Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

ACC 2024 Congress

Catch up on all the top stories and latest evidence in cardiology research with our ACC 2024 Congress hub page.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Rheumatology Reports
Published in: Current Rheumatology Reports 9/2015

Open Access 01-09-2015 | Health Economics and Quality of Life (M Harrison, Section Editor)

A Review of Patient Preferences for Osteoporosis Drug Treatment

Authors: Mickaël Hiligsmann, Sandrine P. G. Bours, Annelies Boonen

Published in: Current Rheumatology Reports | Issue 9/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Poor medication adherence is a major problem in chronic diseases such as osteoporosis that may partially be due to unaddressed patient values and preferences. Data on patient preferences could help clinicians to improve medication adherence and could also be useful in policy decisions and guideline development. This paper aims to identify literature reporting on the preferences of patients for osteoporosis drug medications. Several methods have been used to elicit patient preferences for medications and their characteristics including qualitative research, survey with ranking/rating exercises, discrete-choice experiments and clinical studies (crossover designs, open-label study). All these studies revealed that osteoporotic patients have preferences for medications and their attributes, in particular for less-frequent dosing regimens. Interestingly, variations in the preferences of patients were observed in most studies, suggesting the importance to take into account individual preference in decision-making to improve osteoporosis care.
Literature
1.
Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergard M, Compston J, Cooper C, Stenmark J, et al. Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. A report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos. 2013;8(1-2):136.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
2.
Reginster JY. Antifracture efficacy of currently available therapies for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Drugs. 2011;71(1):65–78.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Netelenbos JC, Geusens PP, Ypma G, Buijs SJ. Adherence and profile of non-persistence in patients treated for osteoporosis—a large-scale, long-term retrospective study in The Netherlands. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22(5):1537–46.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
4.
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(5):604–12.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Montori VM, Shah ND, Pencille LJ, Branda ME, Van Houten HK, Swiglo BA, et al. Use of a decision aid to improve treatment decisions in osteoporosis: the osteoporosis choice randomized trial. Am J Med. 2011;124(6):549–56.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Brennan PF, Strombom I. Improving health care by understanding patient preferences: the role of computer technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1998;5(3):257–62.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
7.••
Kendler DL, Macarios D, Lillestol MJ, Moffett A, Satram-Hoang S, Huang J, et al. Influence of patient perceptions and preferences for osteoporosis medication on adherence behavior in the Denosumab Adherence Preference Satisfaction study. Menopause. 2014;21(1):25–32. Interesting article showing that better perceptions and preferences leads to improved medication adherence in osteoporosis.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Barrett-Connor E, Wade SW, Do TP, Satram-Hoang S, Stewart R, Gao G, et al. Treatment satisfaction and persistence among postmenopausal women on osteoporosis medications: 12-month results from POSSIBLE US. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23(2):733–41.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Bridges JF. Future challenges for the economic evaluation of healthcare: patient preferences, risk attitudes and beyond. PharmacoEconomics. 2005;23(4):317–21.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Strull WM, Lo B, Charles G. Do patients want to participate in medical decision making? JAMA. 1984;252(21):2990–4.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Joy SM, Little E, Maruthur NM, Purnell TS, Bridges JF. Patient preferences for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a scoping review. PharmacoEconomics. 2013;31(10):877–92.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Weiss TW, Gold DT, Silverman SL, McHorney CA. An evaluation of patient preferences for osteoporosis medication attributes: results from the PREFER-US study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006;22(5):949–60.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Duarte JW, Bolge SC, Sen SS. An evaluation of patients’ preferences for osteoporosis medications and their attributes: the PREFER-International study. Clin Ther. 2007;29(3):488–503.CrossRefPubMed
14.•
Hiligsmann M, van Durme C, Geusens P, Dellaert BG, Dirksen CD, van der Weijden T, 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. Using an innovative method, this article revealed most important anti-osteoporosis medication attributes.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
15.•
Silverman S, Calderon A, Kaw K, Childers TB, Stafford BA, Brynildsen W, 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(7):2067–77. Interesting study assessing the preferences of patients for medication attributes across different subgroups.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Darba J, Restovic G, Kaskens L, Balbona MA, Carbonell A, Cavero P, et al. Patient preferences for osteoporosis in Spain: a discrete choice experiment. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22(6):1947–54.CrossRefPubMed
17.
de Bekker-Grob EW, Essink-Bot ML, Meerding WJ, Pols HA, Koes BW, Steyerberg EW. Patients’ preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete choice experiment. Osteoporos Int. 2008;19(7):1029–37.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
18.
19.••
Hiligsmann M, Dellaert BG, Dirksen CD, van der Weijden T, Goemaere S, Reginster JY, et al. Patients’ preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete-choice experiment. Arthritis Res Ther. 2014;16(1):R36. Interesting study that included preferences for recent modes of administration using a discrete-choice experiment and revealed the substantial heterogeneity in patients’ preferences.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
20.
21.•
Laba TL. Using Discrete Choice Experiment to elicit patient preferences for osteoporosis drug treatments: where to from here? Arthritis Res Ther. 2014;16(2):106. Interesting editorial about the value of a preferences-based study in osteoporosis.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
22.
Keen R, Jodar E, Iolascon G, Kruse HP, Varbanov A, Mann B, et al. European women’s preference for osteoporosis treatment: influence of clinical effectiveness and dosing frequency. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006;22(12):2375–81.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Gold DT, Safi W, Trinh H. Patient preference and adherence: comparative US studies between two bisphosphonates, weekly risedronate and monthly ibandronate. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006;22(12):2383–91.CrossRefPubMed
24.
den Uyl D, Geusens PP, van Berkum FN, Houben HH, Jebbink MC, Lems WF. Patient preference and acceptability of calcium plus vitamin D3 supplementation: a randomised, open, cross-over trial. Clin Rheumatol. 2010;29(5):465–72.CrossRef
25.
Freemantle N, Satram-Hoang S, Tang ET, Kaur P, Macarios D, Siddhanti S, et al. Final results of the DAPS (Denosumab Adherence Preference Satisfaction) study: a 24-month, randomized, crossover comparison with alendronate in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23(1):317–26.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
26.
Bonnick SL, Silverman S, Tanner SB, Martens M, Bachmann G, Kohles JD, et al. Patient satisfaction in postmenopausal women treated with a weekly bisphosphonate transitioned to once-monthly ibandronate. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2009;18(7):935–43.CrossRef
27.
Emkey R, Koltun W, Beusterien K, Seidman L, Kivitz A, Devas V, et al. 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. 2005;21(12):1895–903.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Kendler DL, McClung MR, Freemantle N, Lillestol M, Moffett AH, Borenstein J, et al. Adherence, preference, and satisfaction of postmenopausal women taking denosumab or alendronate. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22(6):1725–35.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Chung YS, Lim SK, Chung HY, Lee IK, Park IH, Kim GS, et al. Comparison of monthly ibandronate versus weekly risedronate in preference, convenience, and bone turnover markers in Korean postmenopausal osteoporotic women. Calcif Tissue Int. 2009;85(5):389–97.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
30.
Hadji P, Minne H, Pfeifer M, Bourgeois P, Fardellone P, Licata A, et al. Treatment preference for monthly oral ibandronate and weekly oral alendronate in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: a randomized, crossover study (BALTO II). Joint Bone Spine. 2008;75(3):303–10.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Simon JA, Lewiecki EM, Smith ME, Petruschke RA, Wang L, Palmisano JJ. Patient preference for once-weekly alendronate 70 mg versus once-daily alendronate 10 mg: a multicenter, randomized, open-label, crossover study. Clin Ther. 2002;24(11):1871–86.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Vlak T, Kastelan D, Lozo P, Aljinovic J, Gradiser M, Mijic S, et al. Monthly or weekly bisphosphonate? Evaluation of satisfaction in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis using OPSAT-Q questionnaire during the BOOSTER study in Croatia. Clin Rheumatol. 2011;30(12):1549–54.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Palacios S, Agodoa I, Bonnick S, Van den Bergh JP, Ferreira I, Ho PR, et al. Treatment satisfaction in postmenopausal women suboptimally adherent to bisphosphonates who transitioned to denosumab compared with risedronate or ibandronate. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(3):E487–92.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Kendler D, Kung AW, Fuleihan Gel H, Gonzalez Gonzalez JG, Gaines KA, Verbruggen N, et al. Patients with osteoporosis prefer once weekly to once daily dosing with alendronate. Maturitas. 2004;48(3):243–51.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Kastelan D, Lozo P, Stamenkovic D, Miskic B, Vlak T, Kolak Z, et al. Preference for weekly and monthly bisphosphonates among patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis: results from the Croatian PROMO Study. Clin Rheumatol. 2009;28(3):321–6.CrossRefPubMed
36.
McClung M, Recker R, Miller P, Fiske D, Minkoff J, Kriegman A, et al. Intravenous zoledronic acid 5 mg in the treatment of postmenopausal women with low bone density previously treated with alendronate. Bone. 2007;41(1):122–8.CrossRefPubMed
37.
38.
Stacey D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Col NF, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;10:CD001431.PubMed
39.
Braddock 3rd CH, Edwards KA, Hasenberg NM, Laidley TL, Levinson W. Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. JAMA. 1999;282(24):2313–20.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Oshima Lee E, Emanuel EJ. Shared decision making to improve care and reduce costs. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(1):6–8.CrossRefPubMed
41.
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(9):883–902.CrossRefPubMed
42.•
Bansback N, Trenaman L, Harrison M. How important is mode of administration in treatments for rheumatic diseases and related conditions? Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2015;17(6):514. Interesting review that discussed the importance of mode of administration in treatments for rheumatic diseases.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A Review of Patient Preferences for Osteoporosis Drug Treatment
Authors
Mickaël Hiligsmann
Sandrine P. G. Bours
Annelies Boonen
Publication date
01-09-2015
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Rheumatology Reports / Issue 9/2015
Print ISSN: 1523-3774
Electronic ISSN: 1534-6307
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11926-015-0533-0

