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

Model-Based Economic Evaluations of Interventions for Dementia: An Updated Systematic Review and Quality Assessment

BACKGROUND

There has been an increase in model-based economic evaluations of interventions for dementia. The most recent systematic review of economic evaluations for dementia highlighted weaknesses in studies, including lack of justification for model assumptions and data inputs.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to update the last published systematic review of model-based economic evaluations of interventions for dementia, including Alzheimer's disease, with a focus on any methodological improvements and quality assessment of the studies.

METHODS

Systematic searches in eight databases, including PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EconLit, international HTA database, and the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry were undertaken from February 2018 until August 2022. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Philips checklist and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklist. The findings were summarized through narrative analysis.

RESULTS

This review included 23 studies, comprising cost-utility analyses (87%), cost-benefit analyses (9%) and cost-effectiveness analyses (4%). The studies covered various interventions, including pharmacological (n = 10, 43%), non-pharmacological (n = 4, 17%), prevention (n = 4, 17%), diagnostic (n = 4, 17%) and integrated (n = 1, 4%) [diagnostics-pharmacologic] strategies. Markov transition models were commonly employed (65%), followed by decision trees (13%) and discrete-event simulation (9%). Several interventions from all categories were reported as being cost effective. The quality of reporting was suboptimal for the Methods and Results sections in almost all studies, although the majority of studies adequately addressed the decision problem, scope, and model-type selection in their economic evaluations. Regarding the quality of methodology, only a minority of studies addressed competing theories or clearly explained the rationale for model structure. Furthermore, few studies systematically identified key parameters or assessed data quality, and uncertainty was mostly addressed partially.

CONCLUSIONS

This review informs future research and resource allocation by providing insights into model-based economic evaluations for dementia interventions and highlighting areas for improvement.

Cost-Effectiveness of Lecanemab for Individuals With Early-Stage Alzheimer Disease

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Little is known regarding the cost-effectiveness of lecanemab (Leqembi), a monoclonal antibody approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in January 2023 for the treatment of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer disease (AD). This study aims to quantify the cost-effectiveness of lecanemab and how it varies based on the accuracy of AD testing and individuals' APOE ε4 status.

METHODS

Seven alternative test-treat-target strategies defined by combinations of testing approaches (PET, CSF, or plasma assay), treatment choices (standard of care [SoC] alone or lecanemab in addition to SoC), and targeting strategies (targeting APOE ε4 noncarriers or heterozygous patients or not) were compared. A hybrid decision tree-Markov cohort model was constructed with 5 states: (1) MCI (Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes [CDR-SB] 0-4.5); (2) mild dementia (CDR-SB 4.6-9.5); (3) moderate dementia (CDR-SB 9.6-16); (4) severe dementia (CDR-SB >16); and (5) death. Effectiveness was measured by quality-adjusted life years and costs from third-party and societal perspectives were estimated in 2022 US dollars over a lifetime horizon.

RESULTS

Among the 7 test-treat-target strategies, SoC alone was the optimal strategy from a cost-effectiveness perspective. Neither targeted lecanemab treatment nor treatment unrestricted by APOE ε4 genotype was cost-effective vs SoC alone, regardless of the test used to diagnose patients with early-stage AD. However, CSF assay followed by targeted treatment would become cost-effective if lecanemab is priced below $5,100 per year. These results were robust to the accuracy of diagnostic testing and rates of lecanemab discontinuation and adverse events.

DISCUSSION

Neither targeted lecanemab treatment nor treatment unrestricted by APOE ε4 genotype is cost-effective vs SoC alone for patients with MCI or mild dementia due to AD. Lecanemab would be cost-effective in some settings if priced below $5,100 per year.

