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

Bond M, Rogers G, Peters J, 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. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2012 Apr. (Health Technology Assessment, No. 16.21.)

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.

Show details

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr Jane Wolstenholme (Health Economics Research Centre, Oxford) and the principal investigators of the Oxfordshire AD cohort study for sharing their study's data set, Professor Gill Livingston (UCL) for sharing the LASER-AD study data set with us, Professor Douglas Galasko (University of California San Diego, developer of the ADCS-ADL and the ADCS-ADL-sev functional status instruments), Researchers at the Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent (in relation to clarifying aspects of the costs in the Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2009 report), and Professor Douglas Galasko and Dr Steven Stokes from the University of California, San Diego, CA, for help with the use of the ADCS-ADL questionnaires.

We would also like to acknowledge the help of Martin Pitt for model checking, Mark Pearson and Harriet Hunt for supporting the systematic reviews, Louise Crathorne for proof-reading, Will Stahl-Timmins for summary graphics, Colin Green for general support in helping us to understand this complex disease and modelling area, and Sue Whiffin and Jenny Lowe for their administrative support, all from the Peninsula Medical School, University of Exeter.

About the Peninsula Technology Assessment Group

The Peninsula Technology Assessment Group is part of the Institute of Health Service Research at the Peninsula College of Medicine & Dentistry. PenTAG was established in 2000 and currently has four major work streams: independent HTAs for NICE and the National Institute for Health Research HTA programme, systematic reviews and economic analyses for the NICE Centre for Public Health Excellence, systematic reviews as part of the Cochrane Collaboration Heart Group, and evidence synthesis work in relation to the needs of the SW Peninsula Collaboration for Applied Health Research and Care (PenCLAHRC), as well as for other local and national decision-makers.

The group is multidisciplinary and draws on individuals’ backgrounds in public health, health services research, computing and decision analysis, systematic reviewing, statistics and health economics. The Peninsula College of Medicine & Dentistry is a school within the Universities of Plymouth and Exeter. The Institute of Health Research is made up of discrete, but methodologically related research groups, among which HTA is a strong and recurring theme. Recent projects include the following.

Health technology assessment

  1. Dasatinib and nilotinib for imatinib resistant or intolerant chronic myeloid leukaemia.224
  2. Bevacizumab, sorafenib tosylate, sunitinib and temsirolimus for renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation.225
  3. Systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of weight management schemes for the under fives.226
  4. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cochlear implants for severe to profound deafness in children and adults: a systematic review and economic model.227
  5. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of methods of storing donated kidneys from deceased donors: a systematic review and economic model.228
  6. The harmful health effects of recreational ecstasy: a systematic review of observational evidence.229
  7. The use of surrogate outcomes in model-based cost-effectiveness analyses: a survey of UK health TARs.230
  8. Systematic review and economic analysis of the comparative effectiveness of different inhaled corticosteroids and their usage with long-acting beta2 agonists for the treatment of chronic asthma in children under the age of 12 years.231
  9. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cardiac resynchronisation (biventricular pacing) for Heart Failure: a systematic review and economic model.232

Synthesising public health evidence

  1. Prevention of unintentional injuries to children in outdoor play and leisure environments.233

Expert Advisory Group

We would particularly like to thank Professor Peter Passmore who acted as our Expert Advisor for his help throughout the project.

Competing interests Professor Peter Passmore has received fees for consultancy, honoraria and assistance with study leave from Pfizer, Eisai, Shire, Jansen and Jansen, Novartis and Lundbeck, and has given expert testimony in relation to the last judicial review as an expert for Eisai.

Contributions of authors

Mary Bond provided overall project management, wrote the protocol, assessed abstracts and titles for inclusion, contributed to the clinical effectiveness systematic review, contributed to the design of the model and the writing and editing of the report.

Gabriel Rogers assessed abstracts and titles for inclusion, led the systematic review of clinical effectiveness, contributed to the design and execution of the economic model, and contributed to the writing and editing of the report.

Jaime Peters led the design, development and execution of the economic model and contributed to the writing and editing of the report.

Rob Anderson oversaw the cost-effectiveness aspects of the analysis and report, advised on obtaining costs and utilities for the model, contributed to the design of the model and contributed to the editing of the report.

Martin Hoyle contributed to the design, parameterisation of the model and model checking, and contributed to the editing of the report.

Alec Miners critically appraised industry submissions and contributed to the editing of the report.

Tiffany Moxham wrote and ran all the search strategies.

Sarah Davis provided critical appraisal of the cost-effectiveness model submitted by Eisai and contributed to the writing of the final report.

Praveen Thokala provided critical appraisal of the cost-effectiveness model submitted by Eisai and contributed to the writing of the final report.

Allan Wailoo provided critical appraisal of the cost-effectiveness model submitted by Eisai and contributed to the writing of the final report.

Mike Jeffreys provided clinical input into the design of the model, advised on clinical matters and contributed to the editing of the report.

Chris Hyde led the systematic review of economic evaluations, contributed to the design of the model, contributed to the writing and editing of the report, and was overall director of the project and guarantor of the report.

© 2012, Crown Copyright.

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License.

Bookshelf ID: NBK98894
PubReader format: click here to try

Views

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

Other titles in this collection

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...