IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v29y2009i1p125-139.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Markov Model Simulation of the Impact of Treatment Persistence in Postmenopausal Osteoporosis

Author

Listed:
  • François-Emery Cotté

    (CERMES, INSERM U750, National Institute of Health and Medical Research, Villejuif, France, francois-emery.e.cotte@gsk.fr)

  • Bruno Fautrel

    (Department of Rheumatology, Hospital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France)

  • Gérard De Pouvourville

    (ESSEC Business School, Chair of Health Economics, Cergy, France)

Abstract

Background . Osteoporosis is a common disorder of the skeleton that increases bone fragility and the risk of fracture. Bisphosphonates have become the reference treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis because of their proven efficacy in reducing fracture rates. The effectiveness of bisphosphonates is, however, limited by poor treatment adherence and persistence with treatment. A model has been designed to simulate the impact of improving persistence rates on treatment effectiveness. Methods . The Markov model followed a cohort of patients over 10 years to estimate the total number of incident osteoporotic fractures by age for the overall population of women with diagnosed postmenopausal osteoporosis in France (mean age, 71.1 years ± 9.6; range, 50-96 years). The impact of clinical efficacy, persistence, and residual treatment effects data on predicted fracture risk was also estimated in the model. Results . Predicted numbers of incident fractures appeared consistent with published data. Compared with no treatment, the relative risk of fracture over 10 years was 0.831 for weekly bisphosphonate treatment with an assumed persistence rate of 51% after 1 year (absolute risk reduction = 11.4%). This relative risk decreased to 0.731 (absolute risk reduction = 18.1%) if hypothetical full-treatment persistence was achieved. In terms of public health, improving persistence with bisphosphonate treatment by only 20% could have the same impact as a 20.2% increase in clinical efficacy. The benefit associated with improved persistence declines as full persistence is approached. Conclusion . Improving persistence can increase treatment effectiveness. Giving greater priority to persistence interventions might have a greater impact on the health of osteoporotic women than advances in treatment efficacy.

Suggested Citation

  • François-Emery Cotté & Bruno Fautrel & Gérard De Pouvourville, 2009. "A Markov Model Simulation of the Impact of Treatment Persistence in Postmenopausal Osteoporosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(1), pages 125-139, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:1:p:125-139
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08318461
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X08318461
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X08318461?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dyfrig A. Hughes & Adrian Bagust & Alan Haycox & Tom Walley, 2001. "The impact of non‐compliance on the cost‐effectiveness of pharmaceuticals: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(7), pages 601-615, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ananth Kadambi & Robert Leipold & Anuraag Kansal & Sonja Sorensen & Denis Getsios, 2012. "Inclusion of Compliance and Persistence in Economic Models," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(6), pages 365-379, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Katharina E. Blankart & Frank R. Lichtenberg, 2020. "Are patients more adherent to newer drugs?," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 605-618, December.
    2. Hege Urdahl & Andrea Manca & Mark Sculpher, 2006. "Assessing Generalisability in Model-Based Economic Evaluation Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(12), pages 1181-1197, December.
    3. Hiligsmann, Mickaël & Rabenda, Véronique & Bruyère, Olivier & Reginster, Jean-Yves, 2010. "The clinical and economic burden of non-adherence with oral bisphosphonates in osteoporotic patients," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 170-177, July.
    4. Rotar, Alexandru M. & Preda, Alin & Löblová, Olga & Benkovic, Vanesa & Zawodnik, Szymon & Gulacsi, Laszlo & Niewada, Maciej & Boncz, Imre & Petrova, Guenka & Dimitrova, Maria & Klazinga, Niek, 2018. "Rationalizing the introduction and use of pharmaceutical products: The role of managed entry agreements in Central and Eastern European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(3), pages 230-236.
    5. Karine Lamiraud & Pierre‐Yves Geoffard, 2007. "Therapeutic non‐adherence: a rational behavior revealing patient preferences?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(11), pages 1185-1204, November.
    6. Afschin Gandjour & Karl Wilhelm Lauterbach, 2003. "When Is It Worth Introducing a Quality Improvement Program? A Mathematical Model," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 23(6), pages 518-525, November.
    7. Abualbishr Alshreef & Nicholas Latimer & Paul Tappenden & Ruth Wong & Dyfrig Hughes & James Fotheringham & Simon Dixon, 2019. "Statistical Methods for Adjusting Estimates of Treatment Effectiveness for Patient Nonadherence in the Context of Time-to-Event Outcomes and Health Technology Assessment: A Systematic Review of Method," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(8), pages 910-925, November.
    8. Vincenzo Atella & Federico Belotti & Domenico Depalo, 2017. "Drug therapy adherence and health outcomes in the presence of physician and patient unobserved heterogeneity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S2), pages 106-126, September.
    9. Afschin Gandjour & Karl Wilhelm Lauterbach, 2005. "How Much Does It Cost to Change the Behavior of Health Professionals? A Mathematical Model and an Application to Academic Detailing," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(3), pages 341-347, May.
    10. Domenico Depalo, 2020. "Explaining the causal effect of adherence to medication on cholesterol through the marginal patient," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(S1), pages 110-126, October.
    11. Srivastava, Divya & McGuire, Alistair, 2015. "Patient access to health care and medicines across low-income countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 21-27.
    12. Domenico Depalo & Jay Bhattacharya & Vincenzo Atella & Federico Belotti, 2019. "When Technological Advance Meets Physician Learning in Drug Prescribing," NBER Working Papers 26202, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Danielle Brunenberg & Gwenn Wetzels & Patricia Nelemans & Carmen Dirksen & Johan Severens & Henri Stoffers & Jan Schouten & Martin Prins & Peter Leeuw & Manuela Joore, 2007. "Cost Effectiveness of an Adherence-Improving Programme in Hypertensive Patients," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 239-251, March.
    14. Karine Lamiraud & Pierre-Yves Geoffard, 2007. "Therapeutic non-adherence: a rational behavior revealing patient preferences?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(11), pages 1185-1204.
    15. Joan Costa‐Font & Rosella Levaggi, 2020. "Innovation, aging, and health care: Unraveling “silver” from “red” herrings?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(S1), pages 3-7, October.
    16. Robyn Tamblyn & Kristen Reidel & Allen Huang & Laurel Taylor & Nancy Winslade & Gillian Bartlett & Roland Grad & André Jacques & Martin Dawes & Pierre Larochelle & Alain Pinsonneault, 2010. "Increasing the Detection and Response to Adherence Problems with Cardiovascular Medication in Primary Care through Computerized Drug Management Systems: A Randomized Controlled Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(2), pages 176-188, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:1:p:125-139. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.