Osteoporosis International

, Volume 22, Issue 10, pp 2565–2573 | Cite as

Partial adherence: a new perspective on health economic assessment in osteoporosis

  • J. A. Kanis
  • C. Cooper
  • M. Hiligsmann
  • V. Rabenda
  • J-Y. Reginster
  • R. Rizzoli
Consensus Statement

Abstract

Summary

Partial adherence in osteoporosis increases the risk for fragility fracture and has considerable impact on cost-effectiveness. This review highlights a number of avenues for further research, such as improved definition of thresholds of compliance and persistence, as well as gap length, offset times, and fraction of benefit.

Introduction

A number of economic models have been developed to evaluate osteoporosis therapies and support decisions regarding efficient allocation of health care resources. Adherence to treatment is seldom incorporated in these models, which may reduce their validity for decision-making since adherence is poor in real-world clinical practice.

Methods

An ad hoc working group of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis met to review key issues concerning the incorporation of partial adherence in health economic models.

Results

Observational data have shown that poor adherence is associated with an increase in the risk for fragility fracture. Health economic modelling indicates that full adherence is associated with more quality-adjusted life years gained than partial adherence, as well as higher treatment costs and lower fracture-related costs. Although adherence appears as an important driver of cost-effectiveness, the effect is dependent on a range of other variables, such as offset time, fraction of benefit, fracture risk, fracture efficacy, fracture-related costs, and drug cost, some of which are poorly defined. Current models used to evaluate cost-effectiveness in osteoporosis may oversimplify the contributions of compliance and persistence.

Conclusion

Partial adherence has a significant impact on cost-effectiveness. Further research is required to optimise thresholds of compliance and persistence, the impact of gap length, offset times, and fraction of benefit.

Keywords

Adherence Compliance Cost-effectiveness Persistence 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper was derived from a working group meeting on 1 December 2010 supported by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO). We would like to thank the following for their valuable input to this paper: P. Alegre, E. Badamgarav, S. Corcaud, W. Dere, and B. Mitlak.

Conflicts of interest

C. Cooper received consulting fees and paid advisory boards for Alliance for Better Bone Health, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Lilly, Amgen, Wyeth, Novartis, Servier, and Nycomed. M. Hiligsmann received research grants and/or lecture fees from Amgen, Servier, and Novartis. J.A. Kanis received consulting fees, paid advisory boards, lecture fees, and/or grant support from the majority of companies concerned with skeletal metabolism. V. Rabenda received research grants from Servier and Nycomed. J-Y. Reginster received consulting fees, paid advisory boards, lecture fees, and/or grant support from Servier, Novartis, Negma, Lilly, Wyeth, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Merckle, Nycomed, NPS, Theramex, UCB, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Rottapharm, IBSA, Genevrier, Teijin, Teva, Ebewee Pharma, Zodiac, Analis, Novo-Nordisk, and Bristol Myers Squibb. R. Rizzoli received paid advisory boards and lecture fees for Merck Sharp and Dohme, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Wyeth, Novartis, Servier, Nycomed, and Danone.

