Abstract
Background
Non-adherence to antihypertensive drugs is high, and the economic consequences of non-adherence may be substantial. The Medication Events Monitoring System (MEMS), which is a method to improve adherence, has been shown to be a useful tool for the management of adherence problems.
Objective
To assess the cost effectiveness of the MEMS compared with usual care in a population of hypertensive patients with poor adherence. The MEMS programme consisted of provision of containers fitted with electronic caps together with adherence training if indicated.
Methods
In a randomised controlled trial, 164 hypertensive patients in the experimental strategy and 89 patients in the usual care strategy were followed for 5 months. Patients who had a systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥160mm Hg and/or diastolic BP (DBP) ≥95mm Hg despite the use of antihypertensive drugs were eligible. Patients were recruited by a GP, and treatment took place in general practice.
In the experimental strategy, electronic monitoring of the intake of antihypertensive drugs was introduced without change of medication. Unsatisfactory adherence was defined as <85% of days with the number of doses taken as prescribed. In the usual care strategy, antihypertensive treatment was intensified by the addition or change of antihypertensive drugs, if necessary, without provision of an electronic monitor.
Outcome parameters included the proportion of patients with normalised blood pressure (NBP) at 5 months and QALYs. Costs were quantified from the healthcare and societal perspective. Non-parametric bootstrap simulations were per formed to quantify the uncertainty around the mean estimates and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were presented. In addition, a number of univariate sensitivity analyses were performed on deterministic variables.
Results
At 5 months, 3.1% (95% UI [uncertainty interval] −9.7%, +15.8%) more patients had NBP, and 0.003 (95% UI −0.005, +0.010) more QALYs were generated in the experimental strategy. A statistically significant lower percentage of patients had a dose escalation in the experimental strategy. Irrespective of the ceiling ratio for cost effectiveness, the cost-effectiveness probability was between 75% and 80% for the analysis from the healthcare perspective using proportion of patients with NBP as the outcome parameter. For the analysis from the societal perspective using QALYs as the outcome parameter, this probability was between 45% and 51%.
Conclusion
For a time horizon of 5 months, a difference in both cost and effect could not be detected between an adherence-improving programme compared with usual care for hypertensive patients. The probability that the adherence-improving programme is cost effective is at best moderate. Moreover, the costeffectiveness result is surrounded with considerable uncertainty and large-scale implementation warrants additional research into the economic consequences of this intervention. Patients may benefit from the use of a MEMS monitor in situations where BP targets are not reached because of suspected non-adherence and both patient and GP are reluctant to increase the dose or number of antihypertensive drugs.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hunt JS, Siemienczuk J, Touchette D, et al. Impact of educational mailing on the BP of primary care patients with mild hypertension. J Gen Intern Med 2004; 19: 925–930
Urquhart J. Patient non-compliance with drug regimens: measurement, clinical correlates, economic impact. Eur Heart J 1996; 17 Suppl. A: 8–15
Gascón JJ, Sánchez-Ortuno M, Llor B, et al. for the Treatment Compliance in Hypertension Study Group. Why hypertensive patients do not comply with the treatment: results from a qualitative study. Fam Pract 2004; 21 (2): 125–130
Herings RMC, Leufkens HGM, Heerdink ER, et al. Chronic pharmacotherapy continued: pharmo report [in Dutch]. The Hague: CIP data Royal Library, 2002
Psaty BM, Koepsell TD, Yanez ND, et al. Temporal patterns of antihypertensive medication use among older adults, 1989 through 1992: an effect of the major clinical trials on clinical practice? JAMA 1995; 273: 1436–1438
Caro JJ, Speckman JL, Salas M, et al. Effect of initial drug choice on the persistence with antihypertensive treatment: the importance of actual practice data. Can Med Assoc J 1999; 16: 41–46
Wolf-Maier K, Cooper RS, Banegas JR, et al. Hypertension prevalence and BP levels in 6 European countries, Canada, and the United States. JAMA 2003; 289: 2363–2369
Rudd P, Byyny RL, Zachary V, et al. Pill count measures of compliance in a drug trial: variability and suitability. Am J Hypertens 1988; 1: 309–312
Maenpaa H, Manninen V, Heinonen OP. Comparison of the digoxin marker with capsule counting and compliance questionnaire methods for measuring compliance to medication in a clinical trial. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1990; 38: 561–565
Roter DL. Hall JA, Merisca R, et al. Effectiveness of interventions to improve patient compliance: a meta-analysis. Med Care 1998; 36: 1138–1161
Schroeder K, Fahey T, Ebrahim S. How can we improve adherence to BP lowering medication in ambulatory care? Systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med 2004; 164: 722–732
Takiya LN, Peterson AM, Finley RS. Meta-analysis of interventions for medication adherence to antihypertensives. Ann Pharmacother 2004; 38: 1617–1624
Urquhart J. The electronic medication event monitoring: lessons for pharmacotherapy. Clin Pharmacokinet 1997; 32: 245–256
Burnier M, Schneider MP, Chiolero A, et al. Electronic adherence monitoring in resistant hypertension: the basis for rational therapeutic decisions. J Hypertens 2001; 19: 335–341
Waeber B, Vetter W, Darioli R, et al. Improved BP control by monitoring adherence with antihypertensive treatment. Int J Clin Pract 1999; 53: 37–38
Cramer JA, Ouelette VL, Mattson RH. Effect of microelectronic observation on compliance. Epilepsia 1990; 31: 617–618
Bertholet N, Favrat B, Fallab-Studbi CL, et al. Why objective monitoring of compliance is important in the management of hypertension. J Clin Hypertens 2000; 2 (4): 258–262
Bovet P, Burnier M, Madelaine G, et al. Monitoring one-year compliance to antihypertension medication in the Seychelles. Bull World Health Organ 2002; 80: 33–39
Leenen FHH, Wilson TW, Bolli P, et al. Patterns of compliance with once versus twice daily antihypertensive drug therapy in primary care: a randomized clinical trial using electronic monitoring. Can J Cardiol 1997; 13 (10): 914–920
Schwed A, Fallab C-L, Burnier M, et al. Electronic monitoring of compliance to lipid-lowering therapy in clinical practice. J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 39: 402–409
Mallion JM, Dutrey-Dupagne C, Vaur L, et al. Benefits of electronic pillboxes in evaluating treatment compliance of patients with mild to moderate hypertension. J Hypertens, 1996; 14: 137–144
Cramer JA, Rosenbeck R. Enhancing medication compliance for people with serious mental illness. J Nerv Ment Dis 1999; 187: 53–55
Elixhauser A, Eisen SA, Romeis JC, et al. The effects of monitoring and feedback on compliance. Med Care 1990; 28: 882–893
Nides MA, Tadhkin DP, Simmons MS, et al. Improving inhaler adherence in a clinical trail through the use of the nebulizer chronology. Chest 1993; 104: 501–507
Schmitz JM, Sayre SL, Stotts AL, et al. Medication compliance during a smoking cessation trial: a brief intervention using MEMS feedback. J Behav Med 2005; 28 (2): 139–147
Cantor JC, Morisky DE, Green LW, et al. Cost-effectiveness of educational interventions to improve patient outcomes in BP control. Prevent Med 1985; 14: 782–800
Eastaugh SR, Hatcher ME. Improving compliance among hypertensives: a triage criterion with cost-benefit implications. Med Care 1982; 20: 1001–1007
Logan AG, Milne BJ, Achber C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a worksite hypertension treatment program. Hypertension 1981; 3: 211–218
Friedman RH, Kazis L, Jette A, et al. A telecommunications system for monitoring and counseling patients with hypertension: impact on medication adherence and BP control. Am J Hypertens 1996; 9: 285–292
Zarnke KB, Feagen BG, Mahon J, et al. A randomized study comparing a patient-directed hypertension management strategy with usual office-based care. Am J Hypertens 1997; 10: 58–57
Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al. The seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA 2003; 289: 2560–2572
Wetzels GEC, Nelemans PJ, Schouten JSAG, et al. Electronic monitoring of adherence as a tool to improve blood pressure control: a randomized controlled trial. Ann J Hypertens 2007 Feb; 20 (2): 119–125
Hughes DA, Bagust A, Haycox A, et al. The impact of non-compliance on the cost-effectiveness of pharmaceuticals: a review of the literature. Health Econ 2001; 10: 601–615
Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996
Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programs. 3rd ed. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2005
Goossens MEJB, Rutten-van Molken MP, Laeyen JW, et al. The cost diary: a method to measure direct and indirect costs in cost effectiveness research. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 688–695
Health Insurance Board (in Dutch) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.medicijnkosten.nl [Accessed 2005 May 25]
Kenniscentrum voor leren in de praktijk [online]. http://www.gobnet.nl [Accessed 2007 Jan 28]
Oostenbrink JB, Bouwmans CAM, Koopmanschap MA, et al. Manual for cost research, methods and standard cost prices for economic evaluations in health care. Diemen: Health Insurance Board, 2004
Klungel OH, de Boer A, Paes AHP, et al. Undertreatment of hypertension in a population-based study in The Netherlands. J Hypertens 1998; 16: 1371–1378
Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. A practical guide for calculating indirect costs of disease. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 10 (5): 460–466
EuroQol-Group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16 (3): 199–208
Dolan P. A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK population survey. York: University of York, 1995
Russell LB, Gold MR, Siegel JE, et al. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 1996; 276: 1172–1177
Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ 2005; 14 (5): 487–496
Little R, Rubin D. Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: Wiley, 1987
Briggs AH, Wonderling DE, Mooney CZ. Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ 1997; 6 (4): 327–340
van Hout BA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, et al. Costs, effects and C/E-ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ 1994; 3 (5): 309–319
Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 1998; Suppl. 18: S68–S80
O’Brien BJ, Gertsen K, Willan AR, et al. Is there a kink in consumer’s threshold value for cost-effectiveness in health care? Health Econ 2002; 11: 175–180
Severens JL, Brunenberg DEM, Fenwick EAL, et al. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and a reluctance to lose. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (12): 1207–1214
Briggs AH, O’Brien BJ. The death of cost-minimization analysis? Health Econ 2001; 10 (2): 179–184
Welte R, Feenstra T, Jager H, et al. Decision chart for assessing and improving the transferability of economic evaluation results between countries. Pharmacoeconomics 2004; 22 (13): 85–76
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by an unconditional grant from the Health Care Insurance Board. The funding organisation had no role in design and conduct of the study, data collection and management, data analysis, interpretation of the data or preparation of the manuscript. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study. The authors would like to thank Claudia Gulikers for data collection and data management, and all participating GPs and patients for their cooperation and effort.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brunenberg, D.E.M., Wetzels, G.E.C., Nelemans, P.J. et al. Cost Effectiveness of an Adherence-Improving Programme in Hypertensive Patients. Pharmacoeconomics 25, 239–251 (2007). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200725030-00006
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200725030-00006