Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Memantine

A pharmacoeconomic review of its use in moderate-to-severe Alzheimer’s disease

  • Adis Pharmacoeconomic Drug Evaluation
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Memantine (Ebixa®, Namenda™, Axura®) is an uncompetitive NMDA receptor antagonist used in the management of patients with moderate-to-severe Alzheimer’s disease. It is currently the only drug approved for use in these more advanced stages of the disease. Significant reductions in functional and cognitive decline have been demonstrated with memantine relative to placebo in randomised, double-blind trials in this patient population. Clinical trial and postmarketing surveillance data indicate that the drug is generally well tolerated.

Two fully published modelled cost-effectiveness analyses of memantine in moderate-to-severe Alzheimer’s disease have been conducted in the UK and Finland, in which patient progression was simulated through health states related to dependency, residential setting and cognitive function. Although the specific costs included in the analyses varied, as did the study perspective and geographical location, results of the base-case analyses consistently showed that memantine was dominant over no pharmacological treatment. In the UK and Finnish analyses, memantine increased the duration of independence by 1.3 and 4.1 months, respectively, and the time to institutionalisation by 0.8 and 1 month. Mean total per-patient costs were reduced by £1963 over 2 years (2003 costs) in the UK analysis and by €1687 over 5 years (2001 costs) in the Finnish analysis. Memantine was also associated with a small gain in quality-adjusted life expectancy in the UK model. In sensitivity analyses, memantine remained dominant for almost all plausible changes to key variables.

Memantine reduced total societal costs by $US1090 per patient per month (1999 costs) compared with no pharmacological treatment over 28 weeks in a resource utilisation and cost analysis conducted alongside a pivotal US trial in patients with moderate-to-severe Alzheimer’s disease. Results were primarily driven by reductions in total caregiver costs, which included the opportunity cost of time spent in caregiving tasks, and in direct nonmedical costs, which included the cost of care in a nursing home or similar institution.

In conclusion, in patients with moderate-to-severe Alzheimer’s disease, memantine is associated with significant reductions in functional and cognitive decline compared with no pharmacological treatment. Available pharmacoeconomic data from Europe and the US, despite some inherent limitations, support the use of memantine as a cost-effective treatment in this patient population, although definitive conclusions are not feasible because of limited data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Fig. 1
Table III
Table IV

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The use of trade names is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement.

References

  1. Hope T, Keene J, Fairburn CG, et al. Natural history of behavioural changes and psychiatric symptoms in Alzheimer’s disease. Br J Psychiatry 1999; 174: 39–44

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. American Psychiatric Association. Practice guideline for the treatment of patients with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias of late life [online]. Available from URL: blip://www.psych.org/psych-pracL/treatg/pg/pg_dementia 32701.cfm [Accessed 2004 Nov 8]

  3. Cummings JL, Cole G. Alzheimer disease. JAMA 2002 May 8; 287 (18): 2335–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Mayeux R, Sano M. Treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med 1999 Nov 25; 341 (22): 1670–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Voisin T, Reynish E, Portet F, et al. What are the treatment options for patients with severe Alzheimer’s disease? CNS Drugs 2004; 18 (9): 575–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Potkin SG. The ABC of Alzheimer’s disease: ADL and improving day-to-day functioning of patients. Int Psycogeriatr 2002; 14 Suppl. 1: 7–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Max W. Drug treatments for Alzheimer’s disease: shifting the burden of care. CNS Drugs 1999 May; 11: 363–72

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hux MJ, O’Brien BJ, Iskedjian M, et al. Relation between severity of Alzheimer’s disease and costs of caring. Can Med Assoc J 1998 Sep 8; 159: 457–65

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gauthier S. Long-term efficacy of cholinesterase inhibitors. Brain Aging 2002; 2 (3): 9–22

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ebixa® (memantine) prescribing information. Valby: H. Lundbeck A/S,2002

