This paper used data from the Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate Trial 2 (NCT02346201) to conduct a planned cost consequence analysis to investigate whether treatment of apathy with methylphenidate is economically attractive.

A total of 167 patients with clinically significant apathy randomized to either methylphenidate or placebo were included. The Resource Utilization in Dementia Lite instrument assessed resource utilization for the past 30 days and the EuroQol five dimension five level questionnaire assessed health utility at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Resources were converted to costs using standard sources and reported in 2021 USD. A repeated measures analysis of variance compared change in costs and utility over time between the treatment and placebo groups. A binary logistic regression was used to assess cost predictors.

Costs were not significantly different between groups whether the cost of methylphenidate was excluded (F(2,330) = 0.626, ηp2 = 0.004, p = 0.535) or included (F(2,330) = 0.629, ηp2 = 0.004, p = 0.534). Utility improved with methylphenidate treatment as there was a group by time interaction (F(2,330) = 7.525, ηp2 = 0.044, p < 0.001).

Results from this study indicated that there was no evidence for a difference in resource utilization costs between methylphenidate and placebo treatment. However, utility improved significantly over the 6-month follow-up period. These results can aid in decision-making to improve quality of life in patients with Alzheimer’s disease while considering the burden on the healthcare system.

Little is known about the effect of methylphenidate (MPH) on attention in Alzheimer's disease (AD). MPH has shown to improve apathy in AD, and both apathy and attention have been related to dopaminergic function. The goal was to investigate MPH effects on attention in AD and assess the relationship between attention and apathy responses.

MPH (10 mg PO twice daily) or placebo was administered for six weeks in a randomized, double-blind trial in mild-to-moderate AD outpatients with apathy (Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) Apathy ≥ 4). Attention was measured with the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Digit Span (DS) subtest (DS forward, selective attention) and apathy with the Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES). A mixed effects linear regression estimated the difference in change from baseline between treatment groups, defined as δ (MPH (DS week 6–DS baseline)) – (placebo (DS week 6–DS baseline)).

In 60 patients (37 females, age = 76 ± 8, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) = 20 ± 5, NPI Apathy = 7 ± 2), the change in DS forward (δ = 0.87 (95% CI: 0.06–1.68), p = 0.03) and DS total (δ = 1.01 (95% CI: 0.09–1.93), p = 0.03) favored MPH over placebo. Of 57 completers, 17 patients had improved apathy (≥3.3 points on the AES from baseline to end point) and 40 did not. There were no significant associations between AES and NPI Apathy with DS change scores in the MPH, placebo, AES responder, or non-responder groups. DS scores did not predict apathy response to MPH treatment.

These results suggest MPH can improve attention and apathy in AD; however, the effects appear independent in this population.