To examine the costs and cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine compared to placebo over 12-week follow-up.

Economic evaluation in a double-blind randomized controlled trial of mirtazapine vs. placebo.

Community settings and care homes in 26 UK centers.

People with probable or possible Alzheimer’s disease and agitation.

Primary outcome included incremental cost of participants’ health and social care per 6-point difference in CMAI score at 12 weeks. Secondary cost-utility analyses examined participants’ and unpaid carers’ gain in quality-adjusted life years (derived from EQ-5D-5L, DEMQOL-Proxy-U, and DEMQOL-U) from the health and social care and societal perspectives.

One hundred and two participants were allocated to each group; 81 mirtazapine and 90 placebo participants completed a 12-week assessment (87 and 95, respectively, completed a 6-week assessment). Mirtazapine and placebo groups did not differ on mean CMAI scores or health and social care costs over the study period, before or after adjustment for center and living arrangement (independent living/care home). On the primary outcome, neither mirtazapine nor placebo could be considered a cost-effective strategy with a high level of confidence. Groups did not differ in terms of participant self- or proxy-rated or carer self-rated quality of life scores, health and social care or societal costs, before or after adjustment.

On cost-effectiveness grounds, the use of mirtazapine cannot be recommended for agitated behaviors in people living with dementia. Effective and cost-effective medications for agitation in dementia remain to be identified in cases where non-pharmacological strategies for managing agitation have been unsuccessful.

To produce a practice guideline that includes a set of detailed consensus principles regarding the prescription of antipsychotics (APs) amongst people with dementia living in care homes.

We used a modified Delphi consensus procedure with three rounds, where we actively specified and optimized statements throughout the process, utilizing input from four focus groups, carried out in UK, Norway, and the Netherlands. This was done to identify relevant themes and a set of statement that experts agreed upon using the Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) methodology.

A total of 72 scientific and clinical experts and 14 consumer experts reached consensus upon 150 statements covering five themes: (1) General prescription stipulations, (2) assessments prior to prescription, (3) care and treatment plan, (4) discontinuation, and (5) long-term treatment.

In this practice guideline, novel information was provided about detailed indication and thresholds of symptoms, risk factors, circumstances at which APs should be stopped or tapered, specific criteria for justifying long-term treatment, involvement of the multidisciplinary team, and family caregiver in the process of prescription. The practice guideline is based on formal consensus of clinicians and consumer experts and provides clinicians relevant practical information that is lacking in current guidelines.

Charles Bonnet syndrome (CBS) is defined as complex persistent visual hallucinations in the absence of mental disorder. It is common in conditions causing significant visual impairment. Many authors advise reassurance, considering the condition benign. However, others have suggested that CBS may in some patients represent the early stages of dementia. This review seeks to systematically examine the evidence for any link between CBS and cognitive impairment.

Literature search using OVID Medline, PsychINFO, and Embase.

Three studies where cognitive functioning was the primary focus of the research were found. All were small, did not properly apply diagnostic criteria, and reported conflicting results. Eight other studies commented on cognitive functioning, but none used tests sufficiently sensitive to detect changes seen in early dementia. One hundred and thirty four case reports were scrutinized, and reports found of 16 patients with CBS where dementia emerged. High rates of partial insight at diagnosis of CBS were seen in these patients.

There have been no adequately powered studies, using accepted diagnostic criteria, where changes in cognitive functioning were the primary outcome. Existing studies are of limited methodological quality and allow no conclusion regarding a relationship between cognitive impairment and CBS to be reached. Numerous case reports of dementia developing in patients with CBS and partial insight raise the possibility of a link between these conditions. There is a clear need for properly constructed studies to investigate this.

Depression is a common and costly comorbidity in dementia. There are very few data on the cost-effectiveness of antidepressants for depression in dementia and their effects on carer outcomes.

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sertraline and mirtazapine compared with placebo for depression in dementia.

A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial with a parallel cost-effectiveness analysis (trial registration: ISRCTN88882979 and EudraCT 2006-000105-38). The primary cost-effectiveness analysis compared differences in treatment costs for patients receiving sertraline, mirtazapine or placebo with differences in effectiveness measured by the primary outcome, total Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) score, over two time periods: 0–13 weeks and 0–39 weeks. The secondary evaluation was a cost-utility analysis using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) computed from the Euro-Qual (EQ-5D) and societal weights over those same periods.

There were 339 participants randomised and 326 with costs data (111 placebo, 107 sertraline, 108 mirtazapine). For the primary outcome, decrease in depression, mirtazapine and sertraline were not cost-effective compared with placebo. However, examining secondary outcomes, the time spent by unpaid carers caring for participants in the mirtazapine group was almost half that for patients receiving placebo (6.74 v. 12.27 hours per week) or sertraline (6.74 v. 12.32 hours per week). Informal care costs over 39 weeks were £1510 and £1522 less for the mirtazapine group compared with placebo and sertraline respectively.

In terms of reducing depression, mirtazapine and sertraline were not cost-effective for treating depression in dementia. However, mirtazapine does appear likely to have been cost-effective if costing includes the impact on unpaid carers and with quality of life included in the outcome. Unpaid (family) carer costs were lower with mirtazapine than sertraline or placebo. This may have been mediated via the putative ability of mirtazapine to ameliorate sleep disturbances and anxiety. Given the priority and the potential value of supporting family carers of people with dementia, further research is warranted to investigate the potential of mirtazapine to help with behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia and in supporting carers.