Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18047386›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2007

NICE cost-effectiveness appraisal of cholinesterase inhibitors: was the right question posed? Were the best tools used?

Denis Getsios, Kristen Migliaccio-Walle, Jaime J Caro

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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 · 2011
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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 · 2015
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. When NICE says no!PharmacoEconomics · 2007
    Article
  14. Estimation and validation of a multiattribute model of Alzheimer disease progression.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making
    Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Denis GetsiosCaro Research Institute (now UnitedBiosource Corporation), Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Kristen Migliaccio-Walle
Jaime J Caro

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Alzheimer DiseaseCholinesterase InhibitorsCost-Benefit AnalysisEconomics, PharmaceuticalHumansModels, StatisticalNational Institutes of Health (U.S.)Quality-Adjusted Life YearsUnited StatesCholinesterase Inhibitors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.