Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modelling the cost effectiveness of cholinesterase inhibitors in the management of mild to moderately severe Alzheimer’s disease

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

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the cost effectiveness (from the UK NHS and personal social services perspective) of the cholinesterase inhibitors donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine compared with usual care in the treatment of mild to moderately severe Alzheimer’s disease. Patients had a mean age of 74 years, a mean disease duration of 1 year and a mean Alzheimer’s disease assessment scale-cognitive subscale score of 24.

Methods: A pharmacoeconomic model was used to predict long-term outcomes over a 5-year time horizon and to estimate the cost effectiveness of cholinesterase inhibitors for the management of Alzheimer’s disease. The model structure is informed by a systematic review of the literature on the clinical and cost effectiveness of cholinesterase inhibitors and a review of the literature on the costs and outcomes associated with treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. The main outcome measure used was the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. All healthcare costs (excluding cholinesterase inhibitor costs) were indexed to £ (2003 values). Drug costs are 2005 values. Multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis were undertaken to assess uncertainty in the results.

Results: The clinical benefits on cognition from treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors resulted in an incremental cost per QALY gained ranging from £53 780 to £74 735, over 5 years (vs usual care). Uncertainty analysis suggests that the probability of any of these treatments having an incremental cost per QALY of <£30 000 is <21%. The key determinants of cost effectiveness were the effectiveness of treatment, the mean treatment cost and the cost savings associated with an expected delay in disease progression.

Conclusions: Results presented in this paper suggest that the use of cholinesterase inhibitors may not be a cost-effective use of NHS resources. Guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Effectiveness (NICE) in the UK on their judgements surrounding the acceptability of technologies as an effective use of resources, indicates there would need to be special reasons for accepting cholinesterase inhibitors as a cost-effective use of NHS resources.

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

Fig. 1
Table I
Table II
Table III
Fig. 2
Table IV

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. ADAS-cog measures orientation, memory, language and praxis on a scale of 0–70, with higher scores indicating greater impairment.

  2. MMSE includes 11 questions on orientation, memory, concentration, language and praxis, and uses a scale of 0–30, with a higher score indicating less impairment.

References

  1. AD2000 Collaborative Group. Long-term donepezil treatment in 565 patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD2000): randomised double-blind trial. Lancet 2004; 363: 2105–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 (1): 44–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 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): 740–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 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 (6): 1806–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 (9): 629–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Getsios D, Caro JJ, Caro G, et al. Assessment of Health Economics in Alzheimer’s Disease (AHEAD): galantamine treatment in Canada. AHEAD Study Group. Neurology 2001; 57 (6): 972–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ikeda S, Yamada Y, Ikegami N. Economic evaluation of donepezil treatment for Alzheimer’s disease in Japan. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2002; 13 (1): 33–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 (4): 439–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 (7): 1230–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 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): 1138–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 (5): 570–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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): 445–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 Cognit Disord 2002; 14 (2): 84–9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 (4): 351–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Technology Appraisal Guidance (No. 19). London: NICE, 2001 [online] Available from URL: http:// www.nice.org.uk/pdf/ALZHEIMER full-guidance.pdf [Accessed 2005 Nov 25]

  16. Loveman E, Green C, Kirby J, et al. The clinical and cost effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine, and memantine for Alzheimer’s disease. Health Technol Assess. In press 2005 December; 19 (9) in press

  17. Bowie P, Branton T, Holmes J. Should the Mini Mental State Examination be used to monitor dementia treatments? Lancet 1999; 354 (9189): 1527–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Davey RJ, Jamieson S. The validity of using the mini mental state examination in NICE dementia guidelines. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2004; 75 (2): 343–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Tombaugh TN, Mcintyre NJ. The mini-mental-state-examination: a comprehensive review. J Am Geriatr Soc 1992; 40 (9): 922–35

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Neumann PJ, Araki SS, Arcelus A, et al. Measuring Alzheimer’s disease progression with transition probabilities: estimates from CERAD. Neurology 2001; 57 (6): 957–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Mendiondo MS, Ashford JW, Kryscio RJ, et al. Modelling mini mental state examination changes in Alzheimer’s disease. Stat Med 2000; 19 (11-12): 1607–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 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 (6): 964–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Stern Y, Tang MX, Albert MS, et al. Predicting time to nursing home care and death in individuals with Alzheimer disease. JAMA 1997; 277 (10): 806–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Martin DC, Miller JK, Kapoor W, et al. A controlled study of survival with dementia. Arch Neurol 1987; 44 (11): 1122–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Burns A, Forstl H. The Institute of Psychiatry Alzheimer’s disease cohort: part I. Clinical observations. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 1996; 11: 309–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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: 36–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Dodge HH, Shen C, Pandav R, et al. Functional transitions and active life expectancy associated with Alzheimer disease. Arch Neurol 2003; 60 (2): 253–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Alzheimer’s Society. Appraisal of drugs for Alzheimer’s disease: submission to NICE. London: 2004

  29. Wilkinson D, Stave C, Keohane D, et al. The role of general practitioners in the diagnosis and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease: a multinational survey. J Int Med Res 2004; 32 (2): 149–59

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Netten A, Curtis L. Unit costs of health and social care 2003. Canterbury (UK): University of Kent, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  31. British National Formulary. 49 (March). London: British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, 2005

  32. Kavanagh S, Knapp M. Costs and cognitive disability: modelling the underlying associations. Br J Psychiatry 2002; 180: 120–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Netten A, Darton R, Bebbington A, et al. Residential and nursing home care of elderly people with cognitive impairment: prevalence, mortality and costs. Aging Ment Health 2001; 5 (1): 14–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Martin J, Meltzer H, Elliot D. The prevalence of disability among adults: OPCS surveys of disability in Great Britain. Report 1. London: HMSO, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  35. Burns A, Rossor M, Hecker J, et al. The effects of donepezil in Alzheimer’s disease: results from a multinational trial. Dementia Geriatr Cogn Disord 1999; 10 (3): 237–44

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Gauthier S, Feldman H, Hecker J, et al. Functional, cognitive and behavioral effects of donepezil in patients with moderate Alzheimer’s disease. Curr Med Res Opin 2002; 18 (6): 347–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Greenberg SM, Tennis MK, Brown LB, et al. Donepezil therapy in clinical practice: a randomized crossover study. Arch Neurol 2000; 57: 94–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Holmes C, Wilkinson D, Dean C, et al. The efficacy of donepezil in the treatment of neuropsychiatric symptoms in Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 2004; 63: 214–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Homma A, Takeda M, Imai Y, et al. Clinical efficacy and safety of donepezil on cognitive and global function in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: a 24-week, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in Japan. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2000; 11 (6): 299–313

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Krishnan KR, Charles HC, Doraiswamy PM, et al. Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the effects of donepezil on neuronal markers and hippocampal volumes in Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Psychiatry 2003 Nov; 160 (11): 2003–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Mohs RC, Doody RS, Morris JC, et al. A 1-year, placebocontrolled preservation of function survival study of donepezil in AD patients. Neurology 2001 Aug 14; 57 (3): 481–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Nunez M, Hasselbalch S, Henn R, et al. Donepezil-treated Alzheimer’s disease patients with apparent initial cognitive decline demonstrate significant benefits when therapy is continued: results from a randomised, placebo-controlled trial [poster]. The Second Annual Dementia Congress; 2003 Sep 12-14; Washington, DC

  43. Rogers SL, Friedhoff LT, Apter JT, et al. The efficacy and safety of donepezil in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: results of a US multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled trial. Dementia 1996; 7 (6): 293–303

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Rogers SL, Doody RS, Mohs RC, et al. Donepezil improves cognition and global function in Alzheimer disease: a 15-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158 (9): 1021–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Rogers SL, Farlow MR, Doody RS, et al. A 24-week, doubleblind, placebo-controlled trial of donepezil in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: donepezil Study Group. Neurology 1998 Jan; 50 (1): 136–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. 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 Aug 14; 57 (3): 489–95

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Agid Y, Dubois B, Anand R, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of rivastigmine in patients with dementia of the Alzheimer type. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp 1998; 59 (12): 837–45

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Corey-Bloom J, Anand R, Veach J. A randomized trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of ENA 713 (rivastigmine tartrate), a new acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, in patients with mild to moderately severe Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Geriatr Psychopharmacol 1998; 1 (2): 55–65

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Forette F, Anand R, Gharabawi G. A phase II study in patients with Alzheimer’s disease to assess the preliminary efficacy and maximum tolerated dose of rivastigmine. Fur J Neurol 1999; 6 (4): 423–9

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Rosler M, Anand R, Cicin SA, et al. Efficacy and safety of rivastigmine in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: international randomised controlled trial. BMJ 1999; 318 (7184): 633–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Raskind MA, Peskind ER, Wessel T, et al. Galantamine in AD: a 6-month randomised, placebo-controlled trial with a 6-month extension. Neurology 2000; 54: 2261–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Rockwood K, Mintzer J, Truyen L, et al. Effects of a flexible galantamine dose in Alzheimer’s disease: a randomised, controlled trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2001 Nov; 71 (5): 589–95

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Tariot P, Solomon PR, Morris J, et al. A 5-month, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of galantamine in AD. Neurology 2000; 54: 2269–76

