Cost-utility analysis of memantine extended release added to cholinesterase inhibitors compared to cholinesterase inhibitor monotherapy for the treatment of moderate-to-severe dementia of the Alzheimer's type in the US

Alzheimer's disease and its treatment-yesterday, today, and tomorrow

Alois Alzheimer described the first patient with Alzheimer's disease (AD) in 1907 and today AD is the most frequently diagnosed of dementias. AD is a multi-factorial neurodegenerative disorder with familial, life style and comorbidity influences impacting a global population of more than 47 million with a projected escalation by 2050 to exceed 130 million. In the USA the AD demographic encompasses approximately six million individuals, expected to increase to surpass 13 million by 2050, and the antecedent phase of AD, recognized as mild cognitive impairment (MCI), involves nearly 12 million individuals. The economic outlay for the management of AD and AD-related cognitive decline is estimated at approximately 355 billion USD. In addition, the intensifying prevalence of AD cases in countries with modest to intermediate income countries further enhances the urgency for more therapeutically and cost-effective treatments and for improving the quality of life for patients and their families. This narrative review evaluates the pathophysiological basis of AD with an initial focus on the therapeutic efficacy and limitations of the existing drugs that provide symptomatic relief: acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEI) donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, and the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDA) receptor allosteric modulator, memantine. The hypothesis that amyloid-β (Aβ) and tau are appropriate targets for drugs and have the potential to halt the progress of AD is critically analyzed with a particular focus on clinical trial data with anti-Aβ monoclonal antibodies (MABs), namely, aducanumab, lecanemab and donanemab. This review challenges the dogma that targeting Aβ will benefit the majority of subjects with AD that the anti-Aβ MABs are unlikely to be the "magic bullet". A comparison of the benefits and disadvantages of the different classes of drugs forms the basis for determining new directions for research and alternative drug targets that are undergoing pre-clinical and clinical assessments. In addition, we discuss and stress the importance of the treatment of the co-morbidities, including hypertension, diabetes, obesity and depression that are known to increase the risk of developing AD.

Anti-dementia drugs: what is the evidence in advanced stages?

Dementia is a major public health concern due to its increasing prevalence, substantial caregiver burden, and high financial costs. Currently, the anti-dementia drugs aim only at a symptomatic effect. The subject of prescribing these drugs in advanced stages is a matter of considerable debate, with different countries making distinct recommendations. In this review article, we analyzed the evidence regarding cognitive and functional outcomes, adverse events, health-related costs, and caregiver burden in patients with advanced Alzheimer disease (AD) and mixed dementia. We included 35 studies. Most studies are heterogeneous, focus exclusively on AD, and show small benefits in terms of cognitive and functional scales. The overall evidence seems to suggest a benefit in introducing or maintaining anti-dementia drugs in patients with advanced dementia, but clinical meaningfulness is difficult to ascertain. The issue of costs and caregiver burden is significantly underexplored in this field but also seems to favor treatment continuation, despite a reduced overall effect. The decision of introducing or withdrawing anti-dementia drugs in advanced stages of dementia should be individualized. Future studies with homogeneous designs and outcomes are warranted.

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

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.

How relevant are social costs in economic evaluations? The case of Alzheimer's disease

BACKGROUND

The main objective of this study was to analyse how the inclusion (exclusion) of social costs can alter the results and conclusions of economic evaluations in the field of Alzheimer's disease interventions.

METHODS

We designed a systematic review that included economic evaluations in Alzheimer's disease. The search strategy was launched in 2000 and ran until November 2018. The inclusion criteria were: being an original study published in a scientific journal, being an economic evaluation of any intervention related to Alzheimer's disease, including social costs (informal care costs and/or productivity losses), being written in English, using QALYs as an outcome for the incremental cost-utility analysis, and separating the results according to the perspective applied.

RESULTS

It was finally included 27 studies and 55 economic evaluations. Around 11% of economic evaluations changed their main conclusions. More precisely, three of them concluded that the new intervention became cost-effective when the societal perspective was considered, whereas when using just the health care payer perspective, the new intervention did not result in a cost-utility ratio below the threshold considered. Nevertheless, the inclusion of social cost can also influence the results, as 37% of the economic evaluations included became the dominant strategy after including social costs when they were already cost-effective in the health care perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

Social costs can substantially modify the results of the economic evaluations. Therefore, taking into account social costs in diseases such as Alzheimer's can be a key element in making decisions about public financing and pricing of health interventions.

