The Economic Implications of Non-adherence After Renal Transplantation

Overview

Journal Pharmacoeconomics

Specialty Pharmacology

Date 2004 Dec 21

PMID 15606228

Citations 12

Authors

Irina Cleemput

Katrien Kesteloot

Yves Vanrenterghem

Sabina de Geest

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The economic impact of therapeutic non-adherence in chronic diseases has rarely been examined using qualitative standards for economic evaluation. This study illustrates the impact of non-adherence on the cost utility of renal transplantation versus haemodialysis from the societal perspective and examines the scope for adherence-enhancing interventions.

Methods: Long-term costs and outcomes in adherent and non-adherent renal transplant patients were simulated in a Markov model. The cost (euros, year 2000 values) and outcome data that were imputed in the model were derived from a prospective study in renal transplantation candidates performed in 2002. Probabilities of adverse events, graft rejection, graft loss and death in adherent and non-adherent renal transplant patients were derived from literature.

Results: Compared with dialysis, renal transplantation offers a better outcome in both adherent and non-adherent patients. Lifetime costs after transplantation in the adherent patient group are higher than lifetime dialysis costs and lifetime costs in the non-adherent patient group, mainly because adherent patients live longer after transplantation. Long-term outcomes after transplantation are better for adherent than for non-adherent patients. The mean cost per QALY gained in adherent patients relative to non-adherent patients was euro 35 021 per QALY (95% CI 26 959, 46 620).

Conclusion: Compared with established healthcare interventions, such as haemodialysis, renal transplantation can be considered a cost-effective therapy for patients with end-stage renal disease, even if patients are non-adherent after transplantation. The low incremental cost per QALY calculated in this model for adherent renal transplant patients, suggests there may be scope for adherence-enhancing interventions (provided that such interventions with a sufficiently high effectiveness exist or can be developed). As the findings are based on simulated long-term costs and outcomes, they should not be considered as precise estimates of the impact of non-adherence. This study is rather meant as an illustration of how non-adherence may impact on the results of cost-effectiveness analyses.

Citing Articles

The importance of shared meaning-making for sustainable knowledge translation and health literacy.

Wahl A, Andersen M, Odemark J, Reisaether A, Urstad K, Engebretsen E J Eval Clin Pract. 2022; 28(5):828-834.

PMID: 35466469 PMC: 9790374. DOI: 10.1111/jep.13690.

The Magnitude of the Health and Economic Impact of Increased Organ Donation on Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease.

Chen H, Ali H, Marrero W, Parikh N, Lavieri M, Hutton D MDM Policy Pract. 2021; 6(2):23814683211063418.

PMID: 34901442 PMC: 8655828. DOI: 10.1177/23814683211063418.

Benefit of a pharmacist-led intervention for medication management of renal transplant patients: a controlled before-and-after study.

Chambord J, Couzi L, Merville P, Moreau K, Xuereb F, Djabarouti S Ther Adv Chronic Dis. 2021; 12:20406223211005275.

PMID: 33868624 PMC: 8024450. DOI: 10.1177/20406223211005275.

Adherence Behavior in Subjects on Hemodialysis Is Not a Clear Predictor of Posttransplantation Adherence.

Hucker A, Lawrence C, Sharma S, Farrington K Kidney Int Rep. 2019; 4(8):1122-1130.

PMID: 31440702 PMC: 6698287. DOI: 10.1016/j.ekir.2019.04.028.

Interventions to increase adherence in patients taking immunosuppressive drugs after kidney transplantation: a systematic review of controlled trials.

Mathes T, Grosspietsch K, Neugebauer E, Pieper D Syst Rev. 2017; 6(1):236.

PMID: 29187249 PMC: 5707897. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-017-0633-1.

