Effect of mortality in cost-effectiveness modeling of disease-modifying treatment for Alzheimer's disease.

INTRODUCTION: We examined (1) the magnitude of mortality attributed to Alzheimer's disease (AD), and (2) the effect of mortality in cost-effectiveness modeling of hypothetical disease-modifying treatment (DMT) in AD. METHOD: Data were derived from Swedish Dementia Registry (N = 39,308). Mortality was analyzed with survival analysis and multinomial logistic regression. A Markov microsimulation model was used to model the cost effectiveness of DMT using routine care as a comparator. Three scenarios were simulated: (1) indirect effect, (2) no effect on overall mortality, (3) indirect effect on AD-related mortality. RESULTS: Overall mortality increased with cognitive decline, age, male sex, number of medications used, and lower body mass index. Nearly all cause-specific mortality was associated with cognitive decline. DMT increased survival by 0.35 years in scenario 1 and 0.14 years in scenario 3. DMT with no mortality effect is the least cost effective. DISCUSSION: The results provide key mortality estimates and demonstrate influences on the cost effectiveness of DMT. Highlights: We describe cause-specific mortality in relation to disease severity in Alzheimer's disease (AD).We model different assumptions of disease-modifying treatment (DMT) on AD survival.DMT was the least cost effective when assuming no effect on AD survival.Cost effectiveness is mainly influenced by the relative cost of staying in each disease state.

The Costs of Dementia in Europe: An Updated Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of dementia is increasing, while new opportunities for diagnosing, treating and possibly preventing Alzheimer's disease and other dementia disorders are placing focus on the need for accurate estimates of costs in dementia. Considerable methodological heterogeneity creates challenges for synthesising the existing literature. This study aimed to estimate the costs for persons with dementia in Europe, disaggregated into cost components and informative patient subgroups. METHODS: We conducted an updated literature review searching PubMed, Embase and Web of Science for studies published from 2008 to July 2021 reporting empirically based cost estimates for persons with dementia in European countries. We excluded highly selective or otherwise biased reports, and used a random-effects meta-analysis to produce estimates of mean costs of care across five European regions. RESULTS: Based on 113 studies from 17 European countries, the estimated mean costs for all patients by region were highest in the British Isles (73,712 EUR), followed by the Nordics (43,767 EUR), Southern (35,866 EUR), Western (38,249 EUR), and Eastern Europe and Baltics (7938 EUR). Costs increased with disease severity, and the distribution of costs over informal and formal care followed a North-South gradient with Southern Europe being most reliant on informal care. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this study represents the most extensive meta-analysis of the cost for persons with dementia in Europe to date. Though there is considerable heterogeneity across studies, much of this is explained by identifiable factors. Further standardisation of methodology for capturing resource utilisation data may further improve comparability of future studies. The cost estimates presented here may be of value for cost-of-illness studies and economic evaluations of novel diagnostic technologies and therapies for Alzheimer's disease.

The Social Cost of Providing Care to Older Adults With and Without Dementia.

OBJECTIVES: Social participation is known to enhance well-being. Caregiving responsibilities are more intense when caring for an older adult with than without dementia and may affect caregivers' ability for social participation. We estimate social participation restrictions among caregivers for older persons with versus without dementia, variation within racial/ethnic group, and the mediating effect of care hours. METHODS: We use the 2017 National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) and National Study of Caregiving (NSOC) to study family caregivers for older adults. We estimate the prevalence of social participation (e.g., visiting family/friends, religious activities, group/club activities, going out) that were important to the caregiver but missed due to caregiving. We use logistic models to test for differences in restrictions by the older adult's dementia status overall and within race/ethnic group, adjusting for caregiver and care receiver characteristics. RESULTS: One-third of family caregivers for older adults with dementia reported restrictions due to caregiving, double the prevalence among caregivers of an older adult without dementia (33.3% vs 16.0%; p < .001). This doubling gap persisted in adjusted models (odds ratio [OR] = 2.4; p < .01) but mainly for White, non-Hispanic caregivers (OR = 3.2; p < .001). Substantially greater caregiving hours for people with versus without dementia was found (104 vs 60 hr per month), which is responsible for about 21% of the total difference in restrictions (p < .05). DISCUSSION: More time spent among caregivers of persons with versus without dementia may be an important factor undermining social participation, but hours only partially explain the gap. Future interventions should consider how to facilitate social participation among caregivers.