  11. Namenda® (memantine) prescribing information. St. Louis (MO): Forest Pharmaceuticals Inc.,. 2003

  12. Jarvis B, Figgitt DP. Memantine. Drugs Aging 2003; 20 (6): 465–76; discussion 477–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Rogawski MA, Wenk GL. The neuropharmacological basis for the use of memantine in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. CNS Drug Rev 2003 Fall; 9 (3): 275–308

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Danysz W, Parsons CG. The NMDA receptor antagonist memantine as a symptomatological and neuroprotective treatment for Alzheimer’s disease: preclinical evidence. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2003 Sep; 18 Suppl. 1: S23–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Maslow K, Selstad J, Denman SJ. Guidelines and care management issues for people with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias. Dis Manage Health Outcomes 2002; 10 (11): 693706

    Google Scholar 

  16. Johnson N, Davis T, Bosanquet N. The epidemic of Alzheimer’s disease: how can we manage the costs? Pharmacoeconomics 2000 Sep; 18 (3): 215–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Wimo A, Winblad B, Aguero-Torres H, et al. The magnitude of dementia occurrence in the world. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2003; 17: 63–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hebert LE, Scherr PA, Beckett LA, etal. Age-specific incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in a community population. JAMA 1995 May 3; 273: 1354–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Evans DA, Funkenstein HH, Albert MS, et al. Prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease in a community population of older persons: higher than previously reported. JAMA 1989 Nov 10; 262 (18): 2551–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Jorm AF, Jolley D. The incidence of dementia: a meta-analysis. Neurology 1998; 51: 728–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Von Strauss E, Viitanen M, De Ronchi D, et al. Aging and the occurrence of dementia: findings from a population-based cohort with a large sample of nonagenarians. Arch Neurol 1999 May; 56 (5): 587–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Baldereschi M, Di Carlo A, Amaducci L. Epidemiology of dementias. Drugs Today 1998; 34 (9): 747–58

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Canadian Study of Health and Aging Working Group. Patterns of caring for people with dementia in Canada. Can J Aging 1994; 13: 470–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rice DP, Fillit HM, Max W, et al. Prevalence, costs, and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia: a managed care perspective. Am J Manag Care 2001 Aug; 7: 809–18

    Google Scholar 

  25. Meek PD, McKeithan EK, Schumock GT. Economic considerations in Alzheimer’s disease. Pharmacotherapy 1998; 18 (2 Pt 2): 68S–73S; discussion 79S-82S

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lowin A, Knapp M, McCrone P. Alzheimer’s disease in the UK: comparative evidence on cost of illness and volume of health services research funding. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2001 Dec; 16: 1143–8

    Google Scholar 

  27. Leon J, Cheng CK, Neumann PJ. Alzheimer’s disease care: costs and potential savings. Health Aff 1998; 17 (6): 206–16

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Cavallo MC, Fattore G. The economic and social burden of Alzheimer disease on families in the Lombardy region of Italy. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1997 Dec; 11 (4): 184–90

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Schnaider Beeri M, Werner P, Adar Z, et al. Economic cost of Alzheimer disease in Israel. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2002; 16 (2): 73–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Krongberg Anderson C, Søgaard J, Hansen E, et al. The cost of dementia in Denmark: the Odense study. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 1999; 10: 295–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. McDonnell J, Redekop WK, van der Roer N, et al. The cost of treatment of Alzheimer’s disease in The Netherlands: a regression-based simulation model. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (4): 379–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Trabucchi M. An economic perspective on Alzheimer’s disease. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 1999; 12 (1): 29–38

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Areosa SA, Sherriff F. Memantine for dementia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003; (3): CDO03154

    Google Scholar 

  34. Winblad B, Jelic V. Treating the full spectrum of dementia with memantine. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2003; 18 Suppl. 1: S41–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Winblad B, Poritis N. Memantine in severe dementia: results of the 9M-Best Study (Benefit and efficacy in severely demented patients during treatment with memantine). Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 1999 Feb; 14 (2): 135–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Tariot PN, Farlow MR, Grossberg GT, et al. Memantine treatment in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer disease already receiving donepezil: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004 Jan 21; 291 (3): 317–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Reisberg B, Doody R, Stoffler A, et al. Memantine in moderateto-severe Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med 2003 Apr 3; 348: 1333–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Reisberg B, Ferris S, Möbius H-J, et al. Long-term treatment with the NMDA antagonist memantine: results of a 24-week, open-label extension study in moderately severe-to-severe Alzheimer’s disease [abstract no. 2039]. Neurobiol Aging 2002; 23 Suppl. 1: S555

