Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Resource Utilisation and Cost Analysis of Memantine in Patients with Moderate to Severe Alzheimer’s Disease

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a devastating illness that causes enormous emotional stress to affected families and is associated with substantial medical and nonmedical costs.

Objective: To determine the effects of 28 weeks of memantine treatment for patients with AD on resource utilisation and costs.

Study design and methods: Multicentre, prospective, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial performed in the US. The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to examine the resource utilisation variables and logistic regression models were used for multivariate resource utilisation analyses. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models (log and non-log) were computed to examine costs from a societal perspective. All costs were calculated in 1999 US dollars.

Study population: Outpatients with moderate to severe AD. Overall, 252 patients received randomised treatment, and 166 patients (placebo n = 76, memantine n = 90) formed the treated-per-protocol (TPP) subset for the health economic analyses, on which the main cost analysis was based.

Main outcome measure: Resource Utilisation in Dementia (RUD) scale, measuring patient and caregiver resource utilisation, and various sources for cost calculations.

Results: Controlling for baseline differences between the groups, significantly less caregiver time was needed for patients receiving memantine than for those receiving placebo (difference 51.5 hours per month; 95% CI −95.27, −7.17; p = 0.02). Analysis of residential status also favoured memantine: time to institutionalisation (p = 0.052) and institutionalisation at week 28 (p = 0.04 with the chi-square test). Total costs from a societal perspective were lower in the memantine group (difference $US1089.74/month [non-overlapping 95% CI for treatment difference −1954.90, −224.58]; p = 0.01). The main differences between the groups were total caregiver costs ($US-823.77/month; p = 0.03) and direct nonmedical costs ($US-430.84/month; p = 0.07) favouring memantine treatment. Patient direct medical costs were higher in the memantine group (p < 0.01), mainly due to the cost of memantine.

Conclusion: Resource utilisation and total health costs were lower in the memantine group than the placebo group. The results suggest that memantine treatment of patients with moderate to severe AD is cost saving from a societal perspective.

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
Fig. 1
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Table V

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Winblad B. Socio-economic perspectives of dementia and cost-effectiveness of treatments. 7th International Geneva/Springfield Symposium on Advances in Alzheimer Therapy; 2002 Apr 3–6; Geneva

  2. 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 & Sons, 2000: 335–63

    Google Scholar 

  3. Grafstrom M, Winblad B. Family burden in the care of the demented and nondemented elderly: a longitudinal study. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1995; 9 (2): 78–86

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Max W, Webber P, Fox P. Alzheimer’s disease: the unpaid burden of caring. J Aging Health 1995; 7 (2): 179–99

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rice DP, Fox PJ, Max W, et al. The economic burden of Alzheimer’s disease care. Health Aff (Millwood) 1993; 12 (2): 164–76

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Stommel M, Collins CE, Given B. The costs of family contribution to the care of persons with dementia. Gerontologist 1994; 34: 199–205

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Palmer AM, Gershon S. Is the neuronal basis of Alzheimer’s disease cholinergic or glutamergic? FASEB J 1990; 4: 2745–52

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Winblad B, Wimo A, Möbius HJ, et al. Severe dementia: a common condition entailing high costs at individual and societal levels. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 1999; 14 (11): 911–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 (11): 755–66

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wimo A, Winblad B. Health economic aspects of Alzheimer’s disease and its treatment. Psychogeriatrics 2001; 3: 189–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Barnes CA, Danysz W, Parsons CG. Effects of the uncompetitive NMDA receptor antagonist memantine on hippocampal long-term potentiation, short-term exploratory modulation and spatial memory in awake, freely moving rats. Eur J Neurosci 1996; 8: 565–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Müller WE, Mutschler E, Riederer P. Noncompetitive NMDA receptor antagonists with fast open-channel blocking kinetics and strong voltage-dependency as potential therapeutic agents for Alzheimer’s dementia. Pharmacopsychiatry 1995; 28 (4): 113–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Danysz W, Parsons CG, Möbius HJ, et al. Neuroprotection and symptomatological action of memantine relevant for Alzheimer’s disease: an unified hypothesis on the mechanism of action. Neurotox Res 2000; 2 (2–3): 85–98

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Parsons CG, Danysz W, Quack G. Memantine is a clinically well tolerated NMDA receptor antagonist: a review of preclinical data. Neuropharmacology 1999; 38 (6): 735–67

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Winblad B, Poritis N. Memantine in severe dementia, results of the M-BEST study. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 1999; 14 (2): 135–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Reisberg B, Windscheif U, Ferris SH, et al. Memantine in moderately severe to severe Alzheimer’s disease (AD): results of a placebo-controlled 6-month trial. Neurobiol Aging 2000; 21 (1S): S275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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, Jönsson B, Karlsson G, editors. The health economics of dementia. London: John Wiley & Sons, 1988: 465–99

    Google Scholar 

  18. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  19. McKhann G, Drachman D, Folstein M, et al. Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: report of the NINCDS-ADRDA Work Group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on Alzheimer’s Disease. Neurology 1984; 34: 939–44

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Reisberg B, Ferris SH, de Leon MJ, et al. The Global Deterioration Scale for assessment of primary degenerative dementia. Am J Psychiatry 1982; 139: 1136–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Sclan SG, Reisberg B. Functional assessment staging (FAST) in Alzheimer’s disease: reliability, validity, and ordinality. Int Psychogeriatr 1992; 4 Suppl. 1: 55–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Galasko D, Bennett D, Sano M, et al. An inventory to assess activities of daily living for clinical trials in Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11 (2): 33–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Schmitt FA, Ashford W, Ernesto C, et al. The severe impairment battery: concurrent validity and the assessment of longitudinal change in Alzheimer’s disease. The Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study. Alzheimers Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11 (2): 51–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Reisberg B, Schneider L, Doody R, et al. Clinical global measures of dementia: position paper from the International Working Group on Harmonization of Dementia Drug Guidelines. Alzheimers Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11 Suppl. 3: 8–18

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gutterman EM, Markowitz JS, Lewis B, et al. Cost of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia in managed-medicare. J Am Geriatr Soc 1999; 47: 1065–71

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Ernst RL, Hay JW. The US economic and social costs of Alzheimer’s disease revisited. Am J Public Health 1994; 8: 1261–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Weinberger M, Gold DT, Divine GW, et al. Expenditures in caring for patients with dementia who live at home. Am J Public Health 1993; 83: 338–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Red book, 1999 edition. Montvale (NJ): Medical Economics Company/Thompson Medical Economics, 1999

  31. Leon J, Moyer D. Potential cost savings in residential care for Alzheimer’s disease patients. Gerontologist 1999; 39 (4): 440–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Wimo A, Winblad B, Mastey V, et al. Donepezil reduces total healthcare and societal costs in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease: results of a one-year, double-blind randomized trial [abstract]. Eur J Neurol 2000; 7 (3): 25

    Google Scholar 

  33. Max W. The cost of Alzheimer’s disease: will drug treatment ease the burden? Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 9 (1): 5–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. 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 (5): 338–47

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Feldman H, Gauthier S, Hecker J, et al. A 24-week, randomized, double-blind study of donepezil in moderate to severe Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 2001; 57 (4): 613–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP). Points to consider on missing data. (CPMP/EWP/1776/99 draft). London, 2001 Jan. London: The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medical Products (EMEA), 2001

    Google Scholar 

  37. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  39. Jönsson L. Guidelines for cost-effectiveness analysis of antidementia drugs: the role of models. Oral presentation, 3rd International Pharmacoeconomical Conference on Alzheimer’s Disease; 2002 Jul 19–20; Stockholm

Download references

Acknowledgements

Anders Wimo and Bengt Winblad have been acting as consultants to most pharmaceutical companies who have developed antidementia drugs (e.g. Parke-Davis, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen-Cilag, Aventis, Merz). They have no employment, stocks or research grants from these companies.

H.J. Möbius, A. Stöffler and Y. Wirth are employees of Merz Pharmaceuticals.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Geriatric Epidemiology (Sector of Health Economy), Neurotec, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge, Sweden

    Anders Wimo

  2. Division of Geriatric Epidemiology, Neurotec, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge, Sweden

    Bengt Winblad

  3. Merz Pharmaceuticals GmbH, Frankfurt/Main, Germany

    Albrecht Stöffler, Yvonne Wirth & Hans-Jörg Möbius

Authors
  1. Anders Wimo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bengt Winblad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Albrecht Stöffler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yvonne Wirth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hans-Jörg Möbius
    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., Winblad, B., Stöffler, A. et al. Resource Utilisation and Cost Analysis of Memantine in Patients with Moderate to Severe Alzheimer’s Disease. Pharmacoeconomics 21, 327–340 (2003). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200321050-00004

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200321050-00004

Keywords

Search

Navigation