Other articles of this Issue 9/2015

Current Rheumatology Reports 9/2015 Go to the issue

Spondyloarthritis (MA Khan, Section Editor)

The ASAS Criteria for Axial Spondyloarthritis: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Proposals for a Way Forward

Osteoarthritis (MB Goldring, Section Editor)

Bone Homeostasis and Repair: Forced Into Shape

Spondyloarthritis (MA Khan, Section Editor)

Acute Anterior Uveitis and Spondyloarthritis: More Than Meets the Eye

Imaging (P Conaghan, Section Editor)

Recent Advances in Imaging of the Axial Skeleton in Spondyloarthritis for Diagnosis, Assessment of Treatment Effect, and Prognostication

RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (LW MORELAND, SECTION EDITOR)

Lipid and Metabolic Changes in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Inflammatory Muscle Disease (Myositis) (R Aggarwal, Section Editor)

Role of Jo-1 in the Immunopathogenesis of the Anti-synthetase Syndrome

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Cardiology Video

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Watch now

Watch official videos from the ACC congress summarizing key highlights from the last year in heart failure, cardiomyopathies, valvular disease, pulmonary vascular disease, and pediatric cardiology.

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

16-04-2024 Type 2 Diabetes News

Incentivised to exercise

11-04-2024 Lifestyle Modifications News

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

10-04-2024 Myocardial Infarction News

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

Image Credits