Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pharmacoeconomic Consequences of Variable Patient Compliance With Prescribed Drug Regimens

  • Leading Article
  • Pharmacoeconomics and Patient Compliance
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Variable compliance with prescribed drug regimens is a leading source of variability in drug response. Specifics differ by drug and disease. The role of variable compliance was clearly defined in 2 trials of lipid-lowering agents, cholestyramine and gemfibrozil, in which exceptionally careful measurements of compliance were made, which has not been done in later trials. Economic consequences of variable compliance are estimated by converting dose-dependent changes in absolute risk of incident coronary disease into the unicohort format, which designates how many patients must be treated to prevent, in a given time, a defined ‘coronary event’. Two strong influences on the costs of treatment are: (i) the shape of the relation between drug intake and risk reduction; and (ii) the strength of the linkage between intake and prescription refills. The intake-effect relation for cholestyramine is linear, making compliance-neutral the cost to prevent 1 coronary event, provided that refills match intake. If refills exceed intake, treatment costs rise. The intake-effect relation for gemfibrozil is more typically nonlinear, so poorer compliers purchase and take the drug in amounts that have little benefit, increasing the cost to prevent 1 coronary event. If refills run at a higher rate than intake, costs increase still further. A key question for future study is: do policies that encourage timely refills increase compliance enough to offset their potential to waste money in the purchasing of an untaken drug?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Urquhart J, de Klerk E. Contending paradigms for the interpretation of data on patient compliance with therapeutic drug regimens. Stat Med 1998; 17: 251–67

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kortt MA, Armstrong EP. Cholesterol-lowering therapy interventions: a pharmacoeconomic assessment. Dis Manage Health Outcomes 1998; 4: 193–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Joyce CRB. Patient co-operation and the sensitivity of clinical trials. J Chronic Dis 1962; 15: 1025–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Wood HF, Feinstein AR, Taranta A, et al. Rheumatic fever in children and adolescents: a long-term epidemiologic study of subsequent prophylaxis, streptococcal infections, and clinical sequelae. III: comparative effectiveness of three prophylaxis regimens in preventing streptococcal infections and rheumatic recurrences. Ann Intern Med 1964; 60 Suppl. 5: 31–46

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lasagna L, editor. Patient compliance. Mount Kisco (NY): Futura, 1976

    Google Scholar 

  6. Sackett DL, Haynes RB, editors. Compliance with therapeutic regimens. Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cramer JA. Microelectronic systems for monitoring and enhancing patient compliance with medication regimens. Drugs 1995; 49: 321–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kastrissios H, Blaschke TF. Medication compliance as a feature in drug development. Ann Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 1997; 37: 451–75

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Urquhart J. The electronic medication event monitor: lessons for pharmacotherapy. Clin Pharmacokinet 1997; 32: 345–56

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kass MA, Gordon M, Meltzer DW. Can ophthalmologists correctly identify patients defaulting from pilocarpine therapy? Am J Ophthalmol 1986; 101: 524–30

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Cramer JA, Scheyer RD, Mattson RH. Compliance declines between clinic visits. Arch Intern Med 1990; 150: 1509–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Feinstein AR. On white-coat effects and the electronic monitoring of compliance. Arch Intern Med 1990; 150: 1377–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. The Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial results: (I) reduction in incidence of coronary heart disease; (II) the relationship of reduction in incidence of coronary heart disease to cholesterol lowering. JAMA 1984; 251: 351–74

    Google Scholar 

  14. Manninen V, Elo MO, Frick H, et al. Lipid alterations and decline in the incidence of coronary heart disease in the Helsinki Heart Study. JAMA 1988; 260: 641–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Coronary Drug Project Research Group. Influence of adherence to treatment and response of cholesterol on mortality in the coronary drug project. N Engl J Med 1980; 303: 1038–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Urquhart J. Patient compliance as an explanatory variable in four selected cardiovascular studies. In: Cramer JA, Spilker B, editors. Compliance in medical practice and clinical trials. New York (NY): Raven Press, 1991: 301–22

    Google Scholar 

  17. Norell SE. Methods in assessing drug compliance. Acta Med Scand 1984; Suppl 683: 35–40

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cramer JA, Mattson RH, Prevey ML, et al. How often is medication taken as prescribed? A novel assessment technique. JAMA 1989; 261: 3273–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Averbuch M, Weintraub M, Pollack DJ. Compliance assessment in clinical trials: the MEMS device. J Clin Res Pharmacoepidemiol 1990; 4: 199–204

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bond WS, Hussar DA. Detection methods and strategies for improving medication compliance. Am J Hosp Pharm 1991; 48: 1978–88

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hasford J. Biometric issues in measuring and analyzing partial compliance in clinical trials. In: Cramer JA, Spilker B, editors. Compliance in medical practice and clinical trials. New York (NY): Raven Press, 1991: 265–81

    Google Scholar 

  22. Efron B, Feldman D. Compliance as an explanatory variable in clinical trials. J Am Stat Assoc 1991; 86: 9–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sheiner LB, Rubin DB. Intention to treat analysis and the goals of clinical trials. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995; 57: 6–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Goetghebeur EJT, Pocock SJ. Statistical issues in allowing for noncompliance and withdrawal. Drug Inf J 1993; 27: 837–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Vrijens B, Goetghebeur E. Comparing compliance patterns between randomized treatments. Control Clin Trials 1997; 18: 187–203

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Robins JM. Correction for non-compliance in equivalence trials. Stat Med 1998; 17: 269–302

