Top

Published in:

01-12-2019 | Osteoporosis | Original Paper

Chinese patients’ preference for pharmaceutical treatments of osteoporosis: a discrete choice experiment

Authors: Lei Si, Liudan Tu, Ya Xie, Andrew J. Palmer, Yuanyuan Gu, Xuqi Zheng, Jiamin Li, Qing Lv, Jun Qi, Zhiming Lin, Mingsheng Chen, Jieruo Gu, Mickaël Hiligsmann

Published in: Archives of Osteoporosis | Issue 1/2019

Abstract

Summary

While adherence to osteoporosis treatment is low, patients’ preference for osteoporosis treatment is unknown in Chinese patients. Chinese patients are willing to receive treatments with higher clinical efficacy and lower out-of-pocket cost. In addition, annual intravenous infusion and 6-month subcutaneous injection are preferred over weekly oral tablets.

Purpose

This study was performed to elicit Chinese patients’ preferences for osteoporosis medication treatment and to investigate the heterogeneities of the preferences in subgroups.

Methods

A discrete choice experiment comprising 15 choice sets with 4 important attributes was conducted in a Chinese population at risk of osteoporotic fracture. The four attributes were treatment efficacy in reducing the risk of fracture, out-of-pocket cost per year, adverse effects of treatment, and mode of administration. The patients were asked to choose between two hypothetical treatments; they could also choose no treatment. Mixed logit models were used, and any observed heterogeneity in the patients’ preferences was further assessed in subgroup analyses.

Results

In total, 267 patients were analysed. On average, the patients preferred to receive treatment rather than no treatment. The patients preferred treatment with higher efficacy in preventing fracture and lower out-of-pocket cost. The least preferred adverse effect of medication was gastrointestinal disorders, followed by flu-like symptoms and finally skin reactions. The most preferred mode of administration was annual intravenous infusion, followed by 6-month subcutaneous injection, a weekly oral tablet, and daily nasal spray; daily oral tablets ranked as the least preferred mode of administration. The differences in the patients’ preferences among all attributes were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Patients’ age was found to contribute to the observed preference heterogeneity in most of the included attributes.

Conclusions

This study revealed Chinese patients’ preferences for osteoporosis treatments. Annual intravenous infusion and 6-month subcutaneous injection were significantly preferred over weekly oral tablets in this Chinese population.

Available only for authorised users

Kanis JA (2002) Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk. Lancet 359:1929–1936CrossRef

Silverman S, Gold DT (2010) Compliance and persistence with osteoporosis medications: a critical review of the literature. Rev Endocr Metab Disord 11:275–280CrossRef

Cotté F-E, Mercier F, De Pouvourville G (2008) Relationship between compliance and persistence with osteoporosis medications and fracture risk in primary health care in France: a retrospective case—control analysis. Clin Ther 30:2410–2422CrossRef

Hiligsmann M, Rabenda V, Gathon H-J, Ethgen O, Reginster J-Y (2010) Potential clinical and economic impact of nonadherence with osteoporosis medications. Calcif Tissue Int 86:202–210CrossRef

Chen M, Si L, Winzenberg TM, Gu J, Jiang Q, Palmer AJ (2016) Cost-effectiveness of raloxifene in the treatment of osteoporosis in Chinese postmenopausal women: impact of medication persistence and adherence. Patient Prefer Adherence 10:415–423PubMedPubMedCentral

Rees G, Leong O, Crowston JG, Lamoureux EL (2010) Intentional and unintentional nonadherence to ocular hypotensive treatment in patients with glaucoma. Ophthalmology 117:903–908CrossRef

Clifford S, Barber N, Horne R (2008) Understanding different beliefs held by adherers, unintentional nonadherers, and intentional nonadherers: application of the Necessity-Concerns Framework. J Psychosom Res 64:41–46CrossRef

Hiligsmann M, Salas M, Hughes DA, Manias E, Gwadry-Sridhar FH, Linck P, Cowell W (2013) Interventions to improve osteoporosis medication adherence and persistence: a systematic review and literature appraisal by the ISPOR Medication Adherence & Persistence Special Interest Group. Osteoporos Int 24:2907–2918CrossRef

Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M (2008) Discrete choice experiments in a nutshell. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Netherlands Antilles, AN. Springer Academic Publishers, pp 13–46

10.

