Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Review of Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease

Part 2: Issues in Assessing Drug Effects

  • Review Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There are numerous methods available for assessing patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) or other forms of dementia. Quality-of-life (QOL) assessment is unique among these methods. The subjective nature of quality of life provides healthcare professionals with the opportunity of incorporating the value systems of patients and their carers into their assessments.

A systematic review was carried out to assess the published data (and some unpublished data) on QOL assessment tools and instruments that claim to measure quality of life in dementia. A number of measures or methods used in the literature for assessing the quality of life of patients with dementing illnesses were identified. It was decided to present the resultant review in 2 parts that correspond to the 2 main groups into which the instruments were categorised. The first (part 1), looked at measures used to assess the impact of disease as well as instruments at a developmental or testing stage. The second (part 2), includes instruments that claim to measure quality of life in studies documenting the impact of a drug in this therapeutic area. This second group consists mainly of instruments identified as being used to assess quality of life during clinical trials in dementia/AD.

As in part 1, this part of the review was unable to identify any validated methods of assessing the quality of life of both patients with dementia and their carers at the same time. The ideal instrument must show that it can reliably, reproducibly and comprehensively assess quality of life for both patients with dementia and their carers. It should also demonstrate that it can measure quality of life effectively using a practical administration technique that does not place any unnecessary burden on either informal carers, other healthcare workers in-volved or the patient themselves. In addition, any measure intended for use in assessing the impact of drug treatment on quality of life must demonstrate sensitivity to change, also known as responsiveness. All these criteria are even more important when measuring quality of life as an outcome during clinical trials of a new antidementia drug, because the data generated are likely to influence decisions made by regulatory bodies about whether to grant licences that are required by pharmaceutical companies to market their products.

Further cross-sectional and longitudinal research is required to ensure that the available instruments possess the essential psychometric criteria that must be demonstrated prior to their utilisation in clinical trials of any compound developed for use in dementia/AD. Ongoing conceptual research may still be useful in exploring new ways of assessing quality of life in this important therapeutic area.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Parnetti L, Senin U, Mecocci P. Cognitive enhancement therapyfor Alzheimer’s disease: the way forward. Drugs 1997; 53:752–68

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Borson S, Raskind MA. Clinical features and pharmacologictreatment of behavioural symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease.Neurology 1997; 48 Suppl. 6: S17–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gottfries CG. Review of treatment strategies. Acta NeurolScand Suppl 1992; 139: 63–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Takman A. Nonpharmacologic treatment of behavioural symptoms.Acta Neurol Scand Suppl 1992; 139: 81–3

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hollister L, Gruber N. Drug treatment of Alzheimer’s disease:effects on caregiver burden and patient quality of life. Drugs Aging 1996; 8: 47–55

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Williams M, Davis RE. Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias:prospects for treatment. Exp Opin Invest Drugs 1997; 6:735–57

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Smyth KA. Social management of Alzheimer’s disease. Clin Geriatr Med 1994; 10(2): 367–78

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hepler CD, Strand L. Opportunities and responsibilities in pharmaceuticalcare. Am J Hosp Pharm 1990; 47: 533–43

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Whitehouse PJ. Pharmacoeconomics of dementia. AlzheimerDis Assoc Disord 1997; 11 Suppl. 5: S22–33

    Google Scholar 

  10. Walker MD, Salek SS, Bayer AJ. A review of quality of life inAlzheimer’s disease. Part 1: issues in assessing disease impact.Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 14(5): 499–530

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Schneider LS, Olin JT. Overview of clinical trials of hyderginein dementia. Arch Neurol 1994; 51: 787–98

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Howard K, Rockwood K. Quality of life in Alzheimer’s disease.Dementia 1995; 6: 113–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sano M, Bell K, Cote L, et al. Double-blind parallel design pilotstudy of acetyl levocarnitine in patients with Alzheimer’s disease.Arch Neurol 1992; 49: 1137–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, et al. The sickness impactprofile: development and final revision of a health status measure.Med Care 1981; 19: 787–805

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Squire LR, Wetzel CD, Slater PC. Memory complaint after electroconvulsivetherapy: assessment with a new self-rating instrument.Biol Psychiatry 1979; 14: 791–801

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Sarao MV, Ricci C, Peri G, et al. Valutazione del livello diautonomia nelle demenze. Psich Med 1987:3: 44–6

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bottini G, Vallar G, Cappa S, et al. Oxiracetam in dementia: adouble-blind, placebo-controlled study. Acta Neurol Scand 1992; 86: 237–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Guinot P, Wesnes K. A quality of life scale for the elderly: validationby factor analysis. IRCS Med Sci 1985; 13: 965