Family and Caregiver Spillover Effects in Cost-Utility Analyses of Alzheimer's Disease Interventions

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Alzheimer's disease or dementia can impose a significant burden on family and other informal caregivers. This study investigated how the inclusion of family/informal caregiver spillover effects in a cost-utility analysis may influence the reported value of Alzheimer's disease/dementia interventions.

METHODS

We used PubMed to identify Alzheimer's disease or dementia cost-utility analyses published from 1 January, 2000 to 31 March, 2018. We reviewed and abstracted information from each study using a two-reader consensus process. We investigated the frequency and methods in which family/caregiver spillover costs and health effects were incorporated into cost-utility analyses, and examined how their inclusion may influence the reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

RESULTS

Of 63 Alzheimer's disease/dementia cost-utility analyses meeting inclusion criteria, 44 (70%) considered at least some family/caregiver spillover costs or health effects. Thirty-two studies incorporated spillover costs only, two incorporated spillover health effects only, and ten incorporated both. The most common approach for accounting for spillover was adding informal caregiving time costs to patient costs (n = 36) and adding informal caregiver quality-adjusted life-years to patient values (n = 7). In a subset of 33 incremental cost-effectiveness ratio pairs from 19 studies, incorporating spillover outcomes made incremental cost-effectiveness ratios more favorable (n = 15; 45%) or kept the intervention cost saving (n = 13; 39%) in most cases. In fewer cases, including spillover increased incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (n = 2; 6%), kept the intervention dominated [more costs/less quality-adjusted life-years] (n = 2; 6%), or changed incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from dominated to less cost/less quality-adjusted life-years (n = 1; 3%). In 11 cases (33%), adding spillover effects into analyses resulted in a lower incremental cost-effectiveness ratio that crossed a common cost-effectiveness threshold, which could have downstream implications for programs or policies that are adopted based on cost-effectiveness analysis results.

DISCUSSION

Most Alzheimer's disease/dementia cost-utility analyses incorporated spillover costs, often as caregiver time costs, but considered spillover health impacts less often. In about 85% of the analyses, including Alzheimer's disease/dementia spillover cost or health effects decreased incremental cost-effectiveness ratios or kept the intervention cost saving. The broader value of an Alzheimer's disease/dementia intervention to society may in some cases be underestimated without considering these spillover effects on family and informal caregivers.

Where are we at with model-based economic evaluations of interventions for dementia? a systematic review and quality assessment

ABSTRACTObjective:To identify, review, and critically appraise model-based economic evaluations of all types of interventions for people with dementia and their carers.

DESIGN

A systematic literature search was undertaken to identify model-based evaluations of dementia interventions. A critical appraisal of included studies was carried out using guidance on good practice methods for decision-analytic models in health technology assessment, with a focus on model structure, data, and model consistency.

SETTING

Interventions for people with dementia and their carers, across prevention, diagnostic, treatment, and disease management.

RESULTS

We identified 67 studies, with 43 evaluating pharmacological products, 19 covering prevention or diagnostic strategies, and 5 studies reporting non-pharmacological interventions. The majority of studies use Markov models with a simple structure to represent dementia symptoms and disease progression. Half of all studies reported taking a societal perspective, with the other half adopting a third-party payer perspective. Most studies follow good practices in modeling, particularly related to the decision problem description, perspective, model structure, and data inputs. Many studies perform poorly in areas related to the reporting of pre-modeling analyses, justifying data inputs, evaluating data quality, considering alternative modeling options, validating models, and assessing uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a growing literature on the model-based evaluations of interventions for dementia. The literature predominantly reports on pharmaceutical interventions for Alzheimer's disease, but there is a growing literature for dementia prevention and non-pharmacological interventions. Our findings demonstrate that decision-makers need to critically appraise and understand the model-based evaluations and their limitations to ensure they are used, interpreted, and applied appropriately.

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.

Predictors of discontinuation, efficacy, and safety of memantine treatment for Alzheimer's disease: meta-analysis and meta-regression of 18 randomized clinical trials involving 5004 patients