Hiligsmann M, Dellaert BG, Dirksen CD, van der Weijden T, Goemaere S, Reginster J-Y, Watson V, Boonen A (2014) Patients’ preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete-choice experiment. Arthritis Res Ther 16:R36–R36CrossRef

11.

Hiligsmann M, Dellaert BG, Dirksen CD, Watson V, Bours S, Goemaere S, Reginster JY, Roux C, McGowan B, Silke C, Whelan B, Diez-Perez A, Torres E, Papadakis G, Rizzoli R, Cooper C, Pearson G, Boonen A (2017) Patients’ preferences for anti-osteoporosis drug treatment: a cross-European discrete choice experiment. Rheumatology (Oxford, England) 56:1167–1176CrossRef

12.

Si L, Winzenberg TM, Jiang Q, Chen M, Palmer AJ (2015) Projection of osteoporosis-related fractures and costs in China: 2010-2050. Osteoporos Int 26:1929–1937CrossRef

13.

Cheng TT, Yu SF, Hsu CY, Chen SH, Su BY, Yang TS (2013) Differences in adherence to osteoporosis regimens: a 2-year analysis of a population treated under specific guidelines. Clin Ther 35:1005–1015CrossRef

14.

Rohrbaugh J (1981) Improving the quality of group judgment: social judgment analysis and the nominal group technique. Organ Behav Hum Perform 28:272–288CrossRef

15.

Hiligsmann M, van Durme C, Geusens P, Dellaert BG, Dirksen CD, van der Weijden T, Reginster J-Y, Boonen A (2013) Nominal group technique to select attributes for discrete choice experiments: an example for drug treatment choice in osteoporosis. Patient Prefer Adherence 7:133–139CrossRef

16.

Rohrbaugh J (1981) Improving the quality of group judgment: social judgment analysis and the nominal group technique. Organ Behav Hum Perform 28(2):272–288

17.

Chen M, Zhao Y, Si L (2014) Who pays for health care in China? The case of Heilongjiang province. PLoS One 9:e108867–e108867CrossRef

18.

Qu B, Ma Y, Yan M, Wu HH, Fan L, Liao DF, Pan XM, Hong Z (2014) The economic burden of fracture patients with osteoporosis in western China. Osteoporos Int 25:1853–1860CrossRef

19.

Working group on guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of senile osteoporosis in China, Osteoporosis Society of China Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics (2018) 2018 China guideline for diagnosis and treatment of senile osteoporosis [in Chinese]. Chin J Osteoporos 24:1541–1567

20.

Wells GA, Cranney A, Peterson J, Boucher M, Shea B, Robinson V, Coyle D, Tugwell P (2008) Alendronate for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Cd001155

21.

Cranney A, Tugwell P, Zytaruk N, Robinson V, Weaver B, Shea B, Wells G, Adachi J, Waldegger L, Guyatt G (2002) Meta-analyses of therapies for postmenopausal osteoporosis. VI. Meta-analysis of calcitonin for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Endocr Rev 23(4):540–551

22.

Black DM, Delmas PD, Eastell R, Reid IR, Boonen S, Cauley JA, Cosman F, Lakatos P, Leung PC, Man Z, Mautalen C, Mesenbrink P, Hu H, Caminis J, Tong K, Rosario-Jansen T, Krasnow J, Hue TF, Sellmeyer D, Eriksen EF, Cummings SR (2007) Once-yearly zoledronic acid for treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 356:1809–1822CrossRef

23.

Cummings SR, Martin JS, McClung MR et al (2009) Denosumab for prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 361:756–765CrossRef

24.

Deaton A (1997) The analysis of household surveys: a microeconometric approach to development policy. The World Bank,

25.

de Bekker-Grob EW, Donkers B, Jonker MF, Stolk EA (2015) Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: a practical guide. Patient 8(5):373–384

26.

