• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Cover of The Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Donepezil, Galantamine, Rivastigmine and Memantine for the Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease (Review of Technology Appraisal No. 111): A Systematic Review and Economic Model

The Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Donepezil, Galantamine, Rivastigmine and Memantine for the Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease (Review of Technology Appraisal No. 111): A Systematic Review and Economic Model

Health Technology Assessment, No. 16.21

, , , , , , , , , , , and .

Author Information

,1,* ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,2 ,1 ,3 ,3 ,3 ,4 and 1.

1 Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
2 London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
3 The School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
4 Royal Devon and Exeter Foundation Trust Hospital, Exeter, UK
* Corresponding author

Abstract

Background:

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most commonly occurring form of dementia. It is predominantly a disease of later life, affecting 5% of those over 65 in the UK.

Objectives:

Review and update guidance to the NHS in England and Wales on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine [acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs)] and memantine within their licensed indications for the treatment of AD, which was issued in November 2006 (amended September 2007 and August 2009).

Data sources:

Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and ongoing research in November 2009 and updated in March 2010; this updated search revealed no new includable studies. The databases searched included The Cochrane Library (2009 Issue 4, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, PsycINFO, EconLit, ISI Web of Science Databases – Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, and BIOSIS; the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) databases – NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects.

Review methods:

The clinical effectiveness systematic review was undertaken following the principles published by the NHS CRD. We included RCTs whose population was people with AD. The intervention and comparators depended on disease severity, measured by the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE). Interventions: mild AD (MMSE 21–26) – donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine; moderate AD (MMSE 10–20) – donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine; severe AD (MMSE < 10) – memantine. Comparators: mild AD (MMSE 21–26) – placebo or best supportive care (BSC); moderate AD (MMSE 10–20) – donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, memantine, placebo or BSC; severe AD (MMSE < 10) – placebo or BSC. The outcomes were clinical, global, functional, behavioural, quality of life, adverse events, costs and cost-effectiveness. Where appropriate, data were pooled using pair-wise meta-analysis, multiple outcome measures, metaregression and mixedtreatment comparisons. The decision model was based broadly on the structure of the three-state Markov model described in the previous technology assessment report, based upon time to institutionalisation, parameterised with updated estimates of effectiveness, costs and utilities.

Results:

Notwithstanding the uncertainty of our results, we found in the base case that the AChEIs are probably cost saving at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for people with mild-to-moderate AD. For this class of drugs, there is a > 99% probability that the AChEIs are more cost-effective than BSC. These analyses assume that the AChEIs have no effect on survival. For the AChEIs, in people with mild to moderate AD, the probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that donepezil is the most cost-effective, with a 28% probability of being the most cost-effective option at a WTP of £30,000 per QALY (27% at a WTP of £20,000 per QALY). In the deterministic results, donepezil dominates the other drugs and BSC, which, along with rivastigmine patches, are associated with greater costs and fewer QALYs. Thus, although galantamine has a slightly cheaper total cost than donepezil (£69,592 vs £69,624), the slightly greater QALY gains from donepezil (1.616 vs 1.617) are enough for donepezil to dominate galantamine.The probability that memantine is cost-effective in a moderate to severe cohort compared with BSC at a WTP of £30,000 per QALY is 38% (and 28% at a WTP of £20,000 per QALY). The deterministic ICER for memantine is £32,100 per/QALY and the probabilistic ICER is £36,700 per/QALY.

Limitations:

Trials were of 6 months maximum follow-up, lacked reporting of key outcomes, provided no subgroup analyses and used insensitive measures. Searches were limited to English language, The model does not include behavioural symptoms and there is uncertainty about the model structure and parameters.

Conclusions:

The additional clinical effectiveness evidence identified continues to suggest clinical benefit from the AChEIs in alleviating AD symptoms, although there is debate about the magnitude of the effect. Although there is also new evidence on the effectiveness of memantine, it remains less supportive of this drug's use than the evidence for AChEIs. The conclusions concerning cost-effectiveness are quite different from the previous assessment. This is because both the changes in effectiveness and costs between drug use and non-drug use underlying the ICERs are very small. This leads to highly uncertain results, which are very sensitive to change.

Research priorities:

RCTs to include mortality, time to institutionalisation and quality of life, powered for subgroup analysis.

Funding:

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Contents

Note: This monograph is based on the Technology Assessment Report produced for NICE. The full report contained a considerable number of data that were deemed commercial-in-confidence. The full report was used by the Appraisal Committee at NICE in their deliberations. The full report with each piece of commercial-in-confidence data removed and replaced by the statement ‘commercial-in-confidence information (or data) removed' is available on the NICE website: www.nice.org.uk.

The present monograph presents as full a version of the report as is possible while retaining readability, but some sections, sentences, tables and figures have been removed. Readers should bear in mind that the discussion, conclusions and implications for practice and research are based on all the data considered in the original full NICE report.

Suggested citation:

Bond M, Rogers G, Peters J, Anderson R, Hoyle M, Miners A, et al. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (review of Technology Appraisal No. 111): a systematic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess 2012;16(21).

Declared competing interests of authors: none

The research reported in this issue of the journal was commissioned and funded by the HTA programme on behalf of NICE as project number 09/87/01. The protocol was agreed in January 2010. The assessment report began editorial review in January 2011 and was accepted for publication in January 2011. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the referees for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the HTA programme or the Department of Health.

© 2012, Crown Copyright.

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License.

Bookshelf ID: NBK98889
PubReader format: click here to try

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (24M)

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...