Guk-Hee Suh1. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. suhgh@chol.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine the cost-effectiveness, from the third-party payer viewpoint, of galantamine compared with usual care in the treatment of mild to moderately severe Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS: An existing Markov model was adapted to Korea to predict long-term outcomes over a 5-year time horizon and to estimate the cost-effectiveness of galantamine for the treatment of AD. The model structure is informed by a review of national and international literature on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of galantamine and on the costs and outcomes associated with treatment for AD. The main outcome measure used was the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. All costs were indexed to US$ (2007 value). Multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis were undertaken to assess uncertainty in the results. RESULTS: The study findings indicate that the clinical benefits on AD progression from galantamine treatment resulted in an incremental cost per QALY gained of US$4939 over 5 years (vs. usual care). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and cost-effectiveness acceptability curve suggest that the probability of galantamine treatment having an incremental cost per QALY over US$6740 is zero. Incremental cost per QALY gained according to scenario analyses ranged from US$2271 to US$8335. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that the use of galantamine may be a cost-effective use of Korean national health-care resources, considering the gross domestic product per capita of US$21,695 in 2007.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine the cost-effectiveness, from the third-party payer viewpoint, of galantamine compared with usual care in the treatment of mild to moderately severe Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS: An existing Markov model was adapted to Korea to predict long-term outcomes over a 5-year time horizon and to estimate the cost-effectiveness of galantamine for the treatment of AD. The model structure is informed by a review of national and international literature on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of galantamine and on the costs and outcomes associated with treatment for AD. The main outcome measure used was the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. All costs were indexed to US$ (2007 value). Multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis were undertaken to assess uncertainty in the results. RESULTS: The study findings indicate that the clinical benefits on AD progression from galantamine treatment resulted in an incremental cost per QALY gained of US$4939 over 5 years (vs. usual care). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and cost-effectiveness acceptability curve suggest that the probability of galantamine treatment having an incremental cost per QALY over US$6740 is zero. Incremental cost per QALY gained according to scenario analyses ranged from US$2271 to US$8335. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that the use of galantamine may be a cost-effective use of Korean national health-care resources, considering the gross domestic product per capita of US$21,695 in 2007.