Advertisement

Drugs & Aging

, Volume 21, Issue 9, pp 607–620 | Cite as

Cost Effectiveness of Memantine in Alzheimer’s Disease

An Analysis Based on a Probabilistic Markov Model from a UK Perspective
  • Roy W. Jones
  • Paul McCrone
  • Chantal GuilhaumeEmail author
Original Research Article

Abstract

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 ≥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 institution-alisation for moderately severe and severe Alzheimer’s disease patients on memantine compared with no pharmacological treatment.

Keywords

Memantine Base Case Analysis Dependency Level Institutionalisation Probability Severe Impairment Battery 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The funding for this project was provided by Lundbeck A/S and Merz Pharmaceuticals GmbH.

References

  1. 1.
    Knopman DS. The initial recognition and diagnosis of dementia. Am J Med 1998; 104(4A): 2–12SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Migliaccio-Walle K, Getsios D, Caro J, et al. Economic evaluation of galantamine in the treatment of mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease in the United States. Clin Ther 2003; 25(6): 1806–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reisberg B, Burns A, Brodaty H, et al. Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: report of an International Psychogeriatric Association Special Meeting Work Group under the co-sponsorship of Alzheimer’s Disease International, the European Federation of Neurological Societies, the World Health Organization and the World Psychiatric Association. Int Psychogeriatr 1997; 9Suppl. 1: 11–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mayeux R, Sano M. Treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med 1999; 341(22): 1670–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Winblad B, Poritis N. Memantine in severe dementia: results of the 9M-BEST study (benefit and efficacy in severely demented patients during treatment with memantine). Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 1999; 14: 135–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wimo A, Winblad B, Aguero-Torres H, et al. The magnitude of dementia occurrence in the world. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2003; 17(2): 63–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Potkin SG. The ABC of Alzheimer’s disease: ADL and improving day-to-day functioning of patients. Int Psychogeriatr 2002; 14Suppl. 1: 7–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grossberg GT. The ABC of Alzheimer’s disease: behavioral symptoms and their treatment. Int Psychogeriatr 2002; 14Suppl. 1: 27–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kurz X, Scuvee-Moreau J, Rive B, et al. A new approach to the qualitative evaluation of functional disability in dementia. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2003; 18(11): 1050–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bullock R, Hammond G. Realistic expectations: the management of severe Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2003; 17Suppl. 3: S80–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bloom BS, de Pouvourville N, Straus WL. Cost of illness of Alzheimer’s disease: how useful are current estimates? Gerontologist 2003; 43(2): 158–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lowin A, Knapp M, McCrone P. Alzheimer’s disease in the UK: comparative evidence on cost of illness and volume of health services research funding. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2001; 16(12): 1143–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Andersen CK, Lauridsen J, Andersen K, et al. Cost of dementia: impact of disease progression estimated in longitudinal data. Scand J Public Health 2003; 31(2): 119–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hux MJ, O’Brien BJ, Iskedjian M, et al. Relation between severity of Alzheimer’s disease and costs of caring. CMAJ 1998; 159(5): 457–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leon J, Neumann PJ. The cost of Alzheimer’s disease in managed care: a cross-sectional study. Am J Manag Care 1999 Jul; 5(7): 867–77PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Souetre EJ, Qing W, Vigoureux I, et al. Economic analysis of Alzheimer’s disease in outpatients: impact of symptom severity. Int Psychogeriatr 1995; 7(1): 15–22Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Souetre E, Thwaites RM, Yeardley HL. Economic impact of Alzheimer’s disease in the United Kingdom: cost of care and disease severity for non-institutionalised patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Br J Psychiatry 1999; 174: 51–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meek PD, McKeithan EK, Schumock GT. Economic considerations in Alzheimer’s disease. Pharmacotherapy 1998; 18 (2 Pt 2): 68–73SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Michel JP, Zekry D, Mulligan R, et al. Economic considerations of Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders. Aging (Milano) 2001; 13(3): 255–60Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Feldman H, Gauthier S, Hecker J, et al. Efficacy of donepezil on maintenance of activities of daily living in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer’s disease and the effect on caregiver burden. J Am Geriatr Soc 2003; 51(6): 737–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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(7): 445–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reisberg B, Doody R, Stoffler A, et al. Memantine in moderate-to-severe Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med 2003; 348(14): 1333–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wimo A, Winblad B, Stoffler A, et al. Resource utilisation and cost analysis of memantine in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer’s disease. Pharmacoeconomics 2003; 21(5): 327–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Folstein M, Folstein S, McHugh P. “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12(3): 189–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Galasko DR, Schmitt FA, Jin S, et al. Detailed assessment of cognition and activities of daily living in moderate to severe Alzheimer’s disease [abstract]. Neurobiol Aging 2000; 21Suppl. 