Dataset Information

Comparative Value of Cholinesterase Inhibitors and Memantine in Persons with Moderate-to-Severe Alzheimer's Disease in the United States: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Pharmacological treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) involves symptomatic improvement of cognition using cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) and memantine. The cost-effectiveness of these medications will guide decision-makers in making judicious use of scarce healthcare resources, particularly during the advanced disease stages.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ChEIs, memantine, and ChEI-memantine combinations in persons with moderate-to-severe AD from the US healthcare perspective.

Methods

This pharmacoeconomic evaluation study used a state-transition Markov cohort model to simulate the costs and effectiveness of ChEI-memantine combinations compared with monotherapies of ChEI (donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine) and memantine in persons with moderate-to-severe AD over a lifetime horizon with a 1-year cycle length. We estimated expected quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs (in 2020 $US), net monetary benefits, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). We discounted future costs and QALYs at the rate of 3%.

Results

In this study, donepezil monotherapy, galantamine-memantine combination, and rivastigmine transdermal patch formed the cost-effectiveness frontier. Findings suggests that rivastigmine transdermal patch is the optimal treatment strategy at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY (ICER = $93,307/QALY [versus donepezil monotherapy]). Results across subgroups by age and sex also suggest that the rivastigmine transdermal patch is the optimal treatment strategy with the highest net benefit.

Conclusion

From the US healthcare perspective, we found that, for persons with moderate-to-severe AD at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY, the rivastigmine transdermal patch is the most cost-effective pharmacological treatment option. Given that the transdermal patch is a preferred route of administration for persons with AD and their caregivers due to its convenience, our findings provide additional incentives for its use.

SUBMITTER: Yunusa I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8543376 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Memantine is licensed for moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease (AD). National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance does not recommend the use of memantine in combination with cholinesterase inhibitors (acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (AChEI)). The underpinning meta-analysis was disputed by the manufacturer.To compare the efficacy of AChEI monotherapy with combination memantine and AChEI therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe AD and to examine the impact of including unpublished data on the results.Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.The Cochrane Dementia Group trial register, ALOIS, searched for the last time on 3 May 2011.Data from four domains (clinical global, cognition, function, behaviour and mood) were pooled. Sensitivity analyses examined the impact on the NICE-commissioned meta-analysis of restricting data to patients with moderate-to-severe AD and of including an unpublished trial of an extended release preparation of memantine.Pooled data from the trials, which were included in the NICE-commissioned meta-analysis but which were restricted to moderate-to-severe AD only, showed a small effect of combination therapy on cognition (standardised mean difference (SMD)=-0.29, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.14). Adding data from an unpublished trial of an extended release memantine (total three trials, 1317 participants) showed a small benefit of combination therapy on global scores (SMD=-0.20, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.09), cognition (SMD=-0.25, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.14) and behaviour and mood (SMD=-0.17, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.03) but not on function (SMD=-0.04, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.13) at 6 months. No clinical data have been reported from a 1-year trial, although this found 'no significant benefit' on any clinical measures at 1 year.These results suggest that there may be a small benefit at 6 months of adding memantine to AChEIs. However, the impact on clinical global impression depends on exactly which studies are included, and there is no benefit on function, so its clinical relevance is not robustly demonstrated. Currently available information from randomised controlled trails indicates no benefit of combination therapy over monotherapy at 1 year. Legislation on the form and content of registry posted results is needed in Europe.

Project description:IntroductionImmediate-release memantine (10 mg, twice daily) is approved in the USA for moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease (AD). This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a higher-dose, once-daily, extended-release formulation in patients with moderate-to-severe AD concurrently taking cholinesterase inhibitors.MethodsIn this 24-week, double-blind, multinational study (NCT00322153), outpatients with AD (Mini-Mental State Examination scores of 3-14) were randomized to receive once-daily, 28-mg, extended-release memantine or placebo. Co-primary efficacy parameters were the baseline-to-endpoint score change on the Severe Impairment Battery (SIB) and the endpoint score on the Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change Plus Caregiver Input (CIBIC-Plus). The secondary efficacy parameter was the baseline-to-endpoint score change on the 19-item Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL19); additional parameters included the baseline-to-endpoint score changes on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) and verbal fluency test. Data were analyzed using a two-way analysis of covariance model, except for CIBIC-Plus (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test). Safety and tolerability were assessed through adverse events and physical and laboratory examinations.ResultsA total of 677 patients were randomized to receive extended-release memantine (n = 342) or placebo (n = 335); completion rates were 79.8 and 81.2 %, respectively. At endpoint (week 24, last observation carried forward), memantine-treated patients significantly outperformed placebo-treated patients on the SIB (least squares mean difference [95 % CI] 2.6 [1.0, 4.2]; p = 0.001), CIBIC-Plus (p = 0.008), NPI (p = 0.005), and verbal fluency test (p = 0.004); the effect did not achieve significance on ADCS-ADL19 (p = 0.177). Adverse events with a frequency of ≥5.0 % that were more prevalent in the memantine group were headache (5.6 vs. 5.1 %) and diarrhea (5.0 vs. 3.9 %).ConclusionExtended-release memantine was efficacious, safe, and well tolerated in this population.

