Valuing Alzheimer's Disease drugs: A health technology assessment perspective on outcomes

Annette Bauer, Raphael Wittenberg, Amanda Ly, Anders Gustavssond, Christin Bexelius, Claire Tochel, Martin Knapp, Mia Nelson, Cathie L M Sudlow

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract / Description of output

Due to the nature of Alzheimer’s disease, health technology assessment agencies might face considerable challenges in choosing appropriate outcomes and outcome measures for drugs that treat the condition. This study sought to understand which outcomes informed previous health technology assessments, to explore possible reasons for prioritisations, and derive potential implications for future assessments of Alzheimer’s disease drugs.
We conducted a literature review of studies that analysed decisions made in health technology assessments (across disease areas) in three European countries: England, Germany, and The Netherlands. We then conducted case studies of technology assessments conducted for Alzheimer’s disease drugs in these countries.
Overall, outcomes measured using clinical scales dominated decisions or recommendations about whether to fund Alzheimer’s disease drugs, or price negotiations. Health technology assessment processes did not always allow the inclusion of outcomes relevant to people with Alzheimer’s disease, their carers and families. Processes did not include early discussion and agreement on what would constitute appropriate outcome measures and cut-off points for effects.
We conclude that in order to ensure that future Alzheimer’s disease drugs are valued appropriately and timely, early agreement with various stakeholders about outcomes, outcome measures and cut-offs is important.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-7
JournalInternational journal of technology assessment in health care
Early online date27 Aug 2020
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 27 Aug 2020


Dive into the research topics of 'Valuing Alzheimer's Disease drugs: A health technology assessment perspective on outcomes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this