Economic evaluation of donepezil in moderate to severe Alzheimer disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the costs to society of Alzheimer disease (AD) care in a multinational, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of donepezil in patients with moderate to severe AD. METHODS: A total of 290 patients with AD (screening standardized Mini-Mental State Examination score 5 to 17) were randomized to receive either donepezil (n = 144; 5 mg/day for 28 days, followed by 10 mg/day as per clinician's judgment) or placebo (n = 146) for 24 weeks. The authors collected data on patient and caregiver health resource utilization prospectively using the Canadian Utilization of Services Tracking questionnaire. Costs were calculated for patients and caregivers in each group based on resource utilization multiplied by the unit prices for each resource. A cost (the average Ontario minimum wage for 1998 [Can 6.85 dollars per hour]) was assigned to unpaid time that caregivers spent assisting the patient with activities of daily living (ADL). RESULTS: Patient and caregiver demographics at baseline were similar across the two groups. After adjusting for baseline total cost per patient, the mean total societal cost per patient for the 24-week period was donepezil, Can 9,904 dollars (US 6,686 dollars) and placebo, Can 10,236 dollars (US 6,910 dollars). This net cost saving of Can 332 dollars (US 224 dollars) included the average 24-week cost of donepezil treatment. Most of the cost-saving with donepezil treatment was due to less use of residential care by patients, and caregivers spending less time assisting patients with ADL. CONCLUSION: This cost-consequence analysis reveals economic benefits of treatment of moderate to severe AD with donepezil.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".