1: S168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Galasko D, Bennett D, Sano M, et al. An inventory to assess activities of daily living for clinical trials in Alzheimer’s disease. The Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11Suppl. 2: S33–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Aguero-Torres H, Qiu C, Winblad B, et al. Dementing disorders in the elderly: evolution of disease severity over 7 years. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2002; 16(4): 221–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2001 Jan. Technology Appraisal Guidance No. 19Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Paton J, Johnston K, Katona C, et al. What causes problems in Alzheimer’s disease: attributions by caregivers. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2004; 19: 527–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Livingston G, Katona C, Roch B. A dependency model for patients with Alzheimer’s disease: its validation and relationship to the costs of care: the LASER-AD Study. Curr Med Res Opin 2004; 57: 1007–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kronborg Andersen C, Sogaard J, Hansen E, et al. The cost of dementia in Denmark: the Odense Study. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 1999; 10(4): 295–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wolstenholme J, Fenn P, Gray A, et al. Estimating the relationship between disease progression and cost of care in dementia. Br J Psychiatry 2002; 181: 36–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    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(4): 413–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Briggs AH, Ades AE, Price MJ. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for decision trees with multiple branches: use of the Dirichlet distribution in a Bayesian framework. Med Decis Making 2003; 23(4): 341–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rive B, Vercelletto M, Damier FD, et al. Memantine enhances autonomy in patients with moderately-severe to severe Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Geriatr Psych 2004; 19: 458–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Reisberg B, Mobius H, Stoffler A, et al. Long-term treatment with the NMDA antagonist memantine: results of a 24-week, open-label extension study in moderately severe to severe Alzheimer’s disease [abstract]. 8th International Conference on Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders; 2000 Jul 20–25; StockholmGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Netten A, Curtis L. Unit costs of health and social care 2000. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, 2000Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Incorporating health economics in guidelines and assessing resource impact. London: Guideline Development Methods: Information for National Collaborating Centres and Guideline Developers. National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2004Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Trabucchi M. An economic perspective on Alzheimer’s disease. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 1999; 12(1): 29–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Small GW, McDonnell DD, Brooks RL, et al. The impact of symptom severity on the cost of Alzheimer’s disease. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002; 50(2): 321–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gauthier S, Bodick N, Erzigkeit E, et al. Activities of daily living as an outcome measure in clinical trials of dementia drugs. Position paper from the International Working Group on Harmonization of Dementia Drug Guidelines. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11Suppl. 3: 6–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Neumann PJ, Araki SS, Arcelus A, et al. Measuring Alzheimer’s disease progression with transition probabilities: estimates from CERAD. Neurology 2001; 57(6): 957–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines of economic evaluation of Pharmaceuticals: methods and guidelines. Ottawa (ON): CCOHTA, 1997Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    McGregor M. Cost-utility analysis: use QALYs only with great caution. CMAJ 2003; 168(4): 433–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    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(8): 740–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Getsios D, Caro JJ, Caro G, et al. Assessment of health economics in Alzheimer’s disease (AHEAD): galantamine treatment in Canada. Neurology 2001; 57(6): 972–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    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(6): 1138–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roy W. Jones
    • 1
  • Paul McCrone
    • 2
  • Chantal Guilhaume
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.The Research Institute for the Care of the ElderlySt Martin’s HospitalBathUK
  2. 2.Health Services Research DepartmentInstitute of PsychiatryLondonUK
  3. 3.Lundbeck SAParisFrance

Personalised recommendations