Pharmaceutical Treatment for Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias: Utilization and Disparities.

BACKGROUND: Four prescription drugs (donepezil, galantamine, memantine, and rivastigmine) are approved by the US FDA to treat symptoms of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Even modest effectiveness could potentially reduce the population-level burden of AD and related dementias (ADRD), especially for women and racial/ethnic minorities who have higher incidence of ADRD. OBJECTIVE: Describe the prevalence of antidementia drug use and timing of initiation relative to ADRD diagnosis among a nationally representative group of older Americans, and if there are disparities in prevalence and timing by sex and race/ethnicity. METHODS: Descriptive analyses and logistic regressions of Medicare claims (2008-2016) for beneficiaries who had an ADRD or dementia-related symptom diagnosis, or use of an FDA approved drug for AD. We investigate prevalence of use and timing of treatment initiation relative to ADRD diagnosis across time and beneficiary characteristics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, comorbidities). RESULTS: Among persons diagnosed with ADRD or related symptoms, 33.3% used an approved drug over the study period. Odds of use was higher among Whites than non-Whites. Among ADRD drug users, 40% initiated use within 6 months of the initial ADRD or related symptoms diagnosis, and 16% initiated prior to a diagnosis. We observed disparities by race/ethnicity: 28% of Asians, 24% of Hispanics, 16% of Blacks, and 15% of Whites initiated prior to diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The use of antidementia drugs is relatively low and varies widely by race/ethnicity. Heterogeneity in timing of initiation and use may affect health and cost outcomes, but these effects merit further study.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the treatment of mild and moderate Alzheimer's disease in Brazil

Objective: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of donepezil and rivastigmine therapy for mild and moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) from the perspective of the Brazilian Unified Health System. Method: A hypothetical cohort of 1,000 individuals of both sexes, aged >65 years, and diagnosed with AD was simulated using a Markov model. The time horizon was 10 years, with 1-year cycles. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. Results: For mild AD, the study showed an increase in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.61 QALY/21,907.38 Brazilian reais (BRL) for patients treated with donepezil and 0.58 QALY/BRL 24,683.33 for patients treated with rivastigmine. In the moderate AD group, QALY increases of 0.05/BRL 27,414.96 were observed for patients treated with donepezil and 0.06/BRL 34,222.96 for patients treated with rivastigmine. Conclusions: The findings of this study contradict the standard of care for mild and moderate AD in Brazil, which is based on rivastigmine. A pharmacological treatment option based on current Brazilian clinical practice guidelines for AD suggests that rivastigmine is less cost-effective (0.39 QALY/BRL 32,685.77) than donepezil. Probabilistic analysis indicates that donepezil is the most cost-effective treatment for mild and moderate AD.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the treatment of mild and moderate Alzheimer's disease in Brazil.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of donepezil and rivastigmine therapy for mild and moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) from the perspective of the Brazilian Unified Health System. METHOD: A hypothetical cohort of 1,000 individuals of both sexes, aged >65 years, and diagnosed with AD was simulated using a Markov model. The time horizon was 10 years, with 1-year cycles. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: For mild AD, the study showed an increase in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.61 QALY/21,907.38 Brazilian reais (BRL) for patients treated with donepezil and 0.58 QALY/BRL 24,683.33 for patients treated with rivastigmine. In the moderate AD group, QALY increases of 0.05/BRL 27,414.96 were observed for patients treated with donepezil and 0.06/BRL 34,222.96 for patients treated with rivastigmine. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study contradict the standard of care for mild and moderate AD in Brazil, which is based on rivastigmine. A pharmacological treatment option based on current Brazilian clinical practice guidelines for AD suggests that rivastigmine is less cost-effective (0.39 QALY/BRL 32,685.77) than donepezil. Probabilistic analysis indicates that donepezil is the most cost-effective treatment for mild and moderate AD.