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Pocock SJ, Abdalla M. The hope and the hazards of using compliance data in randomized controlled trials. Stat Med 1998; 17: 303–18

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. White IR, Goetghebeur EJT. Clinical trials comparing two treatment policies: which aspects of the treatment policies make a difference? Stat Med 1998; 17: 319–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Goetghebeur E, Molenberghs G, Katz J. Estimating the causal effect of compliance on binary outcome in randomized controlled trials. Stat Med 1998; 17: 341–56

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Smith DE, Diggle PJ. Compliance in an anti-hypertension trial: a latent process model for binary longitudinal data. Stat Med 1998; 17: 357–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Rubin DB. More powerful randomization-based p-values in double-blind trials with non-compliance. Stat Med 1998; 17: 371–86

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Cox D. Discussion of the Limburg Compliance Symposium. Stat Med 1998; 17: 387–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Psaty BM, Koepsell TD, Wagner EH, et al. The relative risk of incident coronary heart disease associated with recently stopping the use of beta blockers. JAMA 1990; 263: 1653–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Weis SE, Slocum PC, Blais FX, et al. The effect of directly observed therapy on the rates of drug resistance and relapse in tuberculosis. N Engl J Med 1994; 330: 1179–84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. West JA, Miller NH, Parker KM, et al. A comprehensive management system for heart failure improves clinical outcomes and reduces medical resource utilization. Am J Cardiol 1997; 79: 58–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Sheiner LB. The intellectual health of clinical drug evaluation. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1991; 50: 4–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Levy G. A pharmacokinetic perspective on medicament noncompliance. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1993; 54: 242–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Peck C. Clinical consequences of patient non-compliance: problems of safety or efficacy? In: Meyer UA, Peck CC, editors. The drug holiday pattern of noncompliance in clinical trials: challenge to conventional concepts of drug safety and efficacy. Washington, DC: Center for Drug Development Science, Georgetown University, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  39. Meredith PA. Therapeutic implications of drug ‘holidays’. Eur Heart J 1996; 17 Suppl. A: 21–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Rubin D. Comment: dose-response estimands. J Am Stat Assoc 1991; 86: 22–4

    Google Scholar 

  41. Feinstein AR. Compliance bias and the interpretation of therapeutic trials. In: Haynes RB, Taylor DW, Sackett DL, editors. Compliance in health care. Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979: 309–33

    Google Scholar 

  42. Feinstein AR. Intent-to-treat policy for analyzing randomized trials: statistical distortions and neglected clinical challenges. In: Cramer JA, Spilker B, editors. Compliance in medical practice and clinical trials. New York (NY): Raven Press, 1991: 359–70

    Google Scholar 

  43. Urquhart J, Chevalley C. Impact of unrecognized dosing errors on the cost and effectiveness of pharmaceuticals. Drug Inf J 1988; 22: 363–78

    Google Scholar 

  44. Rubio A, Cox C, Weintraub M. Prediction of diltiazem plasma concentration curves from limited measurements using compliance data. Clin Pharmacokinet 1992; 22: 238–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Vanhove GF, Schapiro JM, Winters MA, et al. Patient compliance and drug failure in protease inhibitor monotherapy. JAMA 1996; 276: 1955–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Sackett DL, Gent M. Controversy in counting and attributing events in clinical trials. New Engl J Med 1979; 301: 1410–2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Lee YJ, Ellenberg JH, Hirta DG, et al. Analysis of clinical trials by treatment actually received: is it really an option. Stat Med 1991; 10: 1595–605

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Sheiner LB. Learning versus confirming in clinical drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1997; 61: 275–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Efron B. Foreword to the Limburg Compliance Symposium. Stat Med 1998; 117: 249–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Sclar DA, Chin A, Skaer TL, et al. Effect of health education in promoting prescription refill compliance among patients with hypertension. Clin Ther 1991; 13: 489–95

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Meier P. Discussion. J Am Stat Assoc 1991; 86: 19–22

    Google Scholar 

  52. Urquhart J, Heilmann K. Risk watch: the odds of life. New York (NY): Facts on File, 1984

    Google Scholar 

  53. Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet 1994; 344: 1383–9

    Google Scholar 

  54. Shepherd J, Cobbe SM, Ford I, et al. Prevention of coronary heart disease with pravastatin in men with hypercholesterolemia. N Engl J Med 1995; 333: 1301–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Guillebaud J. Any questions. BMJ 1993; 307: 617

    Google Scholar 

  56. Pullar T, Feely M. Problems of compliance with drug treatment: new solutions? Pharm J 1990; 245: 213–5

    Google Scholar 

  57. Urquhart J. Role of patient compliance in clinical pharmacokinetics: review of recent research. Clin Pharmacokinet 1994; 27: 202–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Schneider M-P, Burnier M. Un suivi quotidien de l’ observance therapeutique est-il possible a domicile? Resultats dune etude pilote [abstract]. Schweiz Med Wochenschr 1997; 127 Suppl. 88: 122

    Google Scholar 

  59. Cramer JA, Rosenheck R. Enhancing medication compliance for people with serious mental illness. J Nerv Ment Dis 1999; 187: 52–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, 94301, 975 Hamilton Avenue, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    John Urquhart

Authors
  1. John Urquhart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Urquhart, J. Pharmacoeconomic Consequences of Variable Patient Compliance With Prescribed Drug Regimens. Pharmacoeconomics 15, 217–228 (1999). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199915030-00002

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199915030-00002

Keywords

Search

Navigation