Drugs & Aging

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 279–295 | Cite as

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

A Review with Methodological Considerations
Current Opinion

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.

Notes

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Wimo A, Winblad B, Aguero Torres H, et al. The magnitude of dementia occurrence in the world. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2003; 17: 63–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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: 338–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    OECD. Policy issues in dementia care in OECD countries. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2002Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    WHO. World health report, 1999. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1999Google Scholar
  5. 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: 1169–78PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Knopman DS. Current pharmacotherapies for Alzheimer’s disease. Geriatrics 1998; 53Suppl. 1: S31–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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: 166–77PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lubeck DP, Mazonson PD, Bowe T. Potential effect of tacrine on expenditures for Alzheimer’s disease. Med Interface 1994; 7: 130–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Henke CJ, Burchmore MJ. The economic impact of the tacrine in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Clin Ther 1997; 19: 330–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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: 191–200PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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: 335–63Google Scholar
  12. 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: 266–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jonsson L, Jonsson B, Wimo A, et al. Second International Pharmacoeconomic Conference on Alzheimer’s Disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2000; 14: 137–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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: 159–68PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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: 1105–21Google Scholar
  16. 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: 465–99Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wimo A, Winblad B. Resource utilisation in dementia: RUD Lite. Brain Aging 2003; 3: 48–59Google Scholar
  18. 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: 327–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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: 44–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997Google Scholar
  21. 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: 39–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Freund DA, Dittus RS. Principles of pharmacoeconomic analysis of drug therapy. Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 1: 20–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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: 21–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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: 255–68PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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: 400–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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: S219–28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 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: 770–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Max W. The cost of Alzheimer’s disease: will drug treatment ease the burden? Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 9: 5–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Clipp EC, Moore MJ. Caregiver time use: an outcome measure in clinical trial research on Alzheimer’s disease. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995; 58: 228–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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: 978–88PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 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: 59–75Google Scholar
  32. 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: 1216–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 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: 281–94PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Selai C. Assessing quality of life in dementia. Med Care 2001; 39: 753–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 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: 613–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 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: 499–530PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 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: 760–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 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: 413–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 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: 44–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 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: 25–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Logsdon RG, Gibbons LE, McCurry SM, et al. Assessing quality of life in older adults with cognitive impairment. Psychosom Med 2002; 64: 510–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Selai C, Vaughan A, Harvey RJ, et al. Using the QOL-AD in the UK. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2001; 16: 537–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 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: 52–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Selai CE, Elstner K, Trimble MR. Quality of life pre and post epilepsy surgery. Epilepsy Res 2000; 38: 67–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Berg L. Clinical dementia rating (CDR). Psychopharmacol Bull 1988; 24: 637–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Reisberg B, Ferris SH, de Leon MJ, et al. Global deterioration scale (GDS). Psychopharmacol Bull 1988; 24: 661–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 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: 189–98PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 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: 14–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 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: 29–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 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: 755–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ott BR, Lapane KL. Tacrine therapy is associated with reduced mortality in nursing home residents with dementia. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002; 50: 35–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 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: 937–44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 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: 310–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Small GW, Donohue JA, Brooks RL. An economic evaluation of donepezil in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Clin Ther 1998; 20: 838–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 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: 63–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Fillit H, Gutterman EM, Lewis B. Donepezil use in managed Medicare: effect on health care costs and utilization. Clin Ther 1999; 21: 2173–85PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 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: 489–95PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 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: 171–96Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Fenn P, Gray A. Estimating long-term cost savings from treatment of Alzheimer’s disease: a modelling approach. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 16: 165–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 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: 964–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 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: 806–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 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: 351–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Ernst RL, Hay JW, Fenn C, et al. Cognitive function and the costs of Alzheimer disease: an exploratory study. Arch Neurol 1997; 54: 687–93PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 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: 439–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 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: 629–37PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 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: 445–53PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 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: 570–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 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: 1230–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 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: 1138–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Ikeda S, Yamada Y, Ikegami N. Economic evaluation of donepezil treatment for Alzheimer’s disease in Japan. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2002; 13: 33–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 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: 972–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 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: 84–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 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: 1806–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 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: 740–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Thompson SG, Barber JA. How should cost data in pragmatic randomised trials be analysed? BMJ 2000; 320: 1197–200PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Buxton MJ, Drummond MF, Van Hout BA, et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ 1997; 6: 217–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Jonsson L. Pharmacoeconomics of cholinesterase inhibitors in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Pharmacoeconomics 2003; 21: 1025–37PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Hux MJ, O’Brien BJ, Iskedjian M, et al. Relation between severity of Alzheimer’s disease and costs of caring. CMAJ 1998; 159: 457–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Jonsson L, Lindgren P, Wimo A, et al. Costs of mini mental state examination-related cognitive impairment. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 16: 409–16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 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: 923–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Schafer JL, Grahan JW. Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychol Methods 2002; 7: 147–77PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Knopman D. Tacrine for Alzheimer’s disease: costs and benefits. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7: 275–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Ernst RL, Hay JW. Economic research on Alzheimer disease: a review of the literature. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11: 135–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Whitehouse P. Cholinesterase inhibitors in Alzheimer’s disease: are they worth the cost? CNS Drugs 1999; 11: 167–73Google Scholar
  85. 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), 1997Google Scholar
  86. 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), 1997Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Molnar FJ, Dalziel WB. The pharmacoeconomics of dementia therapies: bringing the clinical, research and economic perspectives together. Drugs Aging 1997; 10: 219–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Foster RH, Plosker GL. Donepezil: pharmacoeconomic implications of therapy. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 16: 99–114PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 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: 37Google Scholar
  90. 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: 862–86PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 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: 5–6Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Grutzendler J, Morris JC. Cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer’s disease. Drugs 2001; 61: 41–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Lamb HM, Goa KL. Rivastigmine: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in Alzheimer’s disease. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19: 303–18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 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: 497–507PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Lyseng-Williamson KA, Plosker GL. Galantamine: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in Alzheimer’s disease. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20: 919–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Lyseng-Williamson KA, Plosker GL. Spotlight on galantamine in Alzheimer’s disease. Dis Manag Health Outcomes 2003; 11: 125–8Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Gray A. Health economics. In: Qizilbash N, Schneider L, Chui H, et al., editors. Evidence-based dementia practice. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2002: 844–54Google Scholar
  98. 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, 2003Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Leung GM, Yeung RY, Chi I, et al. The economics of Alzheimer disease. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2003; 15: 34–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 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, 2003Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Wimo A, Jonsson B, Karlsson G, et al. The health economics of dementia. London: John Wiley & Sons, 1998Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Briggs A. Economic evaluation and clinical trials: size matters. BMJ 2000; 321: 1362–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Olsen JA, Smith RD. Theory versus practice: a review of “willingness-to-pay” in health and health care. Health Econ 2001; 10: 39–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 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: 819–30Google Scholar
  105. 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: 317–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Finkel S. The significance of the behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia. Clinician 1998; 16: 33–42Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Murman DL, Chen Q, Powell MC, et al. The incremental direct costs associated with behavioral symptoms in AD. Neurology 2002; 59: 1721–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 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: 403–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 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: 527–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 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: 1–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Wimo A, Winblad B. Pharmacoeconomics of mild cognitive impairment. Acta Neurol Scand Suppl 2003; 179: 94–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Knottnerus JA. Dementia. The Hague: Health Council of The Netherlands, 2002Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Melzer D. New drug treatment for Alzheimer’s disease: lessons for healthcare policy. BMJ 1998; 316: 762–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 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: 45–7Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Geriatric Epidemiology, NeurotecKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations