1 / 16

Patients’ preferences for preventive osteoporosis drug treatment

Patients’ preferences for preventive osteoporosis drug treatment. EW de Bekker-Grob ML Essink-Bot WJ Meerding HAP Pols BW Koes EW Steyerberg Dept. Public Health, Dept. Internal Medicine, and Dept. General Practice, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, the Netherlands e.debekker@erasmusmc.nl.

alma-kirkland
Download Presentation

Patients’ preferences for preventive osteoporosis drug treatment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Patients’ preferences for preventive osteoporosis drug treatment EW de Bekker-Grob ML Essink-Bot WJ Meerding HAP Pols BW Koes EW Steyerberg Dept. Public Health, Dept. Internal Medicine, and Dept. General Practice, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, the Netherlands e.debekker@erasmusmc.nl

  2. BACKGROUND Osteoporosis • Risk factor for fractures (low bone mass) • 75.000 osteoporotic fractures annually in NL • 15.000 hip fractures • 60.000 other fractures • Age risk factor • Preventive medication (bisphosphonates) Study • Active case finding important to identify patients who benefit from preventive drug treatment. • Are subjects willing to take preventive drug treatment?

  3. AIM • To elicit relative weight that patients place on various aspects ofpreventive osteoporosis drug treatment • To investigate whether high risk patients had other preferences than low risk patients.

  4. METHODS I RespondentsWomen aged over 60 years Identified by case finding in 34 GP-practices in NL Overrepresentation high risk (10-yrs risk hip # > 6%) DCE Respondents choose between different options described by drug treatment attributes at different levels

  5. METHODS II Background information DCE • Survey method • Good and services can be described by their characteristics (attributes) • Used to estimate: • Whether attribute is important • Relative importance of attributes • Trade-off between attributes • Willingness to pay (monetary measure of benefit)

  6. ATTRIBUTES and ATTRIBUTE LEVELS

  7. CHOICE SETS • Fractional factorial design (main effects only design) • 16 drug profiles • Folder-over technique (01, 12, etc) for minimal overlap

  8. ANALYSES • Patient preferences  conditional logit regression V = β0 + β1TABLETweekly + β2INJECTIONfourmonths + β3INJECTIONmonthly + β4EFFTIVENSS + β5NAUSEA + β6TIME + β7COST • Time and monetary trade-offs  ratios of coefficients • High vs low risk  conditional logit regression with interaction

  9. RESULTS: RESPONDENTS

  10. RESULTS: CONDITIONAL LOGIT REGRESSION

  11. RESULTS: TRADE-OFFS

  12. RESULTS: EXAMPLE Bisphosphonate • Weekly tablet • Nausea • Duration 5 years Women prefer this drug treatment above no drug treatment, if WTP is positive, thus 0 < €constant + €weekly tablet + €nausea + €time + €effectiveness

  13. WTP = 847 – 212 – 752 – 5*26 + 20*X If risk reduction is larger than 12%, than out-of-pocket payment becomes acceptable

  14. LOW VS HIGH FRACTURE RISK PATIENTS

  15. CONCLUSIONS • Women exhibited a very positive attitude towards preventive osteoporosis drug treatment • Important message for policy decision-making on introduction of active osteoporosis case finding at large scale (in addition to cost-effectiveness considerations) • This study demonstrates feasibility of DCE in older patients

  16. We would like to thank the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) for funding the research.

More Related