Donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine for ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

NHS R&D HTA Programme The research findings from the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme directly influence key decision-making bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the National Screening Committee (NSC) who rely on HTA outputs to help raise standards of care. HTA findings also help to improve the quality of the service in the NHS indirectly in that they form a key component of the ‘National Knowledge Service’ that is being developed to improve the evidence of clinical practice throughout the NHS. The HTA Programme was set up in 1993. Its role is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. ‘Health technologies’ are broadly defined to include all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care, rather than settings of care. The HTA Programme commissions research only on topics where it has identified key gaps in the evidence needed by the NHS. Suggestions for topics are actively sought from people working in the NHS, the public, service-users groups and professional bodies such as Royal Colleges and NHS Trusts. Research suggestions are carefully considered by panels of independent experts (including service users) whose advice results in a ranked list of recommended research priorities. The HTA Programme then commissions the research team best suited to undertake the work, in the manner most appropriate to find the relevant answers. Some projects may take only months, others need several years to answer the research questions adequately. They may involve synthesising existing evidence or conducting a trial to produce new evidence where none currently exists. Additionally, through its Technology Assessment Report (TAR) call-off contract, the HTA Programme is able to commission bespoke reports, principally for NICE, but also for other policy customers, such as a National Clinical Director. TARs bring together evidence on key aspects of the use of specific technologies and usually have to be completed within a short time period. Criteria for inclusion in the HTA monograph series Reports are published in the HTA monograph series if (1) they have resulted from work commissioned for the HTA Programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the referees and editors. Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed ‘systematic’ when the account of the search, appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. The research reported in this monograph was commissioned and funded by the HTA Programme on behalf of NICE as project number 04/02/01. The protocol was agreed in March 2004. The assessment report began editorial review in February 2005 and was accepted for publication in May 2005. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the referees for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the HTA Programme, NICE or the Department of Health. Editor-in-Chief: Professor Tom Walley Series Editors: Dr Peter Davidson, Dr Chris Hyde, Dr Ruairidh Milne, Dr Rob Riemsma and Dr Ken Stein Managing Editors: Sally Bailey and Sarah Llewellyn Lloyd ISSN 1366-5278 © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2006 This monograph may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to NCCHTA, Mailpoint 728, Boldrewood, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO16 7PX, UK. Published by Gray Publishing, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, on behalf of NCCHTA. Printed on acid-free paper in the UK by St Edmundsbury Press Ltd, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk. T
Objectives: To provide an update review of the best quality evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine for mild to moderately severe Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and of memantine for moderately severe to severe AD. Data sources: Electronic databases, experts in the field and manufacturer submissions to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Review methods: A systematic review of the literature and an economic evaluation were undertaken. The quality of included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using criteria developed by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. An outline assessment of economic evaluations was undertaken using a standard checklist. The clinical and cost-effectiveness data were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of the results of included studies. Where appropriate, meta-analysis of data was undertaken. Results: For mild to moderately severe AD, the results of the study suggested that all three treatments were beneficial when assessed using cognitive outcome measures. Global outcome measures were positive for donepezil and rivastigmine, but mixed for galantamine. Results for measures of function were mixed for donepezil and rivastigmine, but positive for galantamine. Behaviour and mood measures were mixed for donepezil and galantamine, but showed no benefit for rivastigmine. For memantine, two published RCTs were included; in one of these trials the participants were already being treated with donepezil. The results suggest that memantine is beneficial when assessed using functional and global measurements. The effect of memantine on cognitive and behaviour and mood outcomes is, however, less clear. Literature on Abstract Health Technology Assessment 2006; Vol. 10: No. 1 The clinical and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine for Alzheimer’s disease E Loveman, * C Green, J Kirby, A Takeda, J Picot, E Payne and A Clegg Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre, Wessex Institute for Health Research and Development, University of Southampton, UK * Corresponding author © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2006. All rights reserved. the cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine was dominated by industry-sponsored studies, and studies varied in methods and results. Of the three UK studies, two report donepezil as not cost-effective, whereas a third study reports an additional cost (£1996) of between £1200 and £7000 per year in a non-severe AD health state (concerns over these estimates are raised, suggesting that they may underestimate the true cost-effectiveness of donepezil). Cost-effectiveness analysis undertaken in this review suggests that donepezil treatment has a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in excess of £80,000, with donepezil treatment reducing the mean time spent in full-time care (delays progression of AD) by 1.42–1.59 months (over a 5-year period). From four published cost-effectiveness studies, two UK studies report additional costs associated with rivastigmine treatment. Cost-effectiveness analysis undertaken in the current review suggests that rivastigmine treatment has a cost per QALY in excess of £57,000, with rivastigmine treatment reducing the mean time spent in full-time care (delays progression) by 1.43–1.63 months (over a 5-year period). From five published costeffectiveness studies, one UK study reports a cost per QALY of £8693 for 16-mg galantamine treatment and £10,051 for 24-mg galantamine treatment (concerns raised suggest that this may underestimate the true cost-effectiveness of galantamine). Cost-effectiveness analysis undertaken in the present review suggests that galantamine treatment has a cost per QALY in excess of £68,000, with galantamine reducing the time spent in full-time care (delays progression) by 1.42–1.73 months (over a 5-year period). From two published costeffectiveness studies, one reports analysis for the UK, finding that memantine treatment results in cost savings and benefits in terms of delaying disease progression (concerns raised suggest that this may underestimate iii
Page 1 and 2: Health Technology Assessment 2006;
Page 3: The clinical and cost-effectiveness
Page 7 and 8: List of abbreviations .............