Alzheimer's Disease Puzzle: Delving into Pathogenesis Hypotheses

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a prevalent neurodegenerative disease characterized by both amnestic and non-amnestic clinical manifestations. It accounts for approximately 60-70% of all dementia cases worldwide. With the increasing number of AD patients, elucidating underlying mechanisms and developing corresponding interventional strategies are necessary. Hypotheses about AD such as amyloid cascade, Tau hyper-phosphorylation, neuroinflammation, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, cholinergic, and vascular hypotheses are not mutually exclusive, and all of them play a certain role in the development of AD. The amyloid cascade hypothesis is currently the most widely studied; however, other hypotheses are also gaining support. This article summarizes the recent evidence regarding major pathological hypotheses of AD and their potential interplay, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of each hypothesis and their implications for the development of effective treatments. This could stimulate further studies and promote the development of more effective therapeutic strategies for AD.

Synthesis, biological evaluation, and molecular docking study of xanthene-linked thiosemicarbazones as cholinesterase inhibitors

This study delineates the design and synthesis of a series of xanthene-based thiosemicarbazones that show low μM inhibition of acetylcholinesterase (AChE) and butyrylcholinesterase (BChE), crucial enzymes associated with, among others, Alzheimer's Disease (AD) pathology. Despite FDA-approved AChE inhibitors being frontline treatments for AD, there remains a need for agents exhibiting improved efficacy and selectivity. Our synthesized series demonstrate meaningful inhibition against AChE (IC50 ranging from 4.2 to 62 μM). These compounds exhibit comparatively lower potency against BChE (IC50 values between 64 and 315 μM), showcasing a pronounced AChE selectivity compared to physostigmine. The selectivity index for the compounds between the two targets does vary between 0.02 and 0.75 highlighting that even minor structural differences can have drastic effects on protein interactions. Molecular docking insights further substantiated these observations, revealing the importance of the xanthene scaffold for AChE-binding and the aryl R2 moiety for BChE interactions. Notably, some compounds demonstrated dual enzyme targeting, emphasizing their interactions could be exploited for developing monotherapies against cholinesterase-associated neurodegenerative afflictions like AD. Collectively, these findings suggest that xanthene-based thiosemicarbazones are a promising and highly accessible scaffold that deserve further investigative exploration in the cholinesterase inhibitor therapeutic landscape.Communicated by Ramaswamy H. Sarma.

Cost-Benefit Analysis versus Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from a Societal Perspective in Healthcare

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is the main way that economic evaluations are carried out in the health care field. However, CEA has limited validity in deciding whether any health care evaluation is socially worthwhile and hence justifies funding. Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) is the economic evaluation method that should be used to help decide what to invest in when the objective is to record the impact on everyone in society. Cost-utility analysis (CUA), which has its roots in CEA, can be converted into CBA under certain circumstances that are not general. In this article, the strengths and weaknesses of CEA relative to CBA are analyzed in stages, starting in its most classical form and then proceeding via CUA to end up as CBA. The analysis takes place mainly in the context of five actual dementia interventions that have already been found to pass a CBA test. The CBA data is recast into CEA and CUA terms in tabular form in order that the contrast been CEA and CBA is most transparent. We find that how much of the fixed budget that is used up to fund other alternatives determines how much is left over to fund the particular intervention one is evaluating.

High-clearance anti-amyloid immunotherapies in Alzheimer's disease. Part 1: Meta-analysis and review of efficacy and safety data, and medico-economical aspects

