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
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 5/2003

01-04-2003 | Original Research Article

Resource Utilisation and Cost Analysis of Memantine in Patients with Moderate to Severe Alzheimer’s Disease

Authors: Dr Anders Wimo, Bengt Winblad, Albrecht Stöffler, Yvonne Wirth, Hans-Jörg Möbius

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 5/2003

Login to get access

Abstract

Background: Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a devastating illness that causes enormous emotional stress to affected families and is associated with substantial medical and nonmedical costs.
Objective: To determine the effects of 28 weeks of memantine treatment for patients with AD on resource utilisation and costs.
Study design and methods: Multicentre, prospective, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial performed in the US. The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to examine the resource utilisation variables and logistic regression models were used for multivariate resource utilisation analyses. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models (log and non-log) were computed to examine costs from a societal perspective. All costs were calculated in 1999 US dollars.
Study population: Outpatients with moderate to severe AD. Overall, 252 patients received randomised treatment, and 166 patients (placebo n = 76, memantine n = 90) formed the treated-per-protocol (TPP) subset for the health economic analyses, on which the main cost analysis was based.
Main outcome measure: Resource Utilisation in Dementia (RUD) scale, measuring patient and caregiver resource utilisation, and various sources for cost calculations.
Results: Controlling for baseline differences between the groups, significantly less caregiver time was needed for patients receiving memantine than for those receiving placebo (difference 51.5 hours per month; 95% CI −95.27, −7.17; p = 0.02). Analysis of residential status also favoured memantine: time to institutionalisation (p = 0.052) and institutionalisation at week 28 (p = 0.04 with the chi-square test). Total costs from a societal perspective were lower in the memantine group (difference $US1089.74/month [non-overlapping 95% CI for treatment difference −1954.90, −224.58]; p = 0.01). The main differences between the groups were total caregiver costs ($US-823.77/month; p = 0.03) and direct nonmedical costs ($US-430.84/month; p = 0.07) favouring memantine treatment. Patient direct medical costs were higher in the memantine group (p < 0.01), mainly due to the cost of memantine.
Conclusion: Resource utilisation and total health costs were lower in the memantine group than the placebo group. The results suggest that memantine treatment of patients with moderate to severe AD is cost saving from a societal perspective.
Literature
1.
Winblad B. Socio-economic perspectives of dementia and cost-effectiveness of treatments. 7th International Geneva/Springfield Symposium on Advances in Alzheimer Therapy; 2002 Apr 3–6; Geneva
2.
Jonsson B, Jonsson L, Wimo A. Cost of dementia. In: May M, Sartorius N, editors. Dementia: WPA series evidence and experience in psychiatry. London: John Wiley & Sons, 2000: 335–63
3.
Grafstrom M, Winblad B. Family burden in the care of the demented and nondemented elderly: a longitudinal study. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1995; 9 (2): 78–86PubMedCrossRef
4.
Max W, Webber P, Fox P. Alzheimer’s disease: the unpaid burden of caring. J Aging Health 1995; 7 (2): 179–99PubMedCrossRef
5.
Rice DP, Fox PJ, Max W, et al. The economic burden of Alzheimer’s disease care. Health Aff (Millwood) 1993; 12 (2): 164–76CrossRef
6.
Stommel M, Collins CE, Given B. The costs of family contribution to the care of persons with dementia. Gerontologist 1994; 34: 199–205PubMedCrossRef
7.
Palmer AM, Gershon S. Is the neuronal basis of Alzheimer’s disease cholinergic or glutamergic? FASEB J 1990; 4: 2745–52PubMed
8.
Winblad B, Wimo A, Möbius HJ, et al. Severe dementia: a common condition entailing high costs at individual and societal levels. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 1999; 14 (11): 911–4PubMedCrossRef
9.
Aguero-Torres H, Fratiglioni L, Winblad B. Natural history of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias: review of the literature in the light of the findings from the Kungsholmen Project. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 1998; 13 (11): 755–66PubMedCrossRef
10.
Wimo A, Winblad B. Health economic aspects of Alzheimer’s disease and its treatment. Psychogeriatrics 2001; 3: 189–93CrossRef
11.
Barnes CA, Danysz W, Parsons CG. Effects of the uncompetitive NMDA receptor antagonist memantine on hippocampal long-term potentiation, short-term exploratory modulation and spatial memory in awake, freely moving rats. Eur J Neurosci 1996; 8: 565–71PubMedCrossRef
12.
Müller WE, Mutschler E, Riederer P. Noncompetitive NMDA receptor antagonists with fast open-channel blocking kinetics and strong voltage-dependency as potential therapeutic agents for Alzheimer’s dementia. Pharmacopsychiatry 1995; 28 (4): 113–24PubMedCrossRef
13.
Danysz W, Parsons CG, Möbius HJ, et al. Neuroprotection and symptomatological action of memantine relevant for Alzheimer’s disease: an unified hypothesis on the mechanism of action. Neurotox Res 2000; 2 (2–3): 85–98PubMedCrossRef
14.
Parsons CG, Danysz W, Quack G. Memantine is a clinically well tolerated NMDA receptor antagonist: a review of preclinical data. Neuropharmacology 1999; 38 (6): 735–67PubMedCrossRef
15.