    Google Scholar 

  39. Rive B, Vercelletto M, Damier FD, et al. Memantine enhances autonomy in moderate to severe Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2004 May; 9 (5): 458–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wimo A, Winblad B, Stoffler A, et al. Resource utilisation and cost analysis of memantine in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer’s disease. Pharmacoeconomics 2003; 21 (5): 327–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Hartmann S, Mobius HJ. Tolerability of memantine in combination with cholinesterase inhibitors in dementia therapy. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 2003 Mar; 18 (2): 81–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Jones RW, McCrone P, Guilhaume C. Cost effectiveness of memantine in Alzheimer’s disease: an analysis based on a probabilistic Markov model from a UK perspective. Drugs Aging 2004; 21 (9): 607–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. François C, Sintonen H, Sulkava R, et al. Cost effectiveness of memantine in moderately severe to severe Alzheimer’s disease: a Markov model in Finland. Clin Drug Invest 2004; 24 (7): 373–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Launois R, Guilhaume C, Francois C, et al. Cost effectiveness of memantine in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease in Norway [abstract no. NR837 plus poster]. 156th Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association; 2003 May 17–22; San Francisco: 312

  45. Paton J, Johnston K, Katona C, et al. What causes problems in Alzheimer’s disease: attributions by caregivers. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2004; 19: 527–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Livingston G, Katona C, Roch B, et al. A dependency model for patients with Alzheimer’s disease: its validation and relationship to the costs of care: the LASER-AD study. Curr Med Res Opin 2004 Jul; 20 (7): 1007–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Rahkonen T, Eloniemi-Sulkava U, Rissanen S, et al. Dementia with Lewy bodies according to the consensus criteria in a general population aged 75 years or older. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2003; 74 (6): 720–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Andersen CK, Lauridsen J, Andersen K, et al. Cost of dementia: impact of disease progression estimated in longitudinal data. Scand J Public Health 2003; 31 (2): 119–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Andersen CK, Wittrup-Jensen KU, Lolk A, et al. Ability to perform activities of daily living is the main factor affecting quality of life in patients with dementia. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004; 2: 52–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kurz X, Scuvee-Moreau J, Rive B, et al. A new approach to the qualitative evaluation of functional disability in dementia. Int J Geratr Psychiatry 2003; 18 (11): 1050–5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Foster RH, Plosker GL. Donepezil: pharmacoeconomic implications of therapy. Pharmacoeconomics 1999 Jul; 16: 99–114

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. 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): 755–66

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Wimo A. Cost effectiveness of cholinesterase inhibitors in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease: a review with methodological considerations. Drugs Aging 2004; 21 (5): 279–95

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Lamb HM, Goa KL. Rivastigmine: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in Alzheimer’s disease. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (3): 303–18

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Lyseng-Williamson KA, Plosker GL. Galantamine: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in Alzheimer’s disease. Pharmacoeconomics 2002 May; 20 (13): 919–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Caro J, Salas M, Ward A, et al. Assessing the health and economic impact of galantamine treatment in patients with Alzheimer’s disease in the health care systems of different countries. Drugs Aging 2004; 21 (10): 677–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Adis International Limited, 41 Centorian Drive, Private Bag 65901, Mairangi Bay, Auckland, 1311, New Zealand

    Greg L. Plosker & Katherine A. Lyseng-Williamson

Authors
  1. Greg L. Plosker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katherine A. Lyseng-Williamson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Greg L. Plosker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Plosker, G.L., Lyseng-Williamson, K.A. Memantine. Pharmacoeconomics 23, 193–206 (2005). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200523020-00010

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200523020-00010

Keywords

Search

Navigation