In 2021, aducanumab, an immunotherapy targeting amyloid-β, was approved for Alzheimer's disease (AD) by the US Food and Drug Administration thanks to positive results on a putative biological surrogate marker. This approval has raised an unprecedented controversy. It was followed by a refusal of the European Medicine Agency, which does not allow the marketing of drugs solely on biological arguments and raised safety issues, and important US coverage limitations by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Two other anti-amyloid immunotherapies showed significant results regarding a clinical outcome in phase 2 trials, and five drugs are being studied in phase 3 trials. Compared to those tested in previous trials of the 2010s, the common feature and novelty of these anti-amyloid immunotherapies is their ability to induce a high clearance of amyloid load, as measured with positron emission tomography, in the brain of early-stage biomarker-proven AD patients. Here, we review the available evidence regarding efficacy and safety data and medico-economical aspects for high-clearance anti-amyloid immunotherapies. We also perform frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses of the clinical efficacy and safety of the highest dose groups from the two aducanumab phase 3 trials and the donanemab and lecanemab phase 2 trials. When pooled together, the data from high-clearance anti-amyloid immunotherapies trials confirm a statistically significant clinical effect of these drugs on cognitive decline after 18 months (difference in cognitive decline measured with CDR-SB after 18 months between the high dose immunotherapy groups vs. placebo = -0.24 points; P=0.04, frequentist random-effect model), with results on ADAS-Cog being the most statistically robust. However, this effect remains below the previously established minimal clinically relevant values. In parallel, the drugs significantly increased the occurrence of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities-edema (ARIA-E: risk ratio=13.39; P<0.0001), ARIA-hemorrhage (risk ratio=2.78; P=0.0002), and symptomatic and serious ARIA (7/1321=0.53% in the high dose groups versus 0/1446 in the placebo groups; risk ratio=6.44; P=0.04). The risk/benefit ratio of high-clearance immunotherapies in early AD is so far questionable after 18 months. Identifying subgroups of better responders, the perspective of combination therapies, and a longer follow-up may help improve their clinical relevance. Finally, the preliminary evidence from medico-economical analyses seems to indicate that the current cost of aducanumab in the US is not in reasonable alignment with its clinical benefits.

Bioavailability Study of a Transdermal Patch Formulation of Rivastigmine Compared with Exelon in Healthy Subjects

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Rivastigmine is a reversible cholinesterase inhibitor indicated for the treatment of all stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Transdermal patch formulation allows smooth and continuous drug delivery. Its tolerability, efficacy and convenience of use increase treatment compliance. This study was designed to evaluate the bioavailability and to assess the bioequivalence of two rivastigmine transdermal patches at steady state (RIV-TDS Test Product versus Exelon Marketed Reference Product), with a release rate of 13.3 mg/24 h, after multiple patch applications. As secondary objectives, safety, patch adhesion and skin irritation were evaluated.

METHODS

This was an open-label, randomized, balanced, two-period, two-sequence, cross-over study of healthy adults (n = 31). The treatment period consisted of two 5-day study periods during which consecutive daily application of the investigational patches with a release rate of 13.3 mg/24 h rivastigmine took place. Serial blood samples were collected to measure plasma concentrations. Adhesion and skin irritation assessments were performed after application of patches.

RESULTS

Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals of pharmacokinetic parameters at steady state, viz. area under the plasma concentration versus time curve from dosing time to the end of the dosing interval τ (profile day) at steady state [AUC_0-τ,ss] (97.4; 88.8-106.9), maximum plasma concentration within the dosing interval τ (profile day) at steady state [C_max,ss] (99.6; 90.4-109.7) and trough plasma concentration at the end of the dosing interval τ (profile day) at steady state [C_τ,ss] (96.8; 86.2-108.9), demonstrated that both patches were bioequivalent. Evaluation of patch adhesion showed better skin adherence for RIV-TDS as well as dermal response scores (skin tolerability after removal).

CONCLUSIONS

For both products, bioequivalence was shown and systemic tolerability was in accordance with the safety profile of the drug substance. The trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03573050 and EudraCT: 2018-000968-28.

Comparative Bioavailability Study of a Novel Multi-Day Patch Formulation of Rivastigmine (Twice Weekly) with Exelon® Transdermal Patch (Daily)- A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Rivastigmine, a reversible AChEI for symptomatic treatment of mild to moderately severe Alzheimer's dementia, is administered once daily transdermal patches, enabling an easier and continuous drug delivery. A novel multi-day (twice week) patch formulation was developed with greater convenience for patients' therapeutic management.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the bioequivalence under SS conditions of the multiple-day rivastigmine transdermal patch (Test Product, RID-TDS) in comparison to the once-daily Exelon® transdermal patch (Reference Product), both at a release rate of 9.5 mg/24 h.

