ArticleNeuropsychiatric disease and treatment2011
Cost-effectiveness analysis of memantine for moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease in the Netherlands.
Article in Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic Review of Model-Based Economic Evaluations of Treatments for Alzheimer's Disease.PharmacoEconomics · 2016Pooled it
- Does including informal care in economic evaluations matter? A systematic review of inclusion and impact of informal care in cost-effectiveness studies.PharmacoEconomics · 2015Pooled it
- The estimation of utility weights in cost-utility analysis for mental disorders: a systematic review.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Pooled it
- Family and Caregiver Spillover Effects in Cost-Utility Analyses of Alzheimer's Disease Interventions.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Article
- Once-daily memantine: a guide to its use in moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease in the EU.Drugs & aging · 2013Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of memantine relative to standard care in patients with moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease in the Netherlands.
methodsA country-adapted five-year Markov model simulated disease progression through a series of states, defined by dependency and disease severity. Transition probabilities were derived from trials, with utility and epidemiological data obtained from a longitudinal Dutch cohort. Cost-effectiveness was described in terms of quality-adjusted life years and time spent in a nondependent state or in a moderate severity state.
resultsMemantine monotherapy versus standard care led to 0.058 quality-adjusted life years gained (1.207 versus 1.265), longer time in a nondependent state (from 1.602 to 1.751 years) and in a moderate state (from 2.051 to 2.141 years), and no additional costs (€113,927 versus €110,097). Robustness of results was confirmed through sensitivity analyses.
conclusionMemantine is dominant compared with standard care in the Netherlands. Results are consistent with similar economic evaluations in other countries.
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.