ReviewPharmacoEconomics2007
NICE cost-effectiveness appraisal of cholinesterase inhibitors: was the right question posed? Were the best tools used?
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Health state values for use in the economic evaluation of treatments for Alzheimer's disease.Drugs & aging · 2012Pooled it
- A review of the methods used to estimate the cost of Alzheimer's disease in the United States.American journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias · 2011Pooled it
- Financial Toxicity in Dementia Caregiving: Sociodemographic Predictors in a U.S. Nationally Representative Survey.The Gerontologist · 2025Article
- Using Machine Learning to Predict Cognitive Impairment Among Middle-Aged and Older Chinese: A Longitudinal Study.International journal of public health · 2023Article
- Tip of the Iceberg: Assessing the Global Socioeconomic Costs of Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias and Strategic Implications for Stakeholders.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2019Review
- Methodological challenges in assessing the impact of comorbidities on costs in Alzheimer's disease clinical trials.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2015Article
- The impact of memantine in combination with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors on admission of patients with Alzheimer's disease to nursing homes: cost-effectiveness analysis in France.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2014Article
- Decision-analytic models: current methodological challenges.PharmacoEconomics · 2014Article
- When to use discrete event simulation (DES) for the economic evaluation of health technologies? A review and critique of the costs and benefits of DES.PharmacoEconomics · 2014Review
- Yokukansan inhibits neuronal death during ER stress by regulating the unfolded protein response.PloS one · 2010Article
- Cost effectiveness of donepezil in the treatment of mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease: a UK evaluation using discrete-event simulation.PharmacoEconomics · 2010Article
- Meandering down the road to transparency.PharmacoEconomics · 2008Article
- When NICE says no!PharmacoEconomics · 2007Article
- Estimation and validation of a multiattribute model of Alzheimer disease progression.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision MakingArticle
- Outcome measures for Parkinson's disease dementia: a systematic review.Movement disorders clinical practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recently issued updated guidance on the use of cholinesterase inhibitors in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. NICE initially recommended that cholinesterase inhibitors no longer be used, but final guidance restricted treatment to patients with disease of a moderately severe stage. This decision was based largely on results from a heavily criticised economic evaluation that used an adaptation of the Assessment of Health Economics in Alzheimer's Disease (AHEAD) model. As the developers of the AHEAD model, we examined the appropriateness of NICE's economic analyses and presentation of results. We attempted to replicate NICE's results by modifying the original AHEAD model. Sensitivity analyses were then run using the modified AHEAD model to evaluate the extent of uncertainty in predictions. The AHEAD(NICE) analyses resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for galantamine of 82,000 pound per QALY gained (year 2003 values) from the perspective of the UK NHS and Personal Social Services. This was later revised to 46,000 pound per QALY, compared with < 9000 pound per discounted QALY gained (year 2001 values) in the original AHEAD model. Using our modified AHEAD with effectiveness estimates matching those of AHEAD(NICE), we show that NICE's choice and presentation of sensitivity analyses obscured the instability of their estimates. In the final NICE evaluation, the recommendation to delay treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors until patients have moderately severe disease was based on critical assumptions in the economic analyses that had little evidence to support them. The case of NICE's guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors highlights the importance of transparent and valid economic evaluations and the dangers of using inappropriate modelling technologies, basing analyses on a limited subset of the available data, and insufficiently reflecting the uncertainty in estimates that are intended to inform decision makers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18047386What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.