Assessment of health economics in Alzheimer's disease (AHEAD): treatment with galantamine in the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term health and economic impact of treating mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) with galantamine (16 mg or 24 mg per day) compared to no cholinesterase therapy in the UK. METHODS: The long-term costs and outcomes were assessed using a model developed from longitudinal data on a cohort of AD patients. The model predicts the time until patients require full-time care, defined as the consistent requirement for a significant amount of care and supervision each day. Efficacy data were obtained from three clinical trials comparing galantamine with placebo, forecasts were made for ten years. Costs were determined in 2001 British pounds and discounted at 6% per annum, while outcomes such as time to full-time care were discounted at 1.5%. RESULTS: Without pharmacological treatment, patients are expected to incur costs of 28,134 British pounds over ten years, 70% of costs accrue from providing full-time care. Galantamine (16 mg per day) is predicted to reduce the duration of the full-time care state by 12%; approximately five patients need to be treated to avoid one year of full-time care. The ten-year incremental costs per month of full-time care avoided average pound 192 British pounds per patient and 8,693 British pounds per QALY. Savings (1380 British pounds) are predicted for patients who continue treatment beyond six months and whose cognitive function is maintained or improved. Comparable results were estimated for the 24 mg dose. CONCLUSION: In addition to the clinical benefits associated with galantamine treatment, the savings predicted from delaying when full-time care is needed may offset the treatment costs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".