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Wilcock GK, Lilienfeld S, Gaens E. Efficacy and safety of galantamine in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease: multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2000; 321 (7274): 1445–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Wilkinson D, Lilienfeld S, Truyen L. Galantamine improves activities of daily living in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: a 3-month placebo-controlled study [abstract]. Proceedings of the Sixth International Stockholm/Springfield Symposium on Advances in Alzheimer Therapy; 2000 Apr 5-8; Stockholm

  56. Wilkinson D, Murray J. Galantamine: a randomized, doubleblind, dose comparison in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2001 Sep; 16 (9): 852–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Fuschillo C, La Pia S, Campana F, et al. Cognitive deficits in Alzheimer’s disease: treatment with acetylcholinesterase inhibitor agents. Arch Gerontol Geriatr Suppl 2001; 7: 151–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Jones RW, Soininen H, Hager K, et al. A multinational, randomised, 12-week study comparing the effects of donepezil and galantamine in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2004 Jan; 19 (1): 58–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Wilkinson DG, Passmore AP, Bullock R, et al. A multinational, randomised, 12-week, comparative study of donepezil and rivastigmine in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Clin Pract 2002 Jul; 56 (6): 441–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Wolfson C, Moride Y, Perrault A, et al. Drug treatments for Alzheimers’s disease: 1. A comparative analysis of clinical trials. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA), 2000

    Google Scholar 

  61. Birks JS, Harvey R. Donepezil for dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease. The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2004. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  62. Birks J, Grimley EJ, Iakovidou V, et al. Rivastigmine for Alzheimer’s disease. The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2004. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  63. Olin J, Schneider L. Galantamine for Alzheimer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2001; (4)

  64. Gray A, Fenn P. Alzheimer’s disease: the burden of the illness in England. Health Trends 1993; 25 (1): 31–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. O’shea E, O’Reilly S. The economic and social cost of dementia in Ireland. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2000; 15 (3): 208–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Alzheimer’s Society, London. Paying home care fees. Alzheimer’s Society Information Sheet (468). 2004 [online] Available from URL: http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/Caring for someone_with_dementia/PDF/468_PayingForCare.pdf [Accessed 2005 Nov 25]

  67. Whitehouse P. Measurements of quality of life in dementia. In: Wimo A, Jonsson B, Karlsson G, et al., editors. Health economics of dementia. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  68. Neumann PJ. Measuring QALYS in dementia. In: Wimo A, Jonsson B, Karlsson G, et al., editors. Health economics of dementia. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  69. Williams A. The measurement and valuation of health: a chronicle. Discussion paper 136. York (UK): University of York (Centre for Health Economics), 1995

    Google Scholar 

  70. 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): 413–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlon WJ, et al. Multi-attribute preference functions for a comprehensive health status classification system: Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care 1996; 24: 702–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance for manufacturers and sponsors. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  73. Burns A, Forstl H. The Institute of Psychiatry Alzheimer’s disease cohort: part II. Clinicopathological observations. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 1996; 11: 321–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Lopez OL, Becker JT, Wisniewski S, et al. Cholinesterase inhibitor treatment alters natural history of Alzheimer’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002; 72: 310–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Hui JS, Wilson RS, Bennett DA, et al. Rate of cognitive decline and mortality in Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 2003; 61 (10): 1356–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2004 Apr

    Google Scholar 

  77. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Appraisal consultation document: donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. London: NICE, 2005 Feb [online]. Available from URL: http://www. nice.org.uk [Accessed 2005 Nov 25]

Download references

Acknowledgements

The study was completed as part of a review funded by the UK NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment Programme, and commissioned on behalf of the NICE. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Health.

Colin Green developed the cost-effectiveness model and undertook cost-effectiveness analysis. All authors contributed to the review of clinical and cost-effectivenss literature, and all authors contributed to the drafting and preparation of the paper.

All authors declare that they have no competing or conflicts of interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre, Wessex Institute for Health Research and Development, University of Southampton, Mailpoint 728, Boldrewood, Southampton, SO16 7PX, UL, UK

    Colin Green, Joanna Picot, Emma Loveman, Andrea Takeda, Jo Kirby & Andrew Clegg

Authors
  1. Colin Green
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joanna Picot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emma Loveman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrea Takeda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jo Kirby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Andrew Clegg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Colin Green.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Green, C., Picot, J., Loveman, E. et al. Modelling the cost effectiveness of cholinesterase inhibitors in the management of mild to moderately severe Alzheimer’s disease. Pharmacoeconomics 23, 1271–1282 (2005). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200523120-00010

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200523120-00010

Keywords

Search

Navigation