Patients' preferences for anti-osteoporosis drug treatment: A cross-European discrete choice experiment

Cross-country comparison; Discrete choice experiment; Drug treatment; Osteoporosis; Patients; Preferences; Article; Belgium; European; France; Ireland; Likert scale; Netherlands; Spain; Switzerland; United Kingdom; Europe; Osteoporotic Fractures; Absorptiometry, Photon; Administration, Oral; Aged; Attitude to Health; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Internationality; Logistic Models; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Preference; Risk Assessment; Severity of Illness Index; Surveys and Questionnaires

Abstract :

[en] Objectives. To estimate the preferences of osteoporotic patients for medication attributes, and analyse data from seven European countries. Methods. A discrete choice experiment was conducted in Belgium, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and the UK. Patients were asked to choose repeatedly between two hypothetical unlabelled drug treatments (and an opt-out option) that varied with respect to four attributes: efficacy in reducing the risk of fracture, type of potential common side effects, and mode and frequency of administration. In those countries in which patients contribute to the cost of their treatment directly, a fifth attribute was added: out-of-pocket cost. A mixed logit panel model was used to estimate patients' preferences. Results. In total, 1124 patients completed the experiment, with a sample of between 98 and 257 patients per country. In all countries, patients preferred treatment with higher effectiveness, and 6-monthly subcutaneous injection was always preferred over weekly oral tablets. In five countries, patients also preferred a monthly oral tablet and yearly i.v. injections over weekly oral tablets. In the three countries where the out-of-pocket cost was included as an attribute, lower costs significantly contributed to the treatment preference. Between countries, there were statistically significant differences for 13 out of 42 attribute/level interactions. Conclusion. We found statistically significant differences in patients' preferences for anti-osteoporosis medications between countries, especially for the mode of administration. Our findings emphasized that international treatment recommendations should allow for local adaptation, and that understanding individual preferences is important if we want to improve the quality of clinical care for patients with osteoporosis. © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved.

Disciplines :

General & internal medicine

Author, co-author :

Hiligsmann, M.; Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands

Dellaert, B. G.; Department of Business Economics, Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus Rotterdam University, Rotterdam, Netherlands

Dirksen, C. D.; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands

Watson, V.; Health Economics Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom

Bours, S.; Department of Internal Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, CAPHRI, Maastricht, Netherlands

Goemaere, S.; Department of Rheumatology and Endocrinology, Ghent University Hospital, Gent, Belgium

Reginster, Jean-Yves ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences de la santé publique > Santé publique, Epidémiologie et Economie de la santé

Roux, C.; Department of Rheumatology, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France

McGowan, B.; The North Western Rheumatology Unit, Our Lady's Hospital, Manorhamilton, Co Leitrim, Ireland

Silke, C.; The North Western Rheumatology Unit, Our Lady's Hospital, Manorhamilton, Co Leitrim, Ireland

More authors (8 more)

Language :

English

Title :

Patients' preferences for anti-osteoporosis drug treatment: A cross-European discrete choice experiment

Publication date :

2017

Journal title :

Rheumatology

ISSN :

1462-0324

eISSN :

1462-0332

Publisher :

Oxford University Press

Volume :

Issue :

Pages :

1167-1176

Peer reviewed :

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Available on ORBi :

since 21 February 2018

Statistics

Number of views

52 (0 by ULiège)

Number of downloads

0 (0 by ULiège)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

OpenCitations

Bibliography

Ijzerman MJ, Steuten LM. Early assessment of medical technologies to inform product development and market access: a review of methods and applications. Applied Health Econ Health Policy 2011;9:331-47
Kreis J, Schmidt H. Public engagement in health technology assessment and coverage decisions: a study of experiences in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. J Health Polit Policy Law 2013;38:89-122
Menon D, Stafinski T. Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2011;11:75-89
Dirksen CD. The use of research evidence on patient preferences in health care decision-making: issues, controversies and moving forward. Expert Rev Pharm Out 2014;14:785-94
Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health-a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health 2011;14:403-13
Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-Grob EW. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 2014;32:883-902
de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ 2012;21:145-72
Hiligsmann M, Dellaert BG, Dirksen CD et al. Patients' preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment: a discretechoice experiment. Arthritis Res Ther 2014;16:R36
Laba T-L. Using Discrete Choice Experiment to elicit patient preferences for osteoporosis drug treatments: where to from here?. Arthritis Res Ther 2014;16:106
Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics 2008;26:661-77
Coast J, Al-Janabi H, Sutton EJ et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ 2012;21:730-41
Hiligsmann M, van Durme C, Geusens P et al. Nominal group technique to select attributes for discrete choice experiments: an example for drug treatment choice in osteoporosis. Patient Prefer Adherence 2013;7:133-9
de Bekker-Grob EW, Rose JM, Donkers B et al. Men's preferences for prostate cancer screening: a discrete choice experiment. Brit J Cancer 2013;108:533-41
de Bekker-Grob EW, Donkers B, Jonker MF, Stolk EA. Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: a practical guide. Patient 2015;8:373-84
Hensher D, Rose J, Greene W. Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007
Swait J, Louviere J. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit-models. J Marketing Res 1993;30:305-14
Hiligsmann M, Bours SP, Boonen A. A review of patient preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2015;17:61
Silverman S, Calderon A, Kaw K et al. Patient weighting of osteoporosis medication attributes across racial and ethnic groups: a study of osteoporosis medication preferences using conjoint analysis. Osteoporos Int 2013;24:2067-77
Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Dordrecht: Springer, 2008
Bansback N, Trenaman L, Harrison M. How important is mode of administration in treatments for rheumatic diseases and related conditions? Curr Rheumatol Reports 2015;17:514
Hifinger M, Hiligsmann M, Ramiro S et al. Economic considerations and patients' preferences affect treatment selection for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a discrete choice experiment among European rheumatologists. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:126-32
Hiligsmann M, McGowan B, Bennett K, Barry M, Reginster JY. The clinical and economic burden of poor adherence and persistence with osteoporosis medications in Ireland. Value Health 2012;15:604-12
Hiligsmann M, Rabenda V, Bruyere O, Reginster JY. The clinical and economic burden of non-adherence with oral bisphosphonates in osteoporotic patients. Health Policy 2010;96:170-7
Hiligsmann M, Ronda G, van der Weijden T, Boonen A. The development of a personalized patient education tool for decision making for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Osteoporosis Int 2016;27:2489-96
LeBlanc A, Wang AT, Wyatt K et al. Encounter decision aid vs. clinical decision support or usual care to support patient-centered treatment decisions in osteoporosis: the osteoporosis choice randomized Trial II. PLoS ONE 2015;10:e0128063
Montori VM, Shah ND, Pencille LJ et al. Use of a decision aid to improve treatment decisions in osteoporosis: the osteoporosis choice randomized trial. Am J Med 2011;124:549-56
Penton H, Hiligsmann M, Harrison M et al. Potential costeffectiveness for using patient decision aids to guide osteoporosis treatment. Osteoporosis Int 2016;27:2697-707
Rizzoli R, Reginster JY, Boonen S et al. Adverse reactions and drug-drug interactions in the management of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Calcified Tissue Int 2011;89:91-104
Krucien N, Gafni A, Pelletier-Fleury N. Empirical testing of the external validity of a discrete choice experiment to determine preferred treatment option: the case of sleep apnea. Health Econ 2015;24:951-65
Lancsar E, Swait J. Reconceptualising the external validity of discrete choice experiments. Pharmacoeconomics 2014;32:951-65