Project description:IntroductionAlzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common neurodegenerative form of dementia. Pharmacological therapies for symptomatic treatment, such as acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs) and memantine, have been available in the USA since 2000. Over the past decade, few studies have analyzed real-world anti-dementia treatment patterns in the USA. This study evaluated monotherapy AChEIs and memantine treatment patterns among newly diagnosed AD patients.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted using Medicare data and the Minimum Data Set from 2008 to 2012. Patients aged 65-100 years with newly diagnosed AD (ICD-9 code: 331.0) and monotherapy AChEI or memantine treatment initiated after diagnosis were included. Descriptive treatment pattern analyses, including discontinuation and switch, were undertaken. Kaplan-Meier curves were developed to examine the treatment duration.ResultsA total of 9812 newly diagnosed AD patients were identified, with 56.7% (n = 5567) first receiving anti-dementia treatment after the initial AD diagnosis. Among patients initiating monotherapy AChEIs or memantine after AD diagnosis (N = 5200), 51.6% continued index treatment during the entire follow-up period (mean follow-up: 659.7 days) and 21.7% discontinued treatment. Of those who initiated monotherapy treatment with an AChEI, 11.1% received adjunct therapy with memantine. Among patients with ≥1 year of continuous treatment (mean follow-up: 834 days), 75.6% remained on the index drug, 10.2% discontinued during the remaining follow-up period, and 9.5% of the AD patients initiating AChEIs received adjunct memantine therapy during the remaining follow-up period.ConclusionIn the USA Medicare population, about 50% of the patients who initiated treatment with AChEI or memantine after diagnosis continued the index treatment, and more than 20% discontinued and were untreated afterwards over the observation period. AD patients initiating AChEIs or memantine were more likely to remain on their treatment if they were persistently treated for the first year.

Project description:ObjectiveIsolated coronary artery bypass grafting and aortic valve replacement are common cardiac operations performed in the United States and serve as platforms for benchmarking. The present national study characterized hospital-level variation in costs and value for coronary artery bypass grafting and aortic valve replacement.MethodsAdults undergoing elective, isolated coronary artery bypass grafting or aortic valve replacement were identified in the 2016-2018 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Center quality was defined by the proportion of patients without an adverse outcome (death, stroke, respiratory failure, pneumonia, sepsis, acute kidney injury, and reoperation). High-value hospitals were defined as those with observed-to-expected ratios less than 1 for costs and greater than 1 for quality, whereas the converse defined low-value centers.ResultsOf 318,194 patients meeting study criteria, 71.9% underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting and 28.1% underwent aortic valve replacement. Variation in hospital-level costs was evident, with median center-level cost of $36,400 (interquartile range, 29,500-46,700) for isolated coronary artery bypass grafting and $38,400 (interquartile range, 32,300-47,700) for aortic valve replacement. Observed-to-expected ratios for quality ranged from 0.2 to 10.9 for isolated coronary artery bypass grafting and 0.1 to 11.7 for isolated aortic valve replacement. Hospital factors, including volume and quality, contributed to approximately 9.9% and 11.2% of initial cost variation for isolated coronary artery bypass grafting and aortic valve replacement. High-value centers had greater cardiac surgery operative volume and were more commonly teaching hospitals compared to low-value centers, but had similar patient risk profiles.ConclusionsSignificant variation in hospital costs, quality, and value exists for 2 common cardiac operations. Center volume was associated with value and partly accounts for variation in costs. Our findings suggest the need for value-based care paradigms to reduce expenditures and optimize outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough specific interventions previously demonstrated benefit in patients with ARDS, use of these interventions is inconsistent, and patient mortality remains high. The impact of variability in center management practices on ARDS mortality rates remains unknown.Research questionWhat is the impact of treatment variability on mortality in patients with moderate to severe ARDS in the United States?Study design and methodsWe conducted a multicenter, observational cohort study of mechanically ventilated adults with ARDS and Pao2 to Fio2 ratio of ≤ 150 with positive end-expiratory pressure of ≥ 5 cm H2O, who were admitted to 29 US centers between October 1, 2016, and April 30, 2017. The primary outcome was 28-day in-hospital mortality. Center variation in ventilator management, adjunctive therapy use, and mortality also were assessed.ResultsA total of 2,466 patients were enrolled. Median baseline Pao2 to Fio2 ratio was 105 (interquartile range, 78.0-129.0). In-hospital 28-day mortality was 40.7%. Initial adherence to lung protective ventilation (LPV; tidal volume, ≤ 6.5 mL/kg predicted body weight; plateau pressure, or when unavailable, peak inspiratory pressure, ≤ 30 mm H2O) was 31.4% and varied between centers (0%-65%), as did rates of adjunctive therapy use (27.1%-96.4%), methods used (neuromuscular blockade, prone positioning, systemic steroids, pulmonary vasodilators, and extracorporeal support), and mortality (16.7%-73.3%). Center standardized mortality ratios (SMRs), calculated using baseline patient-level characteristics to derive expected mortality rate, ranged from 0.33 to 1.98. Of the treatment-level factors explored, only center adherence to early LPV was correlated with SMR.InterpretationSubstantial center-to-center variability exists in ARDS management, suggesting that further opportunities for improving ARDS outcomes exist. Early adherence to LPV was associated with lower center mortality and may be a surrogate for overall quality of care processes. Future collaboration is needed to identify additional treatment-level factors influencing center-level outcomes.Trial registryClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03021824; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.