Winblad B, Poritis N. Memantine in severe dementia, results of the M-BEST study. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 1999; 14 (2): 135–46PubMedCrossRef
16.
Reisberg B, Windscheif U, Ferris SH, et al. Memantine in moderately severe to severe Alzheimer’s disease (AD): results of a placebo-controlled 6-month trial. Neurobiol Aging 2000; 21 (1S): S275CrossRef
17.
Wimo A, Wetterholm AL, Mastey V, et al. Evaluation of the resource utilization and caregiver time in anti-dementia drug trials: a quantitative battery. In: Wimo A, Jönsson B, Karlsson G, editors. The health economics of dementia. London: John Wiley & Sons, 1988: 465–99
18.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, 1994
19.
McKhann G, Drachman D, Folstein M, et al. Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: report of the NINCDS-ADRDA Work Group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on Alzheimer’s Disease. Neurology 1984; 34: 939–44PubMedCrossRef
20.
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: 189–98PubMedCrossRef
21.
Reisberg B, Ferris SH, de Leon MJ, et al. The Global Deterioration Scale for assessment of primary degenerative dementia. Am J Psychiatry 1982; 139: 1136–9PubMed
22.
Sclan SG, Reisberg B. Functional assessment staging (FAST) in Alzheimer’s disease: reliability, validity, and ordinality. Int Psychogeriatr 1992; 4 Suppl. 1: 55–69PubMedCrossRef
23.
Galasko D, Bennett D, Sano M, et al. An inventory to assess activities of daily living for clinical trials in Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11 (2): 33–9CrossRef
24.
Schmitt FA, Ashford W, Ernesto C, et al. The severe impairment battery: concurrent validity and the assessment of longitudinal change in Alzheimer’s disease. The Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study. Alzheimers Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11 (2): 51–6CrossRef
25.
Reisberg B, Schneider L, Doody R, et al. Clinical global measures of dementia: position paper from the International Working Group on Harmonization of Dementia Drug Guidelines. Alzheimers Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11 Suppl. 3: 8–18
26.
Gutterman EM, Markowitz JS, Lewis B, et al. Cost of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia in managed-medicare. J Am Geriatr Soc 1999; 47: 1065–71PubMed
27.
Ernst RL, Hay JW. The US economic and social costs of Alzheimer’s disease revisited. Am J Public Health 1994; 8: 1261–4CrossRef
28.
Neumann PJ, Hermann RC, Kuntz KM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of donepezil in the treatment of mild or moderate Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 1999; 52: 1138–45PubMedCrossRef
29.
Weinberger M, Gold DT, Divine GW, et al. Expenditures in caring for patients with dementia who live at home. Am J Public Health 1993; 83: 338–41PubMedCrossRef
30.
Red book, 1999 edition. Montvale (NJ): Medical Economics Company/Thompson Medical Economics, 1999
31.
Leon J, Moyer D. Potential cost savings in residential care for Alzheimer’s disease patients. Gerontologist 1999; 39 (4): 440–9PubMedCrossRef
32.
Wimo A, Winblad B, Mastey V, et al. Donepezil reduces total healthcare and societal costs in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease: results of a one-year, double-blind randomized trial [abstract]. Eur J Neurol 2000; 7 (3): 25
33.
Max W. The cost of Alzheimer’s disease: will drug treatment ease the burden? Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 9 (1): 5–10PubMedCrossRef
34.
Wimo A, Winblad B, Grafstrom M. The social consequences for families with Alzheimer’s disease patients: potential impact of new drug treatment. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 1999; 14 (5): 338–47PubMedCrossRef
35.
Feldman H, Gauthier S, Hecker J, et al. A 24-week, randomized, double-blind study of donepezil in moderate to severe Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 2001; 57 (4): 613–20PubMedCrossRef
36.
Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP). Points to consider on missing data. (CPMP/EWP/1776/99 draft). London, 2001 Jan. London: The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medical Products (EMEA), 2001
37.
Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996
38.
Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997
39.
Jönsson L. Guidelines for cost-effectiveness analysis of antidementia drugs: the role of models. Oral presentation, 3rd International Pharmacoeconomical Conference on Alzheimer’s Disease; 2002 Jul 19–20; Stockholm
Metadata
Title
Resource Utilisation and Cost Analysis of Memantine in Patients with Moderate to Severe Alzheimer’s Disease
Authors
Dr Anders Wimo
Bengt Winblad
Albrecht Stöffler
Yvonne Wirth
Hans-Jörg Möbius
Publication date
01-04-2003
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 5/2003
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200321050-00004

Other articles of this Issue 5/2003

PharmacoEconomics 5/2003 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

The Cost Effectiveness of Two New Antiepileptic Therapies in the Absence of Direct Comparative Data

Original Research Article

Cost Effectiveness of Alendronate (Fosamax®) for the Treatment of Osteoporosis and Prevention of Fractures

Original Research Article

Factors Affecting UK Primary-Care Costs of Managing Patients with Asthma over 5 Years

Original Research Article

Peginterferon α-2a (40kD) [Pegasys®] Improves HR-QOL Outcomes Compared with Unmodified Interferon α-2a [Roferon®-A]

Original Research Article

A Simulation Model for Estimating Direct Costs of Type 1 Diabetes Prevention

Original Research Article

Cost Effectiveness of Nasal Budesonide versus Surgical Treatment for Nasal Polyps