McFadden D, Train K (2000) Mixed MNL models for discrete response, vol 15, pp 447–470

27.

Hensher DA, Greene WH (2003) The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 30:133–176CrossRef

28.

Hole AR (2007) Estimating mixed logit models using maximum simulated likelihood. Stata J 7:388–401CrossRef

29.

Breckenridge AJDDTT (2011) Patient opinions and preferences in drug development and regulatory decision makingW. 8:e11–e14

30.

van Til JA, Ijzerman MJ (2014) Why Should Regulators Consider Using Patient Preferences in Benefit-risk Assessment? PharmacoEconomics 32:1–4

31.

Ho M, Saha A, McCleary KK, Levitan B, Christopher S, Zandlo K, Braithwaite RS, Hauber AB (2016) A framework for incorporating patient preferences regarding benefits and risks into regulatory assessment of medical technologies. Value Health 19(6):746–750

32.

Mithal A, Ebeling P, Kyer C, JIof, Nyon (2013) The Asia-Pacific regional audit: epidemiology, costs & burden of osteoporosis in 2013

33.

Hiligsmann M, Bours SPG, Boonen A (2015) A review of patient preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment. Curr Rheumatol Rep 17(9):61–61

34.

Reginster JY, Rabenda V, Neuprez A (2006) Adherence, patient preference and dosing frequency: understanding the relationship. Bone 38:S2–S6CrossRef

35.

Emkey R, Koltun W, Beusterien K, Seidman L, Kivitz A, Devas V, Masanauskaite D (2005) Patient preference for once-monthly ibandronate versus once-weekly alendronate in a randomized, open-label, cross-over trial: the Boniva Alendronate Trial in Osteoporosis (BALTO). Curr Med Res Opin 21:1895–1903CrossRef

36.

Modi A, Fan C-PS, Tang J, Weaver JP, Sajjan S (2016) Association of gastrointestinal events with osteoporosis treatment initiation and treatment compliance in Germany: an observational study. Bone Reports 5:208–213CrossRef

37.

Mangham LJ, Hanson K, McPake B (2009) How to do (or not to do) … designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country. Health Policy Plan 24:151–158CrossRef

38.

Shane E, Khosla S, Burr D (2013) Osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femoral fractures. Osteoporosis. Elsevier, pp 1873–1908

39.

Reed Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Mühlbacher A, Regier DA, Bresnahan BW, Kanninen B, Bridges JFP (2013) Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health 16(1):3–13

Title: Chinese patients’ preference for pharmaceutical treatments of osteoporosis: a discrete choice experiment
Authors: Lei Si
Liudan Tu
Ya Xie
Andrew J. Palmer
Yuanyuan Gu
Xuqi Zheng
Jiamin Li
Qing Lv
Jun Qi
Zhiming Lin
Mingsheng Chen
Jieruo Gu
Mickaël Hiligsmann
Publication date: 01-12-2019
Publisher: Springer London
Keywords: Osteoporosis
Osteoporosis
Published in: Archives of Osteoporosis / Issue 1/2019
Print ISSN: 1862-3522
Electronic ISSN: 1862-3514
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-019-0624-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Chinese patients’ preference for pharmaceutical treatments of osteoporosis: a discrete choice experiment

Abstract

Summary

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Summary

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Assessing the risk of osteoporotic fractures: the Ecuadorian FRAX model

Associations between the lipid profile and the lumbar spine bone mineral density and trabecular bone score in elderly Iranian individuals participating in the Bushehr Elderly Health Program: a population-based study

Osteoporosis preventive behaviors in adolescent girls: the educational program based on BASNEF model

An epidemiological evaluation of fractures and its determinants among Lebanese schoolchildren: a cross-sectional study

Body compositions differently contribute to BMD in different age and gender: a pilot study by QCT

An observational cohort study to produce and evaluate an improved tool to screen older women with back pain for osteoporotic vertebral fractures (Vfrac): study protocol