References

Rabin R, de Charro F . EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001; 33(5):337-43. DOI: 10.3109/07853890109002087. View

Greenstein S, Siegal B . Compliance and noncompliance in patients with a functioning renal transplant: a multicenter study. Transplantation. 1999; 66(12):1718-26. DOI: 10.1097/00007890-199812270-00026. View

Cramer J, Mattson R, Prevey M, Scheyer R, Ouellette V . How often is medication taken as prescribed? A novel assessment technique. JAMA. 1989; 261(22):3273-7. View

Brooks R . EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996; 37(1):53-72. DOI: 10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6. View

De Geest S, Abraham I, Dunbar-Jacob J . Measuring transplant patients' compliance with immunosuppressive therapy. West J Nurs Res. 1996; 18(5):595-605. DOI: 10.1177/019394599601800509. View

Urquhart J . Patient non-compliance with drug regimens: measurement, clinical correlates, economic impact. Eur Heart J. 1996; 17 Suppl A:8-15. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/17.suppl_a.8. View

Cleemput I, Kesteloot K, DeGeest S . A review of the literature on the economics of noncompliance. Room for methodological improvement. Health Policy. 2002; 59(1):65-94. DOI: 10.1016/s0168-8510(01)00178-6. View

van Dijk P, Jager K, de Charro F, Collart F, Cornet R, Dekker F . Renal replacement therapy in Europe: the results of a collaborative effort by the ERA-EDTA registry and six national or regional registries. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2001; 16(6):1120-9. DOI: 10.1093/ndt/16.6.1120. View

Donovan J . Patient decision making. The missing ingredient in compliance research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1995; 11(3):443-55. DOI: 10.1017/s0266462300008667. View

10.

Kahan B, Flechner S, Lorber M, Golden D, Conley S, Van Buren C . Complications of cyclosporine-prednisone immunosuppression in 402 renal allograft recipients exclusively followed at a single center for from one to five years. Transplantation. 1987; 43(2):197-204. DOI: 10.1097/00007890-198702000-00007. View

11.

Michelon T, Piovesan F, Pozza R, Castilho C, Bittar A, Keitel E . Noncompliance as a cause of renal graft loss. Transplant Proc. 2002; 34(7):2768-70. DOI: 10.1016/s0041-1345(02)03403-6. View

12.

Yazdanpanah Y, Goldie S, Paltiel A, Losina E, Coudeville L, Weinstein M . Prevention of human immunodeficiency virus-related opportunistic infections in France: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2002; 36(1):86-96. DOI: 10.1086/344902. View

13.

Glick H, Briggs A, Polsky D . Quantifying stochastic uncertainty and presenting results of cost-effectiveness analyses. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2009; 1(1):25-36. DOI: 10.1586/14737167.1.1.25. View

14.

Cleemput I, Kind P, Kesteloot K . Re-scaling social preference data: implications for modelling. Eur J Health Econ. 2005; 5(4):290-8. DOI: 10.1007/s10198-004-0242-5. View

15.

Hilbrands L, Hoitsma A, Koene R . Medication compliance after renal transplantation. Transplantation. 1995; 60(9):914-20. View

16.

Raiz L, Kilty K, Henry M, Ferguson R . Medication compliance following renal transplantation. Transplantation. 1999; 68(1):51-5. DOI: 10.1097/00007890-199907150-00010. View

17.

Hunink M, Bult J, de Vries J, Weinstein M . Uncertainty in decision models analyzing cost-effectiveness: the joint distribution of incremental costs and effectiveness evaluated with a nonparametric bootstrap method. Med Decis Making. 1998; 18(3):337-46. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9801800312. View

18.

Cleemput I, Kesteloot K . Economic implications of non-compliance in health care. Lancet. 2002; 359(9324):2129-30. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09114-6. View

19.

De Geest S, Borgermans L, Gemoets H, Abraham I, Vlaminck H, Evers G . Incidence, determinants, and consequences of subclinical noncompliance with immunosuppressive therapy in renal transplant recipients. Transplantation. 1995; 59(3):340-7. View

20.

Redelmeier D, Heller D . Time preference in medical decision making and cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 1993; 13(3):212-7. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9301300306. View