Page 9 and 10: AChEI acetylcholinesterase inhibito
Page 11 and 12: Epidemiology and background Alzheim
Page 13: Galantamine Five published economic
Page 17 and 18: Description of underlying health pr
Page 19 and 20: TABLE 1 Estimated prevalence of AD
Page 21 and 22: as one component of their care. A n
Page 23 and 24: The a priori methods used for syste
Page 25: Data synthesis Data were synthesise
Page 28 and 29: 14 Clinical effectiveness TABLE 3 C
Page 30 and 31: 16 Clinical effectiveness TABLE 3 C
Page 32 and 33: 18 Clinical effectiveness particula
Page 34 and 35: 20 Clinical effectiveness Compariso
Page 36 and 37: 22 Clinical effectiveness TABLE 6 M
Page 38 and 39: 24 Clinical effectiveness donepezil
Page 46 and 47: 32 Clinical effectiveness DAD The D
Page 48 and 49: 34 Clinical effectiveness clinical
Page 50 and 51: 36 Clinical effectiveness TABLE 10
Page 52 and 53: 38 Clinical effectiveness TABLE 10
Page 54 and 55:
40 Clinical effectiveness statistic
Page 56 and 57:
42 Clinical effectiveness TABLE 14
Page 58 and 59:
44 Clinical effectiveness Compariso
Page 60 and 61:
46 Clinical effectiveness Summary:
Page 62 and 63:
48 Clinical effectiveness differenc
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
52 Clinical effectiveness This appe
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
58 Clinical effectiveness Compariso
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
62 Clinical effectiveness placebo [
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
66 Clinical effectiveness (24 mg/da
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
70 Clinical effectiveness ● One R
Page 86 and 87:
72 Clinical effectiveness by the pa
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
78 Clinical effectiveness donepezil
Page 94 and 95:
80 Evidence from systematic reviews
Page 96 and 97:
82 Economic analysis TABLE 48 Chara
Page 98 and 99:
84 TABLE 49 Economic analysis Outli
Page 100 and 101:
86 Economic analysis The UK study r
Page 102 and 103:
88 Economic analysis The AD2000 stu
Page 104 and 105:
90 Economic analysis term). Where w
Page 106 and 107:
92 Economic analysis published econ
Page 108 and 109:
94 Economic analysis Fenn and Gray
Page 110 and 111:
96 Economic analysis one another. W
Page 112 and 113:
98 Economic analysis outcomes: (1)
Page 114 and 115:
100 Economic analysis respond to ga
Page 116 and 117:
102 Economic analysis donepezil, ri
Page 118 and 119:
104 Economic analysis of this study
Page 120 and 121:
106 Economic analysis independent,
Page 122 and 123:
108 Economic analysis classificatio
Page 124 and 125:
110 Economic analysis survey studie
Page 126 and 127:
112 Economic analysis vascular deme
Page 128 and 129:
114 Economic analysis Livingston an
Page 130 and 131:
116 Economic analysis sensitive to
Page 132 and 133:
118 Economic analysis Neumann and c
Page 134 and 135:
120 Economic analysis The model str
Page 136 and 137:
122 Economic analysis CEA, given th
Page 138 and 139:
124 Economic analysis TABLE 70 Key
Page 140 and 141:
126 Economic analysis TABLE 73 Prof
Page 142 and 143:
128 Economic analysis Probability o
Page 144 and 145:
130 Economic analysis Results are s
Page 146 and 147:
132 Economic analysis 4. The model
Page 148 and 149:
134 Economic analysis perspective e
Page 150 and 151:
136 Economic analysis indicating th
Page 153:
Ongoing research, with relevance to
Page 157:
The increasing numbers of the very
Page 160 and 161:
146 Discussion and conclusions dose
Page 162 and 163:
148 Discussion and conclusions effo
Page 164 and 165:
150 Discussion and conclusions Stre
Page 167 and 168:
1. Clegg A, Bryant J, Nicholson T,
Page 169 and 170:
placebo-controlled study of donepez
Page 171 and 172:
94. Brooks E, Deal L. The effect of
Page 173 and 174:
of memantine in patients with moder
Page 175:
This version of HTA monograph volum
Page 179 and 180:
376 Health Technology Assessment Pr
Page 181:
378 Health Technology Assessment Pr
show all

Donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine for ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?