TY - JOUR
T1 - A discrete-choice experiment to assess patients' preferences for osteoarthritis treatment
T2 - An ESCEO working group
AU - Hiligsmann, Mickael
AU - Dennison, Elaine
AU - Beaudart, Charlotte
AU - Herrero-Beaumont, Gabriel
AU - Branco, Jaime
AU - Bruyere, Olivier
AU - Conaghan, Philip G.
AU - Cooper, Cyrus
AU - Al-Daghri, Nasser
AU - Jiwa, Famida
AU - Lems, Willem
AU - Pinto, Daniel
AU - Rizzoli, Rene
AU - Thomas, Thierry
AU - Uebelhart, Daniel
AU - Veronese, Nicolas
AU - Reginster, Jean-Yves
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO). We thank the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) for support. The authors are further grateful to the Chair for Biomarkers of Chronic Diseases in King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, for its support, and would like to thank all patients for their participation as well as all doctors and research assistants for helping us in recruiting patients. PGC is supported in part by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) through the Leeds Biomedical Research Centre. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.
Funding Information:
We thank the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) for support. The authors are further grateful to the Chair for Biomarkers of Chronic Diseases in King Saud University , Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, for its support, and would like to thank all patients for their participation as well as all doctors and research assistants for helping us in recruiting patients. PGC is supported in part by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) through the Leeds Biomedical Research Centre. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.
Funding Information:
Professor Bruyère reports grants from Biophytis, IBSA, MEDA, Servier, SMB, Theramex, outside the submitted work. Professor Cooper reports personal fees from Alliance for Better Bone Health, Amgen, Eli Lilly, GSK, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Servier, Takeda and UCB. Professor Conaghan has received consulting fees or done speakers bureaus for AbbVie, EMD Serono, Flexion Therapeutics, Galapagos, Novartis, Pfizer, Samumed and Stryker. Professor Dennison has received consulting fees from UCB and Pfizer. Dr. Herrero-Beaumont reports grants from Novartis, grants from Sandoz, grants from Pfizer, grants from Amgen, grants from Mylan, grants from Servier, outside the submitted work; In addition, Dr. Herrero-Beaumont has a patent Patent for the use of 6-shogaol on osteoporosis treatment. Spanish patent issued, and a patent Patent on the use of osteostatin in osteoarthritis treatment issued. Professor Reginster reports grants and personal fees from IBSA-GENEVRIER, grants and personal fees from MYLAN, grants and personal fees from RADIUS HEALTH, personal fees from PIERRE FABRE, grants from CNIEL, personal fees from DAIRY RESEARCH COUNCIL, outside the submitted work. Professor Thomas reports personal fees from Abbvie, grants and personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Arrow, personal fees from Biogen, personal fees from BMS, grants and personal fees from Chugai, personal fees from Expanscience, personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Grunenthal, grants and personal fees from HAC-Pharma, personal fees from LCA, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Medac, grants and personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from Novartis, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from Theramex, personal fees from Thuasne, personal fees from TEVA, grants and personal fees from UCB, grants from Bone therapeutics, personal fees from Nordic, outside the submitted work. Professor Rizzoli reports personal fees from Amgen, CNiEL, Danone, Mylan, Nestle, Radius health, Sandoz, TEVA/Theramex, outside the submitted work. The other authors have no conflict of interest relevant to the content of this study.
Funding Information:
This work was supported by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases ( ESCEO ).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 The Authors
PY - 2020/10
Y1 - 2020/10
N2 - Objective: To evaluate the preferences of patients with osteoarthritis for treatment.Methods: A discrete-choice experiment was conducted among adult OA patients who were presented with 12 choice sets of two treatment options and asked in each to select the treatment they would prefer. Based on literature reviews, expert consultation, patient survey and expert meeting, treatment options were characterized by seven attributes: improvement in pain, improvement in walking, ability to manage domestic activities, ability to manage social activities, improvement in overall energy and well-being, risk of moderate/severe side effects and impact on disease progression. Random parameters logit model was used to estimate patients' preferences and a latent class model was conducted to explore preferences classes.Results: 253 OA patients from seven European countries were included (74% women; mean age 71.3 years). For all seven treatment attributes, significant differences were observed between levels. Given the range of levels of each attribute, the most important treatment attribute in this group was impact on disease progression (29.5%) followed by walking improvement (17.1%) and pain improvement (16.3%). The latent class model identified two preference classes. In the first class (probability of 56%), patients valued impact of disease progression the most (39%). In the second class, walking improvement and improvement in overall energy and well-being were the most important (23%).Conclusion: This study suggests that all seven treatment attributes were important for OA patients. Overall, given the range of levels, the most important outcomes were impact on disease progression and improvement in pain and walking. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.
AB - Objective: To evaluate the preferences of patients with osteoarthritis for treatment.Methods: A discrete-choice experiment was conducted among adult OA patients who were presented with 12 choice sets of two treatment options and asked in each to select the treatment they would prefer. Based on literature reviews, expert consultation, patient survey and expert meeting, treatment options were characterized by seven attributes: improvement in pain, improvement in walking, ability to manage domestic activities, ability to manage social activities, improvement in overall energy and well-being, risk of moderate/severe side effects and impact on disease progression. Random parameters logit model was used to estimate patients' preferences and a latent class model was conducted to explore preferences classes.Results: 253 OA patients from seven European countries were included (74% women; mean age 71.3 years). For all seven treatment attributes, significant differences were observed between levels. Given the range of levels of each attribute, the most important treatment attribute in this group was impact on disease progression (29.5%) followed by walking improvement (17.1%) and pain improvement (16.3%). The latent class model identified two preference classes. In the first class (probability of 56%), patients valued impact of disease progression the most (39%). In the second class, walking improvement and improvement in overall energy and well-being were the most important (23%).Conclusion: This study suggests that all seven treatment attributes were important for OA patients. Overall, given the range of levels, the most important outcomes were impact on disease progression and improvement in pain and walking. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.
KW - Discrete-choice experiment
KW - Osteoarthritis
KW - Outcomes
KW - Patient preferences
KW - HEALTH
KW - PHYSICIANS
KW - KNEE
KW - HIP
U2 - 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2020.08.005
DO - 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2020.08.005
M3 - Article
C2 - 32896701
SN - 0049-0172
VL - 50
SP - 859
EP - 866
JO - Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism
JF - Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism
IS - 5
ER -