Literature DB >> 17013870

Patient treatment preferences for osteoporosis.

Liana Fraenkel1, Barbara Gulanski, Dick Wittink.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine patient preferences for currently available and promising osteoporosis treatment options.
METHODS: We recruited patients who had recently (within 2 weeks) undergone bone densitometry and were found to have osteoporosis. Consenting participants completed an Adaptive Conjoint Analysis questionnaire to determine their treatment preferences for oral bisphosphonates taken once per week, intravenous bisphosphonates administered every 3 months, intravenous bisphosphonates administered once per year, and subcutaneous recombinant human parathyroid hormone (rhPTH). We performed simulations based on respondents' values for route of administration, absolute reduction in risk of vertebral and hip fractures over 5 years, and risk of adverse effects to predict each respondent's treatment choice.
RESULTS: The study sample included 201 women and 11 men (median age 73). Patients' treatment preferences were strongly influenced by route of administration. Patients' preferred treatment option, across all simulations, was bisphosphonates. Among 80 treatment-naive participants, 52 (65%) preferred an annual infusion over oral weekly bisphosphonates. Participants with poorer perceived health status, those with a high perceived risk of future fracture, and participants preferring to treat health problems without doctors or prescription drugs were more likely to prefer an annual infusion over weekly pills.
CONCLUSION: Patient preferences for osteoporosis treatment options are strongly influenced by route of administration. Therefore, despite the added benefits of rhPTH, patients' preferred treatment option for osteoporosis is bisphosphonates. Among those preferring bisphosphonates, many preferred annual infusions over weekly oral medications, emphasizing the need to incorporate individual patient preferences into treatment decisions for osteoporosis. The latter is especially important given the poor rates of long-term adherence to osteoporosis medications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17013870      PMCID: PMC1626097          DOI: 10.1002/art.22229

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthritis Rheum        ISSN: 0004-3591


  22 in total

Review 1.  The crippling consequences of fractures and their impact on quality of life.

Authors:  C Cooper
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1997-08-18       Impact factor: 4.965

Review 2.  Osteoporosis: trials and tribulations.

Authors:  E Seeman
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1997-08-18       Impact factor: 4.965

3.  Three monthly intravenous injections of ibandronate in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Authors:  D Thiébaud; P Burckhardt; H Kriegbaum; H Huss; H Mulder; J R Juttmann; K H Schöter
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 4.965

4.  Treatment with alendronate prevents fractures in women at highest risk: results from the Fracture Intervention Trial.

Authors:  K E Ensrud; D M Black; L Palermo; D C Bauer; E Barrett-Connor; S A Quandt; D E Thompson; D B Karpf
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1997 Dec 8-22

5.  Randomised trial of effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with existing vertebral fractures. Fracture Intervention Trial Research Group.

Authors:  D M Black; S R Cummings; D B Karpf; J A Cauley; D E Thompson; M C Nevitt; D C Bauer; H K Genant; W L Haskell; R Marcus; S M Ott; J C Torner; S A Quandt; T F Reiss; K E Ensrud
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-12-07       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Expanding patient involvement in care. Effects on patient outcomes.

Authors:  S Greenfield; S Kaplan; J E Ware
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1985-04       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 7.  Doctor-patient communication in rheumatological disorders.

Authors:  L H Daltroy
Journal:  Baillieres Clin Rheumatol       Date:  1993-06

8.  Effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with low bone density but without vertebral fractures: results from the Fracture Intervention Trial.

Authors:  S R Cummings; D M Black; D E Thompson; W B Applegate; E Barrett-Connor; T A Musliner; L Palermo; R Prineas; S M Rubin; J C Scott; T Vogt; R Wallace; A J Yates; A Z LaCroix
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998 Dec 23-30       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Treatment options in knee osteoarthritis: the patient's perspective.

Authors:  Liana Fraenkel; Sidney T Bogardus; John Concato; Dick R Wittink
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2004-06-28

10.  Patient preferences for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  L Fraenkel; S T Bogardus; J Concato; D T Felson; D R Wittink
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2004-03-05       Impact factor: 19.103

View more
  35 in total

1.  Parathyroid hormone (1-34)-coated microneedle patch system: clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics for treatment of osteoporosis.

Authors:  Peter E Daddona; James A Matriano; Jaap Mandema; Yuh-Fun Maa
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2010-06-22       Impact factor: 4.200

2.  Using conjoint analysis to model the preferences of different patient segments for attributes of patient-centered care.

Authors:  Charles E Cunningham; Ken Deal; Heather Rimas; Heather Campbell; Ann Russell; Jennifer Henderson; Anne Matheson; Blake Melnick
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Impact of bone turnover markers and/or educational information on persistence to oral bisphosphonate therapy: a community setting-based trial.

Authors:  S L Silverman; K Nasser; S Nattrass; B Drinkwater
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2011-07-14       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 4.  How important is mode of administration in treatments for rheumatic diseases and related conditions?

Authors:  Nick Bansback; Logan Trenaman; Mark Harrison
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 4.592

5.  Demonstrated solid-state stability of parathyroid hormone PTH(1-34) coated on a novel transdermal microprojection delivery system.

Authors:  Mahmoud Ameri; Peter E Daddona; Yuh-Fun Maa
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 4.200

Review 6.  Efficacy, side effects and route of administration are more important than frequency of dosing of anti-osteoporosis treatments in determining patient adherence: a critical review of published articles from 1970 to 2009.

Authors:  S Lee; P Glendenning; C A Inderjeeth
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-06-30       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Patient weighting of osteoporosis medication attributes across racial and ethnic groups: a study of osteoporosis medication preferences using conjoint analysis.

Authors:  S Silverman; A Calderon; K Kaw; T B Childers; B A Stafford; W Brynildsen; A Focil; M Koenig; D T Gold
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Patient decision to initiate therapy for osteoporosis: the influence of knowledge and beliefs.

Authors:  Robert A Yood; Kathleen M Mazor; Susan E Andrade; Srinivas Emani; Wing Chan; Kristijan H Kahler
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-09-12       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 9.  Patient-reported outcomes in core domain sets for rheumatic diseases.

Authors:  Lilian H D van Tuyl; Maarten Boers
Journal:  Nat Rev Rheumatol       Date:  2015-09-01       Impact factor: 20.543

10.  Treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis, patient perspectives - focus on once yearly zoledronic acid.

Authors:  Raj Carmona; Rick Adachi
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2009-11-03       Impact factor: 2.711

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.