Home › Research › Treatments
Resource utilisation and cost analysis of memantine in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease
Wimo A, Winblad B, Stöffler A, Wirth Y, Möbius HJ.. PharmacoEconomics, 2003-01-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
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 dollars US 1089.74/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 (dollars US-823.77/month; p = 0.03) and direct nonmedical costs (dollars 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Wimo, A., Winblad, B., Stöffler, A., Wirth, Y., & Möbius, H. J. (2003). Resource utilisation and cost analysis of memantine in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease. PharmacoEconomics. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200321050-00004
Vancouver
Wimo A, Winblad B, Stöffler A, Wirth Y, Möbius HJ. Resource utilisation and cost analysis of memantine in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease. PharmacoEconomics. 2003. doi:10.2165/00019053-200321050-00004. PMID: 12627986.
BibTeX
@article{wimo2003-12627986,
author = {Wimo, A. and Winblad, B. and Stöffler, A. and Wirth, Y. and Möbius, H. J.},
title = {{Resource utilisation and cost analysis of memantine in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {PharmacoEconomics},
year = {2003},
doi = {10.2165/00019053-200321050-00004},
pmid = {12627986},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200321050-00004}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- The results suggest that memantine treatment of patients with moderate to severe AD is cost saving from a societal perspective.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Participants76
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 72/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a large phase 3 trial. Scored zero for effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 44 of the 61 points we could judge it on, which is 72 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (PharmacoEconomics) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A large phase 3 trial (from PubMed type “Clinical Trial, Phase III”) |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2003 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 76 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomized / blinded | 2 / 2 | Randomized and blinded or placebo-controlled (as stated in the record) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | 2 / 3 | PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 12627986) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 44 / 61 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 44 of the 61 points we could judge it on is 72 out of 100. |
| Total | 72 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Treatments
Also tagged “resource”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “resource”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.