/principlesconsideration-full-range-outcomes-data-pcori-funded-research

  43. Garrison LP, Pauly MV, Willke RJ, Neumann PJ. An overview of value, perspective, and decision context—a health economics approach: an ISPOR special Task Force report [2]. Value Health. 2018;21:124–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Mattingly TJ II, Slejko JF, Perfetto EM, Kottilil S, Mullins CD. What matters most for treatment decisions in hepatitis C: effectiveness, costs, and altruism. Patient. 2019;12:631–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Mattingly II TJ, Slejko JF, Onukwugha E, Perfetto EM, Kottilil S, Mullins CD. Value in hepatitis C virus treatment: a patient-centered cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38:233–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Brazier JE, Dixon S, Ratcliffe J. The role of patient preferences in cost-effectiveness analysis: a conflict of values? Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27:705–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Musiek ES, Morris JC. Possible consequences of the approval of a disease-modifying therapy for Alzheimer disease. J Am Med Assoc. 2021;78:141–2.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Liu JL, Hlavka JP, Hillestad R, Mattke S. Assessing the preparedness of the US health care system infrastructure for an Alzheimer’s treatment. RAND; 2017.

  49. Oremus M. Systematic review of economic evaluations of Alzheimer’s disease medications. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008;8:273–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. DaDalt O, Coughlin JF. Managing financial well-being in the shadow of Alzheimer’s disease. Public Policy Aging Rep. 2016;26:36–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Joseph Mattingly II.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This work was funded by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).

Conflict of interest

TJM receives consulting fees from Johns Hopkins University, the National Health Council, and the National Eczema Association for work unrelated to this manuscript. RBM and PJL have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Availability of data and material

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Consent

Not applicable.

Author contributions

TJM, RBM, and PJL all contributed to drafting, review, and final approval of the manuscript.

Additional information

The original Online version of this article was revised: The Funding note was incorrectly published in the original version.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mattingly, T.J., McQueen, R.B. & Lin, PJ. Contextual Considerations and Recommendations for Estimating the Value of Alzheimer’s Disease Therapies. PharmacoEconomics 39, 1101–1107 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-021-01079-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-021-01079-6