Log on / register
Feedback | Support | My details
Open AccessResearch article

Rational choice of cholinesterase inhibitor for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease in Canada: a comparative economic analysis

Jaime Caro1,2 email, Denis Getsios3 email, Kristen Migliaccio-Walle1 email, Jack Ishak4 email and Wissam El-Hadi4 email for for the AHEAD Study Group

1Caro Research Institute, Concord, MA 01742, USA

2Division of General Internal Medicine, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

3Caro Research Institute, Hammonds Plains, Nova Scotia, B4B 1N6, Canada

4Caro Research Institute, Dorval, Quebec, H9S 5J9, Canada

author email corresponding author email

BMC Geriatrics 2003, 3:6doi:10.1186/1471-2318-3-6

Published: 15 December 2003

Abstract

Background

Cholinesterase inhibitors, such as galantamine, donepezil and rivastigmine are approved for symptomatic treatment of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) in Canada. In making choices amongst these drugs, one should consider their clinical merits and their economic implications.

Methods

Each drug's short-term efficacy was estimated based on independent Cochrane reviews of the clinical trials. Long-term clinical and economic outcomes were estimated using the Assessment of Health Economics in Alzheimer's Disease (AHEAD) model.

Results

While all treatments reduced the need for full-time care, only galantamine and donepezil 10 mg reduced the overall management costs of AD patients. The somewhat greater cognitive effect provided over six months by galantamine leads to the longest estimated delay before full-time care is required and, consequently to lower overall costs, with savings estimated at between $323 and $4,246.

Conclusion

Although there is uncertainty in estimated results, the best information currently available suggests that the first choice for treatment of AD should be galantamine. These results should be interpreted with caution, however, as results are not based on direct comparisons among the drugs and the differences emerging from meta-analyses of the trials are relatively small.


© 1999-2008 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated