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 Methodological Papers

Abualbishr Alshreef, Nicholas Latimer, Paul Tappenden, Ruth Wong, Dyfrig Hughes, James Fotheringham and Simon Dixon
Additional contact information
Abualbishr Alshreef: Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK
Nicholas Latimer: Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK
Paul Tappenden: Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK
Ruth Wong: Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK
Dyfrig Hughes: Centre for Health Economics & Medicines Evaluation (CHEME), Bangor University, Bangor, Gwynedd, UK
James Fotheringham: Sheffield Kidney Institute, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK
Simon Dixon: Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK

Medical Decision Making, 2019, vol. 39, issue 8, 910-925

Abstract: Introduction. Medication nonadherence can have a significant negative impact on treatment effectiveness. Standard intention-to-treat analyses conducted alongside clinical trials do not make adjustments for nonadherence. Several methods have been developed that attempt to estimate what treatment effectiveness would have been in the absence of nonadherence. However, health technology assessment (HTA) needs to consider effectiveness under real-world conditions, where nonadherence levels typically differ from those observed in trials. With this analytical requirement in mind, we conducted a review to identify methods for adjusting estimates of treatment effectiveness in the presence of patient nonadherence to assess their suitability for use in HTA. Methods. A “Comprehensive Pearl Growing†technique, with citation searching and reference checking, was applied across 7 electronic databases to identify methodological papers for adjusting time-to-event outcomes for nonadherence using individual patient data. A narrative synthesis of identified methods was conducted. Methods were assessed in terms of their ability to reestimate effectiveness based on alternative, suboptimal adherence levels. Results. Twenty relevant methodological papers covering 12 methods and 8 extensions to those methods were identified. Methods are broadly classified into 4 groups: 1) simple methods, 2) principal stratification methods, 3) generalized methods (g-methods), and 4) pharmacometrics-based methods using pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (PKPD) analysis. Each method makes specific assumptions and has associated limitations. Five of the 12 methods are capable of adjusting for real-world nonadherence, with only g-methods and PKPD considered appropriate for HTA. Conclusion. A range of statistical methods is available for adjusting estimates of treatment effectiveness for nonadherence, but most are not suitable for use in HTA. G-methods and PKPD appear to be more appropriate to estimate effectiveness in the presence of real-world adherence.

Keywords: causal inference; cost-effectiveness analysis; medication nonadherence; noncompliance; survival analysis (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X19881654 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:8:p:910-925

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19881654

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().