Cargando…

Osteoporosis medication profile preference: results from the PREFER‐US study

Objective  To assess patient preferences for two osteoporosis medications. Design  Women aged 50+ were surveyed via the Internet to assess preferences for two osteoporosis medication profiles. Drug A and Drug B, consistent with ibandronate and alendronate, respectively, differed by: time on market (...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Weiss, Thomas W., McHorney, Colleen A.
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2040183/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17678510
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00440.x
_version_ 1782137078265413632
author Weiss, Thomas W.
McHorney, Colleen A.
author_facet Weiss, Thomas W.
McHorney, Colleen A.
author_sort Weiss, Thomas W.
collection PubMed
description Objective  To assess patient preferences for two osteoporosis medications. Design  Women aged 50+ were surveyed via the Internet to assess preferences for two osteoporosis medication profiles. Drug A and Drug B, consistent with ibandronate and alendronate, respectively, differed by: time on market (recently vs. 10 years), dosing frequency (monthly vs. weekly), effectiveness (not proven vs. proven to reduce non‐spine or hip fracture after 3 years) and dosing procedure (60 vs. 30 min wait before eating/drinking). Each profile had the same out‐of‐pocket costs, side‐effects, potential for drug interaction and spine fracture efficacy. Patients force ranked and rated the importance of each attribute. Subgroup comparisons included diagnosed vs. at‐risk respondents and treated vs. untreated respondents. Results  Among the 999 respondents, Drug B was preferred by 96%. Effectiveness was ranked as the most important determinant of preference (79% ranked it #1) compared with time on market (14%), dosing procedure (4%) and dosing frequency (3%). Effectiveness had the highest mean importance rating on a scale of 1 (extremely unimportant) to 7 (extremely important): mean (SD) = 6.1 (1.8), followed by time on market: 4.7 (1.7), dosing procedure: 4.6 (1.4) and dosing frequency: 4.5 (1.4). No significant differences in profile choice were found across study subgroups. Conclusions  The drug profile showing reductions in non‐vertebral and hip fracture risk was chosen by almost all respondents. Drug effectiveness was the most important determinant of preference, while dosing frequency was the least important determinant. Incorporation of patient preferences in the medication decision‐making process could enhance patient compliance and clinical outcomes.
format Text
id pubmed-2040183
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2007
publisher Blackwell Publishing Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-20401832007-10-25 Osteoporosis medication profile preference: results from the PREFER‐US study Weiss, Thomas W. McHorney, Colleen A. Health Expect Patients' Preferences Objective  To assess patient preferences for two osteoporosis medications. Design  Women aged 50+ were surveyed via the Internet to assess preferences for two osteoporosis medication profiles. Drug A and Drug B, consistent with ibandronate and alendronate, respectively, differed by: time on market (recently vs. 10 years), dosing frequency (monthly vs. weekly), effectiveness (not proven vs. proven to reduce non‐spine or hip fracture after 3 years) and dosing procedure (60 vs. 30 min wait before eating/drinking). Each profile had the same out‐of‐pocket costs, side‐effects, potential for drug interaction and spine fracture efficacy. Patients force ranked and rated the importance of each attribute. Subgroup comparisons included diagnosed vs. at‐risk respondents and treated vs. untreated respondents. Results  Among the 999 respondents, Drug B was preferred by 96%. Effectiveness was ranked as the most important determinant of preference (79% ranked it #1) compared with time on market (14%), dosing procedure (4%) and dosing frequency (3%). Effectiveness had the highest mean importance rating on a scale of 1 (extremely unimportant) to 7 (extremely important): mean (SD) = 6.1 (1.8), followed by time on market: 4.7 (1.7), dosing procedure: 4.6 (1.4) and dosing frequency: 4.5 (1.4). No significant differences in profile choice were found across study subgroups. Conclusions  The drug profile showing reductions in non‐vertebral and hip fracture risk was chosen by almost all respondents. Drug effectiveness was the most important determinant of preference, while dosing frequency was the least important determinant. Incorporation of patient preferences in the medication decision‐making process could enhance patient compliance and clinical outcomes. Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007-06-30 2007-09 /pmc/articles/PMC2040183/ /pubmed/17678510 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00440.x Text en Open access.
spellingShingle Patients' Preferences
Weiss, Thomas W.
McHorney, Colleen A.
Osteoporosis medication profile preference: results from the PREFER‐US study
title Osteoporosis medication profile preference: results from the PREFER‐US study
title_full Osteoporosis medication profile preference: results from the PREFER‐US study
title_fullStr Osteoporosis medication profile preference: results from the PREFER‐US study
title_full_unstemmed Osteoporosis medication profile preference: results from the PREFER‐US study
title_short Osteoporosis medication profile preference: results from the PREFER‐US study
title_sort osteoporosis medication profile preference: results from the prefer‐us study
topic Patients' Preferences
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2040183/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17678510
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00440.x
work_keys_str_mv AT weissthomasw osteoporosismedicationprofilepreferenceresultsfromthepreferusstudy
AT mchorneycolleena osteoporosismedicationprofilepreferenceresultsfromthepreferusstudy