Rational choice of cholinesterase inhibitor for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease in Canada: a comparative economic analysis

Molecular docking analysis of hyperphosphorylated tau protein with compounds derived from Bacopa monnieri and Withania somnifera

Tau protein, the major player in Alzheimer's disease forms neurofibrillary tangles in elderly people. Bramhi (Baccopa Monniera) is often used as an ayurvedic treatment for Alzheimer's disease. Therefore it is of interest to study the interaction of compounds derived from Baccopa with the Tau protein involved in tangle formation. We show that compounds such as bacopaside II, bacopaside XII, and nicotine showed optimal binding features with the R2 repeat domain of hyperphosphorylated tau protein for further consideration in the context of Alzheimer's disease (AD).

A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease

INTRODUCTION

Alzheimer's disease (AD) results in progressively worsening cognitive decline, leading to loss of functional ability, behavior/mood disturbances, institutionalization, and death. Current pharmaceutical therapies only treat the symptoms of cognitive decline yet can be expensive for payers. Areas covered: The authors undertook a systematic review of economic evaluations of pharmaceutical therapies for AD. The literature search encompassed English-language studies indexed in PubMed (Medline), Cochrane Library Current, and Web of Science. The search included articles published between 1 January 1995 and 10 February 2018. The literature suggested AD medications generally dominated comparator treatments (e.g. placebo). Expert opinion: The authors noted several limitations of the included economic evaluations. These limitations suggest the results of the economic evaluations should be interpreted with caution. Many economic models were not transparent with respect to sources of probabilities and cost data, and data collected in certain jurisdictions were applied to other jurisdictions without considering the validity of such applications. Measuring health utilities in cognitively impaired populations raises questions about the validity of quality-adjusted life years, but this issue was unaddressed in the included studies. Most included studies were sponsored by industry and the results tended to overwhelmingly support the manufacturer's product.

Systematic review of economic evaluations of Alzheimer's disease medications

This systematic review was conducted to summarize published pharmacoeconomic studies of Alzheimer's disease (AD) medications. Pharmacoeconomic studies were included in the review if they were published in English and contained a full and complete report of an original economic evaluation. The studies also had to be comparative in nature (i.e., cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility or cost-minimization analyses). Existing AD medications were found to dominate standard treatment (i.e., no drugs), or they were found to be more costly and more effective than standard treatment. Estimates of cost and effect varied widely because of different underlying models, assumptions and data sources. More research is needed to draw firmer conclusions regarding the overall cost-effectiveness of AD medications.

Alzheimer's disease: the strength of association of costs with different measures of disease severity

OBJECTIVE

To identify Alzheimer's disease (AD) severity measures for use in cost-effectiveness models that effectively capture the impact of AD on costs.

METHODS

A review of the literature and data abstraction from papers that present 1) mean AD costs (direct, indirect, or total) by disease severity, defined using measure of cognition, functional status, and behavior; and/or 2) the results of regression analyses that estimate the strength of the association between AD costs and disease severity.

RESULTS

All papers reviewed showed that mean total costs increase with disease severity regardless of severity-measurement method. The relative difference in mean total costs between patients with severe disease compared to those with moderate disease, or moderate disease compared to mild disease, was fairly consistent across studies, suggesting that any of the disease-severity measures may be used to broadly categorize patients by cost. However, when regression analysis included multiple disease-severity measures, independent associations with costs were noted for the different measures. Cognitive and functional status measures were consistently associated with direct costs, whereas functional status and behavioral measures were consistently associated with indirect costs and caregiver hours.

CONCLUSIONS

Either multidimensional disease-severity measures, or a single disease-severity measure, that capture the impact of cognition, functional status, and behavior on costs are needed for cost-effectiveness models.

Cost-effectiveness of memantine compared with standard care in moderate-to-severe Alzheimer disease in Canada

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the addition of memantine to standard care (that is, without acetylcholinesterase inhibitors) with standard care alone in moderate-to-severe Alzheimer disease (AD) in Canada.

METHODS

A 2-year Markov model estimated clinical effects in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and time in complete dependence as well as societal costs in four 6-month cycles. Health states were defined by AD severity assessed with the Mini-Mental State Examination (moderate = 10 to 19; severe < 10), by level of dependence in activities of daily living, and by death. Transition probabilities were estimated by combining data of patients with moderate-to-severe AD from all relevant clinical trials. QALYs were estimated from a UK epidemiologic study. The initial distribution and use of medical and support services for each health state was obtained from the Canadian Study on Health and Aging with current estimates of frequency of use and unit prices applied.

