Campaigners today lost their landmark High Court battle to get early-stage Alzheimer's sufferers access to costly new anti-dementia drugs on the NHS.

In the first ever judicial review case brought against the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice), Mrs Justice Linda Dobbs ruled that the Government's drugs watchdog was correct to state that the drugs are only cost-effective when prescribed in later stages of the disease.

The case was brought by Eisai, the Japanese pharmaceutical firm, and Pfizer, which distributes the drugs in Britain, and backed by the Alzheimer's Society charity, which said that treating people at an earlier stage could slow their mental degeneration.

They had accused Nice of acting "irrationally and unlawfully" in recommending that the drugs should not be funded on the NHS for people with early-stage symptoms. They also argued that Nice's decision was "procedurally flawed".

Although the case was defeated on five out of six counts, the campaigners were successful on one count - that tests to assess Alzheimer's were "discriminatory" against people who speak English as a second language or those with learning disabilities.

However, the key claim of the campaigners - that patients should be given NHS Alzheimer's treatment at an earlier stage in the illness - was defeated.

Last year, Nice recommended that three drugs, donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine, not be prescribed for patients with early stage Alzheimer’s, claiming that the treatment was not effective for people with mild Alzheimer’s and was not cost effective. It recommended the drugs for patients with moderate-stage Alzheimer’s.

Speaking in court today, David Pannick QC, appearing for Eisai, told the judge that the consequence of removing funding for those with mild Alzheimer’s disease "is that the opportunity is lost for delaying the onward march of this appalling disease and maintaining a relatively good quality of life for patients for as long as possible".

He said changes made to national guidance by Nice last year meant that annually 96,600 patients with mild Alzheimer’s would be refused treatment whereas, under previous guidance, they would not have been.

Campaigners and interest groups reacted with disappointment to the ruling today.

Dr David Anderson, chairman of the faculty of old age psychiatry at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said: “The decision by the High Court is bitterly disappointing.

“I am astonished that the Nice process has been found to be rational and without perversity in this case.

Times Recommends

• Sarah Brown says 'no thanks' to veal at G8 - twice
• Stockton-on-Tees is obesity capital of Britain
• Stores blame poor sales on Murray factor