Brettschneider Christian, Buczak-Stec Elżbieta, Luppa Melanie, Zülke Andrea, Michalowsky Bernhard, Rädke Anika, Bauer Alexander, Brütting Christine, Kosilek Robert P, Zöllinger Isabel, Döhring Juliane, Williamson Martin, Wiese Birgitt, Hoffmann Wolfgang, Frese Thomas, Gensichen Jochen, Kaduszkiewicz Hanna, Thyrian Jochen René, Riedel-Heller Steffi G, König Hans-Helmut
Department of Health Economics and Health Services Research, Hamburg Center for Health Economics University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf Hamburg Germany.
Institute of Social Medicine, Occupational Health and Public Health (ISAP) University of Leipzig Leipzig Germany.
Alzheimers Dement (N Y). 2025 Jan 3;11(1):e70028. doi: 10.1002/trc2.70028. eCollection 2025 Jan-Mar.
The societal costs of dementia and cognitive decline are substantial and likely to increase during the next decades due to the increasing number of people in older age groups. The aim of this multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a multi-domain intervention to prevent cognitive decline in older people who are at risk for dementia.
We used data from a multi-centric, two-armed, cluster-randomized controlled trial ( trial, ID: DRKS00013555). Eligible participants with increased dementia risk at baseline (Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging, and Incidence of Dementia/CAIDE Dementia Risk Score ≥ 9), 60-77 years of age, were recruited by their general practitioners, and assigned randomly to a multi-domain lifestyle intervention or general health advice. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from the societal perspective. The time horizon was 2 years. Health care utilization was measured using the "Questionnaire for Health-Related Resource Use in Older Populations." As effect measure, we used quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) based on the 5-level EQ-5D version (EQ-5D-5L). We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC) using the net-benefit approach. Exploratory analyses considering women and the EQ visual analogue scale (EQ VAS) were conducted.
Data were available for 819 participants (mean age 69.0 [standard deviation (SD)5-level EQ-5D version 4.9]); 378 were treated in the intervention group and 441 in the control group. The participants in the intervention group caused higher costs (+€445.88 [SD: €1,244.52]) and gained additional effects (+0.026 QALY [SD: 0.020]) compared to the participants in the control group (the difference was statistically significant). The ICER was €17,149.23/QALY. The CEAC showed that the probability of the intervention being cost-effective was moderate, reaching 59% at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of €50,000/QALY. The exploratory analyses showed promising results, especially in the female subsample.
Considering aspects like the WTP and the limited time horizon, the multi-domain intervention was cost-effective compared to general health advice.
The first German randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating a multicomponent approach against cognitive decline.We found a favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.The probability of cost-effectiveness reached 78.6%.Women could be an important target group.A longer time horizon is needed.
痴呆症和认知能力下降的社会成本巨大,并且由于老年人群数量的增加,在未来几十年可能还会上升。这项多中心整群随机对照试验的目的是评估一种多领域干预措施对预防有痴呆症风险的老年人认知能力下降的成本效益。
我们使用了一项多中心、双臂、整群随机对照试验(试验编号:DRKS00013555)的数据。符合条件的参与者在基线时痴呆风险增加(心血管危险因素、衰老与痴呆症发病率/CAIDE痴呆风险评分≥9),年龄在60 - 77岁之间,由他们的全科医生招募,并随机分配到多领域生活方式干预组或一般健康建议组。我们从社会角度进行了成本效益分析。时间跨度为2年。使用“老年人群健康相关资源使用问卷”来衡量医疗保健利用率。作为效果指标,我们使用基于5级EQ - 5D版本(EQ - 5D - 5L)的质量调整生命年(QALY)。我们使用净效益方法计算增量成本效益比(ICER)和成本效益可接受性曲线(CEAC)。进行了考虑女性和EQ视觉模拟量表(EQ VAS)的探索性分析。
819名参与者的数据可用(平均年龄69.0岁[标准差(SD)4.9]);干预组有378人接受治疗,对照组有441人。与对照组参与者相比,干预组参与者产生的成本更高(增加445.88欧元[标准差:1244.52欧元]),并获得了额外的效果(增加0.026 QALY[标准差:0.020])(差异具有统计学意义)。ICER为17,149.23欧元/QALY。CEAC表明干预措施具有成本效益 的概率适中,在支付意愿为50,000欧元/QALY时达到59%。探索性分析显示了有前景的结果,特别是在女性子样本中。
考虑到支付意愿和有限的时间跨度等因素,与一般健康建议相比,多领域干预具有成本效益。
第一项评估针对认知能力下降的多成分方法的德国随机对照试验(RCT)。我们发现了有利的增量成本效益比。成本效益概率达到78.6%。女性可能是一个重要的目标群体。需要更长的时间跨度。