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.

Older people in nursing and residential homes often have complex disabilities and behavioural disturbances. Recent publicity has highlighted the dangers of medication in this group, and controls over prescribing have been suggested.

To investigate the effect of a review of medication by a pharmacist.

An 8-month prospective trial of an active medication review by a pharmacist was carried out on 330 residents in nursing homes in Manchester.

The intervention group experienced greater deterioration in cognitive function and behavioural disturbance than the control group, but the changes in depression and quality of life were similar for both groups. The number of drugs prescribed fell in the intervention group, but not in the control group, with a corresponding saving in drug costs. The number of deaths was significantly smaller in the intervention homes during the intervention period (4 v. 14) but not overall during the study period as a whole (26 v. 28).

This clinical intervention reduced the number of medicines prescribed to elderly people in nursing homes, with minimal impact on their morbidity and mortality.