Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health Economics Review
Published in: Health Economics Review 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Review

Decision modelling of non-pharmacological interventions for individuals with dementia: a systematic review of methodologies

Authors: Elizaveta Sopina, Jan Sørensen

Published in: Health Economics Review | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

The main objective of this study is to conduct a systematic review to identify and discuss methodological issues surrounding decision modelling for economic evaluation of non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) in dementia.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted for publications using decision modelling to investigate the cost-effectiveness of NPIs for individuals with dementia. Search was limited to studies in English. Studies were excluded if they evaluated interventions aimed only at caregivers of patients with dementia, or if they only included economic evaluation alongside an RCT without additional modelling.

Results

Two primary, five secondary and three tertiary prevention intervention studies were identified and reviewed. Five studies utilised Markov models, with others using discrete event, regression-based simulation, and decision tree approaches. A number of challenging methodological issues were identified, including the use of MMSE-score as the main outcome measure, limited number of strategies compared, restricted time horizons, and limited or dated data on dementia onset, progression and mortality. Only one of the three tertiary prevention studies explicitly considered the effectiveness of pharmacological therapies alongside their intervention.

Conclusions

Economic evaluations of NPIs in dementia should utilise purposefully-developed decision models, and avoid models for evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Broader outcome measures could be a way to capture the wide impact of NPIs for dementia in future decision models. It is also important to account for the effects of pharmacological therapies alongside the NPIs in economic evaluations. Access to more localised and up-to-date data on dementia onset, progression and mortality is a priority for accurate prediction.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Wimo A. et al. Wiley Chichester: Health economics of dementia; 1998.
2.
Berr C, Wancata J, Ritchie K. Prevalence of dementia in the elderly in Europe. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2005;15(4):463–71.CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
Klimova B, Maresova P, Kuca K. Non-pharmacological approaches to the prevention and treatment of Alzheimer's disease with respect to the rising treatment costs. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2016;13(11):1249–58.CrossRefPubMed
5.
World Health Organization Dementia: a public health priority. 2012: World Health Organization.
6.
van de Glind, E.M.M., et al., Pharmacological treatment of dementia: a scoping review of systematic reviews. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord, 2013. 36(3–4): p. 211–228.
7.
Takeda M, et al. Non-pharmacological intervention for dementia patients. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2012;66(1):1–7.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Tan C-C, et al. Efficacy and safety of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Alzheimers Dis. 2014;41(2):615–31.PubMed
9.
World Health Organization First WHO ministerial conference on global action against dementia: meeting report, WHO Headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland, 16–17 March 2015. 2015.
10.
Olazarán J, et al. Nonpharmacological therapies in Alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review of efficacy. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2010;30(2):161–78.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Phung KTT, et al. A three-year follow-up on the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for patients with mild dementia and their caregivers: the multicentre, rater-blinded, randomised Danish Alzheimer intervention study (DAISY). BMJ Open. 2013;3(11)
12.
Brodaty H, Arasaratnam C. Meta-analysis of nonpharmacological interventions for neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia. Am J Psychiatr. 2012;169(9):946–53.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Cohen-Mansfield J. Nonpharmacological interventions for persons with dementia. Alzheimer's Care Today. 2005;6(2):129–45.
14.
Cohen-Mansfield J. Nonpharmacologic treatment of behavioral disorders in dementia. Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2013;15(6):765–85.CrossRefPubMed
15.
O'Neil, M.E., M. Freeman, and V. Portland, A systematic evidence review of non-pharmacological interventions for behavioral symptoms of dementia. 2011: Department of Veterans Affairs Washington, DC, USA.
16.
Knapp M, Iemmi V, Romeo R. Dementia care costs and outcomes: a systematic review. International journal of geriatric psychiatry. 2013;28(6):551–61.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Cohen JT, Neumann PJ. Decision analytic models for Alzheimer's disease: state of the art and future directions. Alzheimers Dement. 2008;4(3):212–22.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Green C, et al. Model-based economic evaluation in Alzheimer's disease: a review of the methods available to model Alzheimer's disease progression. Value Health. 2011;14(5):621–30.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Green C. Modelling disease progression in Alzheimer's disease: a review of modelling methods used for cost-effectiveness analysis. PharmacoEconomics. 2007;25(9):735–50.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1. 0. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2013:2011.
21.
22.
Briggs, A.H., K. Claxton, and M.J. Sculpher, Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. 2006: Oxford university press.
23.
Gustavsson A, et al. Current issues and future research priorities for health economic modelling across the full continuum of Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2017;13(3):312–21.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Caro JJ, et al. Modeling good research practices—overview. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32(5):667–77.CrossRef
25.
Philips Z, et al. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. PharmacoEconomics. 2006;24(4):355–71.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Zhang Y, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a health intervention program with risk reductions for getting demented: results of a Markov model in a Swedish/Finnish setting. J Alzheimers Dis. 2011;26(4):735–44.PubMed
27.
Saito E, et al. Cost effective community based dementia screening: a markov model simulation. Int J Alzheimers Dis. 2014;2014:103138.PubMedPubMedCentral
28.
McMahon PM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of functional imaging tests in the diagnosis of Alzheimer disease. Radiology. 2000;217(1):58–68.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Martikainen J, Valtonen H, Pirttilä T. Potential cost-effectiveness of a family-based program in mild Alzheimer's disease patients. The European journal of health economics: HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care. 2004;5(2):136–42.CrossRefPubMed
