ArticleThe journal of nutrition, health & aging2010
Savings from sub-groups?: Policy guidance and Alzheimer's disease treatments.
Article in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Editorial: can we improve care for patients with dementia?The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2011Article
- Health economics and health policy issues in Alzheimer's disease.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA range of new therapeutic agents are now available for the management of Alzheimer's disease. With limited resources available however, policy-makers and other health care professionals have to prioritise and judge competing treatments on criteria such as the magnitude of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Policy guidance that restricts treatments to defined patient sub-groups can improve the cost-effectiveness of treatments, and can help limit rises in health care expenditures. Budget impact models that estimate the amount of additional costs and potential savings are being increasingly used by policy-makers. However, the amount of savings estimated in such models depends on the effectiveness of treatment in changing morbidity, and the association between morbidity and costs.
aimTo examine the magnitude of cost savings arising from provision of treatment to different patient sub-groups, using policy guidance decisions made by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) for cholinesterase inhibitor therapies in Alzheimer's Disease (AD) in the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS).
methodCohort simulation modelling.
resultsPolicy guidance decisions that restricted treatment to smaller patient sub-groups were associated with lower overall care costs, but did not reduce drug costs.
conclusionsGiven increasing recognition by health policy-makers of the importance of affordability of new treatments, greater attention should be paid to measurement of cost impacts by sub-groups within health economic modelling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.