RESULTS

Compared with standard care, the memantine strategy saved more than 1 month of complete dependence and produced 0.03 additional QALYs, with no additional cost. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses give an 83.3% chance that memantine treatment is cost-neutral, an 89.5% chance of its being cost-effective if the decision maker is willing to pay $20 000 for a QALY, and a 96.2% chance with a willingness to pay $100 000 per QALY. Robustness of results was confirmed through 1-way and scenario-based sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Our evaluation found that memantine monotherapy produced relevant health benefit, compared with standard care alone, with no additional costs. Results are consistent with other economic evaluations of memantine conducted in Europe and the United States.

NICE cost-effectiveness appraisal of cholinesterase inhibitors: was the right question posed? Were the best tools used?

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recently issued updated guidance on the use of cholinesterase inhibitors in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. NICE initially recommended that cholinesterase inhibitors no longer be used, but final guidance restricted treatment to patients with disease of a moderately severe stage. This decision was based largely on results from a heavily criticised economic evaluation that used an adaptation of the Assessment of Health Economics in Alzheimer's Disease (AHEAD) model. As the developers of the AHEAD model, we examined the appropriateness of NICE's economic analyses and presentation of results. We attempted to replicate NICE's results by modifying the original AHEAD model. Sensitivity analyses were then run using the modified AHEAD model to evaluate the extent of uncertainty in predictions. The AHEAD(NICE) analyses resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for galantamine of 82,000 pound per QALY gained (year 2003 values) from the perspective of the UK NHS and Personal Social Services. This was later revised to 46,000 pound per QALY, compared with < 9000 pound per discounted QALY gained (year 2001 values) in the original AHEAD model. Using our modified AHEAD with effectiveness estimates matching those of AHEAD(NICE), we show that NICE's choice and presentation of sensitivity analyses obscured the instability of their estimates. In the final NICE evaluation, the recommendation to delay treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors until patients have moderately severe disease was based on critical assumptions in the economic analyses that had little evidence to support them. The case of NICE's guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors highlights the importance of transparent and valid economic evaluations and the dangers of using inappropriate modelling technologies, basing analyses on a limited subset of the available data, and insufficiently reflecting the uncertainty in estimates that are intended to inform decision makers.

Modelling disease progression in Alzheimer's disease: a review of modelling methods used for cost-effectiveness analysis

The literature reporting economic evaluations related to the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) has developed over the last decade. Most analyses have used economic models to estimate the cost effectiveness of drugs for the treatment of AD. This review considers the range of methods used in the published cost-effectiveness literature to model AD progression and the effect of interventions on the progression of AD. The review builds on and updates an earlier systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies on drugs for AD. Systematic and rigorous methods were used to search the literature for economic evaluations estimating the cost effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine or memantine in AD. The literature search covered a wide range of electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE), and included literature from the inception of databases up to the end of 2005. The search identified 22 published economic evaluations. An outline and brief critical review of the identified studies is provided, and thereafter the methods used to model disease progression were considered in more detail. The review employs recent guidance on good practice in decision-analytic modelling in HTA to critically review the modelling methods used. Using this guidance, the models are assessed against the broad criteria of model structure, data inputs and assessment of uncertainty and inconsistency. Concerns were noted over the model structure employed in all models. The reliance on cognitive scores to model AD, the progression of the disease, and the effect of treatment on costs and consequences is regarded as a serious limitation in almost all of the studies identified. There are also limitations over the data used to populate published models, especially around the failure of studies to document and establish the basis for the modelling of treatment effects. It is also clear that studies modelling AD progression, and subsequently the cost effectiveness of treatment, have not addressed uncertainty or consistency (internal and/or external) in sufficient detail. Further research is required on more appropriate methods for the modelling of AD progression. In the meantime, future economic evaluations of treatment need to be more explicit on the methods used to model AD, and the data used to populate models.

The benefits and risks associated with cholinesterase inhibitor therapy in Alzheimer’s disease

The 'second-generation' cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs), donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine, are a class of medications that are currently approved for the treatment of mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD). These medications have proven efficacy in improving cognition, behaviour, activities of daily living, and global functioning in mild-to-moderate AD. They have also been shown to reduce caregiver stress and to delay time to nursing home placement. Two separate meta-analyses have indicated that ChEIs confer a modest but significant therapeutic benefit in the treatment of AD, despite higher rates of treatment discontinuation and side effects than placebo. There is growing evidence to support their efficacy in treating moderate-to-severe AD. ChEIs are generally well-tolerated, with side effects that tend to be dose-related and are most problematic during dose titration. The most common adverse effects, related to cholinergic stimulation in the brain and peripheral tissues, include gastrointestinal, cardiorespiratory, extrapyramidal, genitourinary, and musculoskeletal symptoms, as well as sleep disturbances. Few clinically significant drug-drug interactions with ChEIs have been identified. Three head-to-head trials of ChEIs in the treatment of AD have been published to date, but are limited due to their open-label design, rates of titration, and the drug dosage levels utilised. Further study is needed to examine other indications for ChEIs, as well as their combination with newer treatments, such as memantine.