BACKGROUND: In light of the pressure to reduce unnecessary healthcare expenditure in the current economic climate, a systematic review that assesses evidence of cost effectiveness of adherence-enhancing interventions would be timely. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to examine the cost effectiveness of adherence-enhancing interventions compared with care as usual in randomised controlled trials, and to assess the methodological quality of economic evaluations. METHODS: MEDLINE, PsycInfo, EconLit and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases were searched for randomised controlled trials reporting full economic evaluations of adherence-enhancing interventions (published up to June 2013). Information was collected on study characteristics, cost effectiveness of treatment alternatives, and methodological quality. RESULTS: A total of 14 randomised controlled trials were included. The quality of economic evaluations and the risk of bias varied considerably between trials. Four studies showed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) below the willingness-to-pay threshold. Few studies seemed to evaluate interventions that successfully changed adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Only 14 randomised controlled trials examined the cost effectiveness of adherence interventions. Despite that some studies showe favourable ICERs, the overall quality of studies was modest and the economic perspectives applied were frequently narrow. To demonstrate that adherence interventions can be cost effective, we recommend that proven-effective adherence programmes are subjected to comprehensive economic evaluations.
BACKGROUND: In light of the pressure to reduce unnecessary healthcare expenditure in the current economic climate, a systematic review that assesses evidence of cost effectiveness of adherence-enhancing interventions would be timely. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to examine the cost effectiveness of adherence-enhancing interventions compared with care as usual in randomised controlled trials, and to assess the methodological quality of economic evaluations. METHODS: MEDLINE, PsycInfo, EconLit and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases were searched for randomised controlled trials reporting full economic evaluations of adherence-enhancing interventions (published up to June 2013). Information was collected on study characteristics, cost effectiveness of treatment alternatives, and methodological quality. RESULTS: A total of 14 randomised controlled trials were included. The quality of economic evaluations and the risk of bias varied considerably between trials. Four studies showed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) below the willingness-to-pay threshold. Few studies seemed to evaluate interventions that successfully changed adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Only 14 randomised controlled trials examined the cost effectiveness of adherence interventions. Despite that some studies showe favourable ICERs, the overall quality of studies was modest and the economic perspectives applied were frequently narrow. To demonstrate that adherence interventions can be cost effective, we recommend that proven-effective adherence programmes are subjected to comprehensive economic evaluations.
Authors: Kenneth A Freedberg; Lisa R Hirschhorn; Bruce R Schackman; Lindsey L Wolf; Lindsay A Martin; Milton C Weinstein; Susan Goldin; A David Paltiel; Carol Katz; Sue J Goldie; Elena Losina Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2006-12-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Sue J Goldie; A David Paltiel; Milton C Weinstein; Elena Losina; George R Seage; April D Kimmel; Rochelle P Walensky; Paul E Sax; Kenneth A Freedberg Journal: Am J Med Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Danielle E M Brunenberg; Gwenn E C Wetzels; Patricia J Nelemans; Carmen D Dirksen; Johan L Severens; Henri E J H Stoffers; Jan S A G Schouten; Martin H Prins; Peter W de Leeuw; Manuela A Joore Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2007 Impact factor: 4.558
Authors: Robby Nieuwlaat; Nancy Wilczynski; Tamara Navarro; Nicholas Hobson; Rebecca Jeffery; Arun Keepanasseril; Thomas Agoritsas; Niraj Mistry; Alfonso Iorio; Susan Jack; Bhairavi Sivaramalingam; Emma Iserman; Reem A Mustafa; Dawn Jedraszewski; Chris Cotoi; R Brian Haynes Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2014-11-20
Authors: Lisa Mellon; Frank Doyle; Anne Hickey; Kenneth D Ward; Declan G de Freitas; P Aiden McCormick; Oisin O'Connell; Peter Conlon Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-09-12
Authors: Loes Am Leenen; Ben Fm Wijnen; Reina Ja de Kinderen; Marian Hjm Majoie; Caroline M van Heugten; Silvia Maa Evers Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2014-12-24 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: Katherine Kelly; Maria V Grau-Sepulveda; Benjamin A Goldstein; Susan E Spratt; Anne Wolfley; Vicki Hatfield; Monica Murphy; Ellen Jones; Bradi B Granger Journal: BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Date: 2016-06-29
Authors: Catherine Henderson; Martin Knapp; Ksenija Yeeles; Stephen Bremner; Sandra Eldridge; Anthony S David; Nicola O'Connell; Tom Burns; Stefan Priebe Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-10-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Yesim Tozan; Ariadna Capasso; Sicong Sun; Torsten B Neilands; Christopher Damulira; Flavia Namuwonge; Gertrude Nakigozi; Abel Mwebembezi; Barbara Mukasa; Ozge Sensoy Bahar; Proscovia Nabunya; Claude A Mellins; Mary M McKay; Fred M Ssewamala Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2021-06 Impact factor: 6.707