BACKGROUND

The risk-benefit relationship of memantine treatment for Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains unclear. In addition, variability between the results of clinical trials has been observed. The aim of this study was to investigate the risk-benefit relationship of memantine treatment in patients with AD and to determine the predictor effect of patient, intervention, and study design related covariates.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trials was performed. Primary outcomes were all-cause discontinuation, discontinuation due to adverse events (AE) and efficacy on cognitive function. Odds ratio (OR) and standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Meta-regression was conducted to identify related covariates. Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias of included trials.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies involving 5004 patients were included. No differences between memantine and placebo were found for all-cause treatment discontinuation (OR=0.97 [0.82, 1.14]) and discontinuation due to AE (OR=1.18 [0.91, 1.53]). Memantine showed small improvement on cognitive function (SMD=0.15 [0.08, 0.22]). Baseline functional ability was positively associated with all-cause treatment discontinuation and discontinuation due to AE.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that memantine has a very small efficacy on AD symptomatology and its safety profile is similar to that of placebo. No evidence of treatment discontinuation improvement with memantine is found, indicating a dubious risk-benefit relationship. No intervention characteristic or subgroup of patients clearly shows a significantly better risk-benefit relationship.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42014015696 .

Recent Progress in the Pharmacotherapy of Alzheimer's Disease

Alzheimer's disease is the most common major neurocognitive disorder with substantial social and economic impacts. This article is an update on current pharmacotherapy, advancements in biomarker use, and drugs in the pipeline for this disease. To date, no new drug has qualified to be added to the current therapeutic arsenal comprising cholinesterase inhibitors and the NMDA receptor antagonist memantine. Drugs in the pipeline include symptomatic therapies that are neurotransmitter-based, but mostly disease-modifying therapies. The latter have yielded disappointing results by focusing mainly on the two pathophysiological hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease: Aβ amyloid deposits and tau protein aggregates forming neurofibrillary tangles. These unsuccessful trials may have resulted from studying these drugs 'too late' relative to Alzheimer's disease onset, in addition to focusing only on the amyloid cascade. In fact, Alzheimer's disease is a complex multifactorial disease. Combining different biomarkers might enhance our ability to identify those patients most at risk of developing the disease, and better predict their conversion rates. Furthermore, adopting an integrative treatment approach by targeting additional pathophysiological pathways in Alzheimer's disease such as inflammation and oxidative stress could be the key to better outcomes in Alzheimer's disease pharmacotherapy research.

A fixed-dose combination of memantine extended-release and donepezil in the treatment of moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease

Currently available therapies for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) consist of cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs), such as donepezil, and the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist memantine. In December 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration approved Namzaric™, a once-daily, fixed-dose combination (FDC) of memantine extended-release (ER) and donepezil for patients with moderate-to-severe AD. The FDC capsule is bioequivalent to the coadministered individual drugs, and its bioavailability is similar when taken fasting, with food, or sprinkled onto applesauce. The combination of memantine and ChEIs in moderate-to-severe AD provides additional benefits to ChEI monotherapy across multiple domains and may delay the time to nursing home admission. A dedicated study of memantine ER compared to placebo in patients on a stable dose of a ChEI found statistically significant benefits on cognition and global status but not functioning. Treatment with memantine ER and donepezil is generally well tolerated, although higher doses of ChEIs are associated with more serious adverse events such as vomiting, syncope, and weight loss. Potential advantages of the FDC include a simpler treatment regimen, reduction in pill burden, and the ability to sprinkle the capsule onto soft foods. Patients who may benefit from the FDC include those with significant dysphagia, a history of poor compliance, or limited caregiver interaction. However, available evidence that these advantages would increase treatment adherence and persistence is conflicting, meaning that the added cost of switching patients from generic options to an FDC may not always be justified.

Memantine ER/Donepezil: A Review in Alzheimer's Disease

A once-daily, fixed-dose combination of memantine extended-release (ER)/donepezil 28/10 mg (Namzaric™) is available in the USA for patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease (AD) on stable memantine and donepezil therapy. The fixed-dose formulation is bioequivalent to coadministration of the individual drugs. In a 24-week, phase III trial in patients with moderate to severe AD, addition of memantine ER 28 mg once daily to stable cholinesterase inhibitor (ChEI) therapy was more effective than add-on placebo on measures of cognition, global clinical status, dementia behaviour and semantic processing ability, although between-group differences on a measure of daily function did not significantly differ. In subgroup analyses in donepezil-treated patients, add-on memantine ER was more effective than add-on placebo on measures of cognition, dementia behaviour and semantic processing, although there were no significant between-group differences on measures of global clinical status and daily function. Memantine ER plus ChEI combination therapy was generally well tolerated in the phase III trial, with diarrhoea, dizziness and influenza occurring at least twice as often with add-on memantine ER as add-on placebo in donepezil-treated patients. Thus, memantine ER plus donepezil combination therapy is an effective and well tolerated treatment option for patients with moderate to severe AD. The fixed-dose combination is potentially more convenient than coadministration of the individual agents.