30.
31.
Silverman DHS, et al. Evaluating early dementia with and without assessment of regional cerebral metabolism by PET: a comparison of predicted costs and benefits. Journal of nuclear medicine: official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. 2002;43(2):253–66.
32.
Knott, C., General mental and physical health. Health Survey for England, 2012.
33.
McDonnell J, et al. The cost of treatment of Alzheimer's disease in the Netherlands: a regression-based simulation model. PharmacoEconomics. 2001;19(4):379–90.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Mirsaeedi-Farahani K, et al. Deep brain stimulation for Alzheimer disease: a decision and cost-effectiveness analysis. J Neurol. 2015;262(5):1191–7.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Dixon J, et al. Exploring the cost-effectiveness of a one-off screen for dementia (for people aged 75years in England and Wales). International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 2014;30(5):446–52.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Tsiachristas A, Smith AD. B-vitamins are potentially a cost-effective population health strategy to tackle dementia: too good to be true? Alzheimer's & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions. 2016;2(3):156–61.
37.
Smith AD, Refsum H. Homocysteine, B vitamins, and cognitive impairment. Annu Rev Nutr. 2016;36(1):211–39.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Ott A, et al. Prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia: association with education. The Rotterdam study. 1995;310:970–3.
39.
Todd S, et al. Survival in dementia and predictors of mortality: a review. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 2013;28(11):1109–24.PubMed
40.
Neumann PJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of donepezil in the treatment of mild or moderate Alzheimer's disease. Neurology. 1999;52(6):1138–45.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Burström K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F. Swedish population health-related quality of life results using the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2001;10(7):621–35.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189–98.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Prince M, et al. Dementia UK: update. Alzheimer’s. Society. 2014;
44.
Kivipelto M, et al. Risk score for the prediction of dementia risk in 20 years among middle aged people: a longitudinal, population-based study. The Lancet Neurology. 2006;5(9):735–41.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Lopez OL, et al. Alteration of a clinically meaningful outcome in the natural history of Alzheimer's disease by cholinesterase inhibition. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(1):83–7.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Neumann PJ, et al. Measuring Alzheimer’s disease progression with transition probabilities: estimates from CERAD. Neurology. 2001;57(6):957–64.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Spackman DE, et al. Measuring Alzheimer disease progression with transition probabilities: Estimates from NACC-UDS. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2012;9(9):1050–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
48.
Jack CR, et al. Serial PIB and MRI in normal, mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease: implications for sequence of pathological events in Alzheimer's disease. Brain. 2009;
49.
Lewis F, et al. The trajectory of dementia in the UK—making a difference. In: OHE consulting; 2014.
50.
Green C, Zhang S. Predicting the progression of Alzheimer's disease dementia: a multidomain health policy model. Alzheimers Dement. 2016;12(7):776–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
51.
McLaughlin T, et al. Dependence as a unifying construct in defining Alzheimer's disease severity. Alzheimers Dement. 2010;6(6):482–93.CrossRefPubMed
52.
McLaughlin T, et al. Assessment of potential measures in models of progression in Alzheimer disease. Neurology. 2010;75(14):1256–62.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Johannesson M, Jönsson B, Karlsson G. Outcome measurement in economic evaluation. Health Econ. 1996;5(4):279–96.CrossRefPubMed
54.
55.
Sheehan BD, et al. Patient and proxy measurement of quality of life among general hospital in-patients with dementia. Aging Ment Health. 2012;16(5):603–7.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Brodaty H, Seeher K, Gibson L. Dementia time to death: a systematic literature review on survival time and years of life lost in people with dementia. Int Psychogeriatr. 2012;24(7):1034–45.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Mesterton J, et al. Cross sectional observational study on the societal costs of Alzheimer's disease. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2010;7(4):358–67.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Luengo-Fernandez R, Leal J, Gray A. UK research spend in 2008 and 2012: comparing stroke, cancer, coronary heart disease and dementia. BMJ Open. 2015;5(4)
59.
Harris GJ, et al. Dynamic susceptibility contrast MR imaging of regional cerebral blood volume in Alzheimer disease: a promising alternative to nuclear medicine. Am J Neuroradiol. 1998;19(9):1727–32.PubMed
60.
Hux MJ, et al. Relation between severity of Alzheimer's disease and costs of caring. Can Med Assoc J. 1998;159(5):457–65.
61.
Mittelman MS, et al. A family intervention to delay nursing home placement of patients with alzheimer disease: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1996;276(21):1725–31.CrossRefPubMed
62.
Fox JP, et al. Estimating the costs of caring for people with Alzheimer disease in California: 2000–2040. J Public Health Policy. 2001;22(1):88–97.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Decision modelling of non-pharmacological interventions for individuals with dementia: a systematic review of methodologies
Authors
Elizaveta Sopina
Jan Sørensen
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Health Economics Review / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 2191-1991
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-018-0192-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Health Economics Review 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research

Volume-outcome relationship and minimum volume regulations in the German hospital sector – evidence from nationwide administrative hospital data for the years 2005–2007

Research

Regret-sensitive treatment decisions

Research

Hospitalization rates and resource utilization of schizophrenic patients switched from oral antipsychotics to aripiprazole-depot in Germany

Research

Factors for healthcare utilization and effect of mutual health insurance on healthcare utilization in rural communities of South Achefer Woreda, North West, Ethiopia

Research

Analysis of multi drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) financial protection policy: MDR-TB health insurance schemes, in Chhattisgarh state, India

Research

Extension of mandatory health insurance to informal sector workers in Togo