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wesnes K, Simmons D, Rook M, et al. A double-blind placebocontrolledtrial of Tanakan in the treatment of idiopathic cognitivimpairment in the elderly. Hum Psychopharmacol 1987; 2: 159–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Blau TH. Quality of life, social indicators and criteria of change.Prof Psychol 1977; 8: 464–73

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rogers SL, Friedhoff LT, Apter JT, et al. The efficacy andsafety of donepezil in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: resultsof a US multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolledtrial. Dementia 1996; 7: 293–303

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Rogers SL, Farlow MR, Doody RS, et al. A 24-week, doubleblind,placebo-controlled trial of donepezil in patients withAlzheimer’s disease. Neurology 1998; 50: 136–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Yehuda S, Rabinovtz S, Carasso RL, et al. Essential fatty acidspreparation (SR-3) improves Alzheimer’s patients quality oflife. Int J Neurosci 1996; 87: 141–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Kressel S, et al. The sickness impactprofile: conceptual formulation and methodology for the developmentof a health status measure. Int J Health Serv 1976;6: 393–415

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Dejong R, Osterlund OW, Roy GW. Measurement of quality oflife changes in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Clin Ther 1989; 11: 545–54

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Davis KL, Thal LJ, Gamzu ER, et al. A double-blind, placebocontrolledmulticenter study of Tacrine for Alzheimer’s disease.N Engl J Med 1992; 327: 1253–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Farlow M, Gracon SI, Hershey LA, et al. A controlled trial oftacrine in Alzheimer’s disease. JAMA 1992; 268: 2523–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Knapp MJ, Knopman DS, Solomon PR, et al. A 30-week randomizedcontrolled trial of high-dose tacrine in patients withAlzheimer’s disease. JAMA 1994; 271: 985–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: self-maintainingand instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist 1969; 9: 176–86

    Google Scholar 

  30. McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring health: a guide to ratingscales and questionnaires. New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  31. Wilcock GK, Surmon DJ, Scott M, et al. An evaluation of theefficacy and safety of tetrahydroaminoacridine (THA) withoutlecithin in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Age Ageing 1993; 22: 316–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Thal LJ, Schwartz G, Sano M, et al. A multicenter double-blindstudy of controlled-release physostigmine for the treatmentof symptoms secondary to Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 1996; 47: 1389–95

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Gerety MB, Cornell JE, Mulrow CD, et al. The Sickness Impact Profile for Nursing Homes (SIP-NH). J Gerontol 1994; 49:M2–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Busschbach JJ, Brouwer WB, van der Donk A. An outline fora cost-effectiveness analysis of a drug for patients with Alzheimer’sdisease. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13: 21–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Kinney J, Stephens MAP. Caregiver Hassles Scale: assessingthe daily hassles of caring for a family member with dementia. Gerontologist 1989; 29: 328–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Teri L, Truax P, Logsdon R, et al. Assessment of behavioural problems in dementia: the Revised Memory and Behavior Problems Checklist. Psychol Aging 1992; 7: 622–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Zarit SH, Reever KE, Bach-Peterson J. Relatives of the impairedelderly: correlates of feelings of burden. Gerontologist 1980; 20: 649–55

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Teri L, Borson S, Kiyak HA, et al. Behavioral disturbance, cognitivedysfunction, and functional skill: prevalence and relationshipin Alzheimer’s disease. J Am Geriatr Soc 1989; 37:109–16

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. MD State Med J 1965; 14: 61–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Patterson MB, Mack JL, Neundorfer MM, et al. Assessment offunctional ability in Alzheimer’s disease: a review and a preliminaryreport on the Cleveland Scale for Activities of Daily Living. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1992; 6: 145–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Spiegel R, Brunner C, Ermini-Funfschilling D, et al. A newbehavioral assessment scale for geriatric out- and inpatients:the NOSGER (Nurses’ Observational Scale for Geriatric Patients).J Am Geriatr Soc 1991; 39: 339–47

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Jaeschke R. How to develop and validatea new health-related quality of life instrument. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics inclinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott-RavenPublishers, 1996: 49–56

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medicines Research Unit, Division of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Wales, Redwood Building, King Edward VII Avenue, Cathays Park, Cardiff, CF1 3XF, Wales

    Sam S. Salek & Melvyn D. Walker

  2. Department of Geriatric Medicine, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff, Wales

    Antony J. Bayer

Authors
  1. Sam S. Salek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Melvyn D. Walker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Antony J. Bayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sam S. Salek.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Salek, S.S., Walker, M.D. & Bayer, A.J. A Review of Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease. Pharmacoeconomics 14, 613–627 (1998). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199814060-00003

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199814060-00003

Keywords

Search

Navigation