DESIGN

Single-center, open-label, randomized, multiple-dose study in healthy male adults in a 2- period, 2-sequence-crossover design with multiple applications.

METHODS

Patches were applied on 11 consecutive days for Exelon® and a 4-3-4-day regimen for the multiday test patch (RID-TDS), separated by a 14-day wash-out period. The safety, local tolerability and inhibitory effect of rivastigmine on plasma BuChE activity were also evaluated.

RESULTS

57 subjects completed the study according to the protocol. Calculated point estimates and 90% CI for all primary parameters (AUC_96-264, Cmax_96-264 and Cmin_96-264) were within the predefined acceptance interval of 80.00-125.00%. They were 113.64% (107.33-120.33), 105.14% (98.38- 112.38) and 107.82% (97.78-118.89) respectively. Satisfactory adhesion (CI of mean adhesion above 90%) was demonstrated for RID-TDS but not for Exelon®.

CONCLUSION

Bioequivalence was demonstrated between RID-TDS mg twice a week and Exelon® once daily in SS. Patch adhesion favored RID-TDS despite the longer dosing interval. Both products were well tolerated.

Therapeutic Approach to Alzheimer’s Disease: Current Treatments and New Perspectives

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia. The pathophysiology of this disease is characterized by the accumulation of amyloid-β, leading to the formation of senile plaques, and by the intracellular presence of neurofibrillary tangles based on hyperphosphorylated tau protein. In the therapeutic approach to AD, we can identify three important fronts: the approved drugs currently available for the treatment of the disease, which include aducanumab, donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, memantine, and a combination of memantine and donepezil; therapies under investigation that work mainly on Aβ pathology and tau pathology, and which include γ-secretase inhibitors, β-secretase inhibitors, α-secretase modulators, aggregation inhibitors, metal interfering drugs, drugs that enhance Aβ clearance, inhibitors of tau protein hyperphosphorylation, tau protein aggregation inhibitors, and drugs that promote the clearance of tau, and finally, other alternative therapies designed to improve lifestyle, thus contributing to the prevention of the disease. Therefore, the aim of this review was to analyze and describe current treatments and possible future alternatives in the therapeutic approach to AD.

Personalised treatment for cognitive impairment in dementia: development and validation of an artificial intelligence model

BACKGROUND

Donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine are potentially effective interventions for cognitive impairment in dementia, but the use of these drugs has not been personalised to individual patients yet. We examined whether artificial intelligence-based recommendations can identify the best treatment using routinely collected patient-level information.

METHODS

Six thousand eight hundred four patients aged 59-102 years with a diagnosis of dementia from two National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trusts in the UK were used for model training/internal validation and external validation, respectively. A personalised prescription model based on the Recurrent Neural Network machine learning architecture was developed to predict the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores post-drug initiation. The drug that resulted in the smallest decline in cognitive scores between prescription and the next visit was selected as the treatment of choice. Change of cognitive scores up to 2 years after treatment initiation was compared for model evaluation.

RESULTS

Overall, 1343 patients with MMSE scores were identified for internal validation and 285 [21.22%] took the drug recommended. After 2 years, the reduction of mean [standard deviation] MMSE score in this group was significantly smaller than the remaining 1058 [78.78%] patients (0.60 [0.26] vs 2.80 [0.28]; P = 0.02). In the external validation cohort (N = 1772), 222 [12.53%] patients took the drug recommended and reported a smaller MMSE reduction compared to the 1550 [87.47%] patients who did not (1.01 [0.49] vs 4.23 [0.60]; P = 0.01). A similar performance gap was seen when testing the model on patients prescribed with AChEIs only.

CONCLUSIONS

It was possible to identify the most effective drug for the real-world treatment of cognitive impairment in dementia at an individual patient level. Routine care patients whose prescribed medications were the best fit according to the model had better cognitive performance after 2 years.