References

  1. 1.
    International Osteoporosis Foundation (2009) Facts and statistics about osteoporosis and its implications. www.iofbonehealth.org/facts-and-statistics.html. Accessed 10 August 2009
  2. 2.
    Kanis JA, Johnell O (2005) Requirements for DXA for the management of osteoporosis in Europe. Osteoporos Int 16:229–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borgstrom F, Kanis JA (2008) Health economics of osteoporosis. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 22:885–900PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zethraeus N, Borgstrom F, Strom O et al (2007) Cost-effectiveness of the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis–a review of the literature and a reference model. Osteoporos Int 18:9–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Strom O, Borgstrom F, Kanis JA et al (2009) Incorporating adherence into health economic modelling of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 20:23–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kanis JA, Jonsson B (2002) Economic evaluation of interventions for osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 13:765–767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kanis JA, Adams J, Borgstrom F et al (2008) The cost-effectiveness of alendronate in the management of osteoporosis. Bone 42:4–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kanis JA, Oden A, Johansson H et al (2009) FRAX and its applications to clinical practice. Bone 44:734–743PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cramer JA, Roy A, Burrell A et al (2008) Medication compliance and persistence: terminology and definitions. Value Health 11:44–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lekkerkerker F, Kanis JA, Alsayed N et al (2007) Adherence to treatment of osteoporosis: a need for study. Osteoporos Int 18:1311–1317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kendler DL, Ringe JD, Ste-Marie LG et al (2009) Risedronate dosing before breakfast compared with dosing later in the day in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 20:1895–1902PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cooper A, Drake J, Brankin E (2006) Treatment persistence with once-monthly ibandronate and patient support vs. once-weekly alendronate: results from the PERSIST study. Int J Clin Pract 60:896–905PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schousboe JT, Dowd BE, Davison ML et al (2010) Association of medication attitudes with non-persistence and non-compliance with medication to prevent fractures. Osteoporos Int 21:1899–1909PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gallagher AM, Rietbrock S, Olson M et al (2008) Fracture outcomes related to persistence and compliance with oral bisphosphonates. J Bone Miner Res 23:1569–1575PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Borgstrom F, Strom O, Coelho J et al (2010) The cost-effectiveness of strontium ranelate in the UK for the management of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 21:339–349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Borgstrom F, Strom O, Coelho J et al (2010) The cost-effectiveness of risedronate in the UK for the management of osteoporosis using the FRAX. Osteoporos Int 21:495–505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jonsson B, Strom O, Eisman JA et al (2011) Cost-effectiveness of denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 22:967–982PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Clowes JA, Peel NF, Eastell R (2004) The impact of monitoring on adherence and persistence with antiresorptive treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 89:1117–1123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rossini M, Bianchi G, Di MO et al (2006) Determinants of adherence to osteoporosis treatment in clinical practice. Osteoporos Int 17:914–921PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ziller V, Wetzel K, Kyvernitakis I et al (2010) Adherence and persistence in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis treated with raloxifene. Climacteric 14:228–235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Huas D, Debiais F, Blotman F et al (2010) Compliance and treatment satisfaction of post menopausal women treated for osteoporosis. Compliance with osteoporosis treatment. BMC Womens Health 10:26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Alegre P, Arnould B, Spizak C et al. (2010) Use of qualitative research to identify determinants of persistence for anti-osteoporotic treatments. Presented at the 13th ISPOR Annual European Conference, Prague, Czech Republic, 6–9 November 2010Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reginster JY, Felsenberg D, Cooper C et al (2006) A new concept for bisphosphonate therapy: a rationale for the development of monthly oral dosing of ibandronate. Osteoporos Int 17:159–166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Silverman SL, Schousboe JT, Gold DT (2011) Oral bisphosphonate compliance and persistence: a matter of choice? Osteoporos Int 22:21–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cramer JA, Gold DT, Silverman SL et al (2007) A systematic review of persistence and compliance with bisphosphonates for osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 18:1023–1031PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Huybrechts KF, Ishak KJ, Caro JJ (2006) Assessment of compliance with osteoporosis treatment and its consequences in a managed care population. Bone 38:922–928PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Landfeldt E, Borgstrom F, Robbins S et al (2010) Adherence to treatment of osteoporosis in Sweden: The Swedish Adherence Register Analysis (SARA). P605. Osteoporos Int 21(suppl 1):S252Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Li L, Roddam A, Gitlin M et al (2010) Retrospective analysis of persistence to anti-osteoporosis medications in the UK General Practice Research Database. P606. Osteoporos Int 21(suppl 1):S252Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Breart G, Jakob FJ, Palacios S et al (2010) New interim analysis of a prospective observational cohort study of patients treated wth strontium ranelate. P416. Osteoporos Int 21(suppl 1):S166Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rabenda V, Hiligsmann M, Reginster JY (2009) Poor adherence to oral bisphosphonate treatment and its consequences: a review of the evidence. Expert Opin Pharmacother 10:2303–2315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Siris ES, Selby PL, Saag KG et al (2009) Impact of osteoporosis treatment adherence on fracture rates in North America and Europe. Am J Med 122:S3–S13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Siris ES, Harris ST, Rosen CJ et al (2006) Adherence to bisphosphonate therapy and fracture rates in osteoporotic women: relationship to vertebral and nonvertebral fractures from 2 US claims databases. Mayo Clin Proc 81:1013–1022PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rabenda V, Mertens R, Fabri V et al (2008) Adherence to bisphosphonates therapy and hip fracture risk in osteoporotic women. Osteoporos Int 19:811–818PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rabenda V, Reginster JY (2010) Positive impact of compliance to strontium ranelate on the risk of nonvertebral osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 21:1993–2002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Simpson SH, Eurich DT, Majumdar SR et al (2006) A meta-analysis of the association between adherence to drug therapy and mortality. BMJ 333:15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Curtis JR, Delzell E, Chen L et al. (2010) The relationship between bisphosphonate adherence and fracture: Is it the behavior or the medication? Results from the placebo arm of the fracture intervention trial. J Bone Miner Res (in press)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    McCloskey E, deTakats D, Orgee J et al (2005) Characteristics associated with non-persistence during daily therapy - experience from the placebo wing of a community-based clinical trial. J Bone Miner Res 20(suppl):S282Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Weycker D, Macarios D, Edelsberg J et al (2006) Compliance with drug therapy for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 17:1645–1652PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hiligsmann M, Rabenda V, Gathon HJ et al (2010) Potential clinical and economic impact of nonadherence with osteoporosis medications. Calcif Tissue Int 86:202–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hiligsmann M, Rabenda V, Bruyere O et al (2010) The clinical and economic burden of non-adherence with oral bisphosphonates in osteoporotic patients. Health Policy 96:170–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hiligsmann M, Gathon HJ, Bruyere O et al (2010) Cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis screening followed by treatment: the impact of medication adherence. Value Health 13:394–401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ivergard M, Strom O, Borgstrom F et al (2010) Identifying cost-effective treatment with raloxifene in postmenopausal women using risk algorithms for fractures and invasive breast cancer. Bone 47:966–974PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stevenson M, Jones ML, De NE et al (2005) A systematic review and economic evaluation of alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene and teriparatide for the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Health Technol Assess 9:1–160PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Jonsson B et al (2010) An evaluation of the NICE guidance for the prevention of osteoporotic fragility fracture in postmenopausal women. Arch Osteoporos 5:19–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cotte FE, Fardellone P, Mercier F et al (2010) Adherence to monthly and weekly oral bisphosphonates in women with osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 21:145–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. A. Kanis
    • 1
  • C. Cooper
    • 2
    • 3
  • M. Hiligsmann
    • 4
    • 5
  • V. Rabenda
    • 5
  • J-Y. Reginster
    • 5
  • R. Rizzoli
    • 6
  1. 1.WHO Collaborating Centre for Metabolic Bone DiseasesUniversity of Sheffield Medical SchoolSheffieldUK
  2. 2.MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology UnitUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  3. 3.NIHR Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research UnitUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  4. 4.HEC Management SchoolUniversity of LiègeLiègeBelgium
  5. 5.Public Health and Health EconomicsUniversity of LiègeLiègeBelgium
  6. 6.Division of Bone Diseases, Department of Rehabilitation and GeriatricsGeneva University Hospitals and Faculty of MedicineGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations