Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Osteoporosis International 7/2008

Open Access 01-07-2008 | Original Article

Patients’ preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete choice experiment

Authors: E. W. de Bekker-Grob, M. L. Essink-Bot, W. J. Meerding, H. A. P. Pols, B. W. Koes, E. W. Steyerberg

Published in: Osteoporosis International | Issue 7/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Summary

Active case finding for osteoporosis is used to identify patients at high fracture risk who may benefit from preventive drug treatment. We investigated the relative weight that women place on various aspects of preventive drugs in a discrete choice experiment. Our patients said they were prepared to take preventive drugs even if side effects were expected.

Introduction

Active case finding for osteoporosis is used to identify patients who may benefit from preventive drugs. We aimed to elicit the relative weight that patients place on various aspects of preventive drug treatment for osteoporosis.

Methods

We designed a discrete choice experiment, in which women had to choose between drug profiles that differed in five treatment attributes: effectiveness, side effects (nausea), total treatment duration, route of drug administration, and out-of-pocket costs. We included 120 women aged 60 years and older, identified by osteoporosis case finding in 34 general practices in the Netherlands. A conditional logit regression model was used to analyse the relative importance of treatment attributes, the trade-offs that women were willing to make between attributes, and their willingness to pay.

Results

All treatment attributes proved to be important for women’s choices. A reduction of the relative 10-year risk of hip fracture by 40% or more by the drug was considered to compensate for nausea as a side effect. Women were prepared to pay an out-of-pocket contribution for the currently available drug treatment (bisphosphonate) if the fracture risk reduction was at least 12%.

Conclusions

Women identified by active osteoporosis case finding stated to be prepared to take preventive drugs, even if side effects were expected and some out-of-pocket contribution was required.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Riggs BL, Melton LJ 3rd (1995) The worldwide problem of osteoporosis: insights afforded by epidemiology. Bone 17(5 Suppl):505S–511SPubMedCrossRef Riggs BL, Melton LJ 3rd (1995) The worldwide problem of osteoporosis: insights afforded by epidemiology. Bone 17(5 Suppl):505S–511SPubMedCrossRef
2.
3.
4.
go back to reference Ensrud KE, Black DM, Palermo L, Bauer DC, Barrett-Connor E, Quandt SA, Thompson DE, Karpf DB (1997) Treatment with alendronate prevents fractures in women at highest risk: results from the Fracture Intervention Trial. Arch Intern Med 157(22):2617–2624PubMedCrossRef Ensrud KE, Black DM, Palermo L, Bauer DC, Barrett-Connor E, Quandt SA, Thompson DE, Karpf DB (1997) Treatment with alendronate prevents fractures in women at highest risk: results from the Fracture Intervention Trial. Arch Intern Med 157(22):2617–2624PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Pols HA, Felsenberg D, Hanley DA, Stepan J, Munoz-Torres M, Wilkin TJ, Qin-sheng G, Galich AM, Vandormael K, Yates AJ et al (1999) Multinational, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of the effects of alendronate on bone density and fracture risk in postmenopausal women with low bone mass: results of the FOSIT study. Fosamax International Trial Study Group. Osteoporos Int 9(5):461–468PubMedCrossRef Pols HA, Felsenberg D, Hanley DA, Stepan J, Munoz-Torres M, Wilkin TJ, Qin-sheng G, Galich AM, Vandormael K, Yates AJ et al (1999) Multinational, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of the effects of alendronate on bone density and fracture risk in postmenopausal women with low bone mass: results of the FOSIT study. Fosamax International Trial Study Group. Osteoporos Int 9(5):461–468PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Black DM, Cummings SR, Karpf DB, Cauley JA, Thompson DE, Nevitt MC, Bauer DC, Genant HK, Haskell WL, Marcus R et al (1996) Randomised trial of effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with existing vertebral fractures. Fracture Intervention Trial Research Group. Lancet 348(9041):1535–1541PubMedCrossRef Black DM, Cummings SR, Karpf DB, Cauley JA, Thompson DE, Nevitt MC, Bauer DC, Genant HK, Haskell WL, Marcus R et al (1996) Randomised trial of effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with existing vertebral fractures. Fracture Intervention Trial Research Group. Lancet 348(9041):1535–1541PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Meunier PJ (1999) Evidence-based medicine and osteoporosis: a comparison of fracture risk reduction data from osteoporosis randomised clinical trials. Int J Clin Pract 53(2):122–129PubMed Meunier PJ (1999) Evidence-based medicine and osteoporosis: a comparison of fracture risk reduction data from osteoporosis randomised clinical trials. Int J Clin Pract 53(2):122–129PubMed
8.
go back to reference Harris ST, Watts NB, Genant HK, McKeever CD, Hangartner T, Keller M, Chesnut CH 3rd, Brown J, Eriksen EF, Hoseyni MS et al (1999) Effects of risedronate treatment on vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial. Vertebral Efficacy with Risedronate Therapy (VERT) Study Group. JAMA 282(14):1344–1352PubMedCrossRef Harris ST, Watts NB, Genant HK, McKeever CD, Hangartner T, Keller M, Chesnut CH 3rd, Brown J, Eriksen EF, Hoseyni MS et al (1999) Effects of risedronate treatment on vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial. Vertebral Efficacy with Risedronate Therapy (VERT) Study Group. JAMA 282(14):1344–1352PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Guideline on osteoporosis. Utrecht: The Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement (CBO); 2002 Guideline on osteoporosis. Utrecht: The Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement (CBO); 2002
10.
go back to reference Kanis JA, Delmas P, Burckhardt P, Cooper C, Torgerson D (1997) Guidelines for diagnosis and management of osteoporosis. The European Foundation for Osteoporosis and Bone Disease. Osteoporos Int 7(4):390–406PubMedCrossRef Kanis JA, Delmas P, Burckhardt P, Cooper C, Torgerson D (1997) Guidelines for diagnosis and management of osteoporosis. The European Foundation for Osteoporosis and Bone Disease. Osteoporos Int 7(4):390–406PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Gyrd-Hansen D, Sogaard J (2001) Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes. Health Econ 10(7):617–634PubMedCrossRef Gyrd-Hansen D, Sogaard J (2001) Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes. Health Econ 10(7):617–634PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Ryan M, Hughes J (1997) Using conjoint analysis to assess women’s preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ 6(3):261–273PubMedCrossRef Ryan M, Hughes J (1997) Using conjoint analysis to assess women’s preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ 6(3):261–273PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Ryan M, Farrar S (2000) Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 320(7248):1530–1533PubMedCrossRef Ryan M, Farrar S (2000) Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 320(7248):1530–1533PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Sculpher M, Bryan S, Fry P, de Winter P, Payne H, Emberton M (2004) Patients’ preferences for the management of non-metastatic prostate cancer: discrete choice experiment. BMJ 328(7436):382PubMedCrossRef Sculpher M, Bryan S, Fry P, de Winter P, Payne H, Emberton M (2004) Patients’ preferences for the management of non-metastatic prostate cancer: discrete choice experiment. BMJ 328(7436):382PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Watson V, Ryan M, Brown CT, Barnett G, Ellis BW, Emberton M (2004) Eliciting preferences for drug treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 172(6 Pt 1):2321–2325PubMedCrossRef Watson V, Ryan M, Brown CT, Barnett G, Ellis BW, Emberton M (2004) Eliciting preferences for drug treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 172(6 Pt 1):2321–2325PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Aristides M, Weston AR, FitzGerald P, Le Reun C, Maniadakis N (2004) Patient preference and willingness-to-pay for Humalog Mix25 relative to Humulin 30/70: a multicountry application of a discrete choice experiment. Value Health 7(4):442–454PubMedCrossRef Aristides M, Weston AR, FitzGerald P, Le Reun C, Maniadakis N (2004) Patient preference and willingness-to-pay for Humalog Mix25 relative to Humulin 30/70: a multicountry application of a discrete choice experiment. Value Health 7(4):442–454PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Weston A, Fitzgerald P (2004) Discrete choice experiment to derive willingness to pay for methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy versus simple excision surgery in basal cell carcinoma. Pharmacoeconomics 22(18):1195–1208PubMedCrossRef Weston A, Fitzgerald P (2004) Discrete choice experiment to derive willingness to pay for methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy versus simple excision surgery in basal cell carcinoma. Pharmacoeconomics 22(18):1195–1208PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Lee A, Gin T, Lau AS, Ng FF (2005) A comparison of patients’ and health care professionals’ preferences for symptoms during immediate postoperative recovery and the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anesth Analg 100(1):87–93PubMedCrossRef Lee A, Gin T, Lau AS, Ng FF (2005) A comparison of patients’ and health care professionals’ preferences for symptoms during immediate postoperative recovery and the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anesth Analg 100(1):87–93PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Bishai D, Brice R, Girod I, Saleh A, Ehreth J (2007) Conjoint analysis of French and German parents’ willingness to pay for meningococcal vaccine. Pharmacoeconomics 25(2):143–154PubMedCrossRef Bishai D, Brice R, Girod I, Saleh A, Ehreth J (2007) Conjoint analysis of French and German parents’ willingness to pay for meningococcal vaccine. Pharmacoeconomics 25(2):143–154PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Farrar S, Ryan M, Ross D, Ludbrook A (2000) Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments. Soc Sci Med 50(1):63–75PubMedCrossRef Farrar S, Ryan M, Ross D, Ludbrook A (2000) Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments. Soc Sci Med 50(1):63–75PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen ER, Russell EM, Napper M, Robb CM (2001) Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess 5(5):1–186PubMed Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen ER, Russell EM, Napper M, Robb CM (2001) Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess 5(5):1–186PubMed
22.
go back to reference Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
23.
go back to reference Hahn GJ, Shapiro SS (1966) A catalog and computer program for the design and analysis of orthogonal symmetric and asymmetric fractional factorial experiments. General Electric Research and Development Center, Schenectady, NY, USA Hahn GJ, Shapiro SS (1966) A catalog and computer program for the design and analysis of orthogonal symmetric and asymmetric fractional factorial experiments. General Electric Research and Development Center, Schenectady, NY, USA
24.
go back to reference Lloyd A, McIntosh E, Price M (2005) The importance of drug adverse effects compared with seizure control for people with epilepsy: a discrete choice experiment. Pharmacoeconomics 23(11):1167–1181PubMedCrossRef Lloyd A, McIntosh E, Price M (2005) The importance of drug adverse effects compared with seizure control for people with epilepsy: a discrete choice experiment. Pharmacoeconomics 23(11):1167–1181PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Mahadevia P, Shah S, Mannix S, Brewster-Jordan J, Kleinman L, Liebman C, O’Dowd L (2006) Willingness to pay for sensory attributes of intranasal corticosteroids among patients with allergic rhinitis. J Manag Care Pharm 12(2):143–151PubMed Mahadevia P, Shah S, Mannix S, Brewster-Jordan J, Kleinman L, Liebman C, O’Dowd L (2006) Willingness to pay for sensory attributes of intranasal corticosteroids among patients with allergic rhinitis. J Manag Care Pharm 12(2):143–151PubMed
26.
go back to reference Lancsar EJ, Hall JP, King M, Kenny P, Louviere JJ, Fiebig DG, Hossain I, Thien FC, Reddel HK, Jenkins CR (2007) Using discrete choice experiments to investigate subject preferences for preventive asthma medication. Respirology 12(1):127–136PubMedCrossRef Lancsar EJ, Hall JP, King M, Kenny P, Louviere JJ, Fiebig DG, Hossain I, Thien FC, Reddel HK, Jenkins CR (2007) Using discrete choice experiments to investigate subject preferences for preventive asthma medication. Respirology 12(1):127–136PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Fraenkel L, Constantinescu F, Oberto-Medina M, Wittink DR (2005) Women’s preferences for prevention of bone loss. J Rheumatol 32(6):1086–1092PubMed Fraenkel L, Constantinescu F, Oberto-Medina M, Wittink DR (2005) Women’s preferences for prevention of bone loss. J Rheumatol 32(6):1086–1092PubMed
28.
go back to reference Fraenkel L, Gulanski B, Wittink D (2006) Patient treatment preferences for osteoporosis. Arthritis Rheum 55(5):729–735PubMedCrossRef Fraenkel L, Gulanski B, Wittink D (2006) Patient treatment preferences for osteoporosis. Arthritis Rheum 55(5):729–735PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Bartl R, Gotte S, Hadji P, Hammerschmidt T (2006) [Adherence with daily and weekly administration of oral bisphosphonates for osteoporosis treatment] Adharenz mit taglichen und wochentlichen oralen Bisphosphonaten in der Osteoporosetherapie. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 131(22):1257–1262PubMedCrossRef Bartl R, Gotte S, Hadji P, Hammerschmidt T (2006) [Adherence with daily and weekly administration of oral bisphosphonates for osteoporosis treatment] Adharenz mit taglichen und wochentlichen oralen Bisphosphonaten in der Osteoporosetherapie. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 131(22):1257–1262PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Caro JJ, Ishak KJ, Huybrechts KF, Raggio G, Naujoks C (2004) The impact of compliance with osteoporosis therapy on fracture rates in actual practice. Osteoporos Int 15(12):1003–1008PubMedCrossRef Caro JJ, Ishak KJ, Huybrechts KF, Raggio G, Naujoks C (2004) The impact of compliance with osteoporosis therapy on fracture rates in actual practice. Osteoporos Int 15(12):1003–1008PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Blotman F, Cortet B, Hilliquin P, Avouac B, Allaert FA, Pouchain D, Gaudin AF, Cotte FE, El Hasnaoui A (2007) Characterisation of patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis in French primary healthcare. Drugs Aging 24(7):603–614PubMedCrossRef Blotman F, Cortet B, Hilliquin P, Avouac B, Allaert FA, Pouchain D, Gaudin AF, Cotte FE, El Hasnaoui A (2007) Characterisation of patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis in French primary healthcare. Drugs Aging 24(7):603–614PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Patients’ preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete choice experiment
Authors
E. W. de Bekker-Grob
M. L. Essink-Bot
W. J. Meerding
H. A. P. Pols
B. W. Koes
E. W. Steyerberg
Publication date
01-07-2008
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Osteoporosis International / Issue 7/2008
Print ISSN: 0937-941X
Electronic ISSN: 1433-2965
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-007-0535-5

Other articles of this Issue 7/2008

Osteoporosis International 7/2008 Go to the issue